IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 5th April 2016, 02:26 AM   #81
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,692
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
Frequently the gamers ask for speculation and then have a field day attacking the requested speculation because <drum roll>...it's SPECULATION!
If someone does, you have good reason to ignore them.

For now, and within reason, what has happened is that people question how well that speculation matches reality. A speculation can't be right if it doesn't match reality. A speculation disconnected from reality is called a fantasy.

I have speculated, for example, that some source of fuel that escapes our knowledge may have been present in WTC7. That in itself doesn't contradict any of the known facts about it. I don't give it any weight, because it's not provable with any data we have at the moment, but it's based on reality.

However, when the speculation is shown to not have a basis on reality, the rational thing to do is drop it. Showing why a speculation is wrong is not remotely similar to telling you off because you have speculated.
pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th April 2016, 06:09 AM   #82
Criteria
Critical Thinker
 
Criteria's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 470
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
If someone does, you have good reason to ignore them.

For now, and within reason, what has happened is that people question how well that speculation matches reality. A speculation can't be right if it doesn't match reality. A speculation disconnected from reality is called a fantasy.

I have speculated, for example, that some source of fuel that escapes our knowledge may have been present in WTC7. That in itself doesn't contradict any of the known facts about it. I don't give it any weight, because it's not provable with any data we have at the moment, but it's based on reality.

However, when the speculation is shown to not have a basis on reality, the rational thing to do is drop it. Showing why a speculation is wrong is not remotely similar to telling you off because you have speculated.
The "reality" is that the technology existed in 2001 to do what I suggested.

If you wish to attack my speculation as being impossible (fantasy), you have to make your case.
Criteria is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th April 2016, 06:13 AM   #83
Criteria
Critical Thinker
 
Criteria's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 470
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
Why didn't sny of the maintenance crews that work on these aircraft noyice all the extra modifications?

Commercial airliners are all identical, they have to be to get certified. Modifying them to fly automatically would involve extra hardware and changes to wiring and controls.
Any extra hardware or changes would immediately be noticed by the crews who fly and maintain the planes, they are highly trained and experienced people, certified and qualified to work on specific types.
Your plan would have to involve the crews.
Why add this extra layer of risk and complication when you can get suicidal fanatics to crash the planes?
Why go to the trouble and complication of crashing one of your modified planes in to a random field?
Why did it take years before it was discovered that VW was defeating emission control standards?
Criteria is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th April 2016, 06:14 AM   #84
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wales
Posts: 31,398
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
As a non-participant, I am not in a position to know (anymore than you are), whom, or what, guided the four aircraft in question.

The question is meaningless except for those who were actually involved.
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
The "reality" is that the technology existed in 2001 to do what I suggested.

If you wish to attack my speculation as being impossible (fantasy), you have to make your case.
I've worked back through the exchange of views and can't see what this 'technology' is supposed to be, and the highlighted part of the first of your quotes suggests you have no picture yourself.

Could you clear up this confusion please?
GlennB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th April 2016, 06:16 AM   #85
Criteria
Critical Thinker
 
Criteria's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 470
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
Criteria, you have stated that this is just speculation, and I will respect and acknowledge this by not asking for evidence of any of your propositions.

I am more interested in the origins of this speculation, the timeline if you will.
Could you then tell me where these speculations came from?

Was there something you noticed about the events of 9/11 that led you to form these ideas, which then led you to conclude that there was some sort of "orchestration"?

Alternatively, did you start with an assumption of conspiracy (by persons other than members of Al Qaeda), and these speculations are a post hoc attempt to figure out how it was done?
WTC7
Criteria is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th April 2016, 06:49 AM   #86
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,692
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
If you wish to attack my speculation as being impossible (fantasy), you have to make your case.
I wasn't really commenting on the contents of your speculation. I've just seen people crying foul for the wrong reason, and I didn't want that to happen. I don't want to make any case on the subject yet. But some very good objections have been raised so far against the plausibility of your speculation (not against the possibility, though).
pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th April 2016, 07:08 AM   #87
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
Why did it take years before it was discovered that VW was defeating emission control standards?
That is a tangential BS Gish Gallop... lol, the VW? lol - poor analogy.
The speculation of remote control lacks details, how it could be done; due to lack of knowledge of flight systems.

The FDR shows the planes were hand flown, and there was no GPS on the planes, remote control would not be precise enough to hit the WTC. How did you speculate away the FDR, and the precision of hitting the WTC towers?

How did the pilots miss the modifications; as a pilot I would reject the aircraft for flight if I see modifications not in the Tech data - your speculation fails before takeoff.

The remote control is one of the top anti-intellectual claims made; all based on opinion and ignornace of flight systems, and flying procedures.
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th April 2016, 07:10 AM   #88
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 18,667
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
Georgio, you are one of the few people here who I think has some integrity and not a game player.

Having said that, I believe you are being 'played', and like most people, you like being accepted.

For me, the price of social acceptance here is too high.

Regretfully, "speculation" is a waste of time in this forum because most members cannot restrain their childish incivility. For most here it is way more fun to mock and bait "twoofers".

Frequently the gamers ask for speculation and then have a field day attacking the requested speculation because <drum roll>...it's SPECULATION!
Speculation, really?
Did we (Georgio; Captain_Swoop and myself) ask for speculation? Let's look at the context here, in full:

On March 30, Captain_Swoop wrote to Georgio:
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
Becsuse he thinks it was a plot by the US President to murder thousands of citizens.
Ask him [i.e. Criteria; Oy] who flew the planes, ask him about passengers and crew.
To this, Georgio replied with a +1:
Originally Posted by Georgio View Post
Criteria - could you address this?
On March 31, Criteria quoted Captain_Swoop's post - boldface added by Criteria - and replied:
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
Becsuse he thinks it was a plot by the US President to murder thousands of citizens.
Ask him who flew the planes, ask him about passengers and crew.
While the office of the president may be sacred, the person residing there is no more special than the pope is closer to God.

A belief that there must have been additional conspirators does not change what is currently known to be true about “who flew the planes”, “passengers and crew”.

If the chosen end is not supported by the officially hypothesized means, than an essential truth has not been found.
(My highlights).

This implies that something "is currently known to be true about “who flew the planes”, “passengers and crew”."
Not speculation!
"Currently know to be true".

I do not know if C_S and Georgio asked for speculation, or asked Criteria what he considers to be currently know to be true - but I did! Same day:
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
It is clear that what ‘Georgio’ posted was a request for you, Criteria, to answer to CaptainSwoop's "Ask him who flew the planes, ask him about passengers and crew."

You did not actually answer that - at all:


Nothing in that reply contains an actual answer to "who flew the planes". Nothing in that reply contains an actual answer "about passengers and crew".

So please, display the politeness you announced but didn't deliver, and give us, give Georgio, clear and undodging answers:
  1. Who flew the planes? What is, in your conviction, "currently known to be true about" who flew the planes?
  2. What about the passengers and crew? What is, in your conviction, "currently known to be true about" the named and counted passengers and crew of the four flights AA11, UA175, AA77 and UA95 that were scheduled to fly on 9/11/2001, but never reached their destinations?
I predict that Criteria will once again dodge, and not answer either question to a minimum level of acceptability. That's because he is a Truther - there is nothing that Truthers fear and despise more than straight and honest answers.
See? I very clearly and explicitly ask about Criteria's conviction regarding what is currently known to be true. That is essentially the very opposite of "speculation".

Here is Criteria's evasive reply, three days later:
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
As a non-participant, I am not in a position to know (anymore than you are), whom, or what, guided the four aircraft in question.

The question is meaningless except for those who were actually involved.
I asked for clarification the next day:
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Please clarify: Are you asserting that nothing is "currently known to be true about" whom, or what, guided the four aircraft in question, and the passengers?
Or do you claim that it's merely you who doesn't currently know anything at all about whom, or what, guided the four aircraft in question, and the passengers?
Criteria completed the dodge 12 hours later:
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
I do not have any factual information that you are not already privy to.

You are well aware of my speculative opinion which is an extrapolation from the WTC7 event.

Sorry to spoil your silly game.
Let's parse this:
"any factual information that you [i.e. me, Oystein] are not already privy to" - this hints that he has some factual information: The same (so he speculates ) that I have.

And then Criteria shifts the goal posts away from "factual information" and towards "speculative opinion", of which he offers a hint, despite me not asking for it.
And further moves the goal posts away from "Ask him who flew the planes, ask him about passengers and crew" and towards "WTC7".

Finally, he labels my asking for what is currently known to be true about the planes and the passengers and crew a "silly game" - but now in the context of the goal post moved to talk about "speculativer opinion" about WTC7. Makes you wonder who is really playing a silly game here

NoahFence half fell for the trap, as he replied:
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
Must have missed something.
Can you walk me through the connection between an empty building collapsing after burning unchecked for 7 hours, and the pilots who did or did not fly planes that struck adjacent buildings, the Pentagon and a field in Shanksville?
Regrettably, NF accepted both goal post shifts, although he kept track of the fact that we were asking about the planes, passengers and crew.

And Georgio, too, half fell for the trap, as he quoted NoahFence and replied:
Originally Posted by Georgio View Post
+1

@Criteria - I can't speak for others but personally I'm not trying to play games - someone asked me to ask you about what you think regarding who flew the planes on 911 - I simply don't know what your position (speculation) is.
Luckily, Georgio resisted chasing the goal post that was shifted to WTC7, but he allowed for the discussion to exclude "what is currently known to be true about “who flew the planes”, “passengers and crew”" (<- Criteria's words!!) and instead shift towards personal speculation.

Criteria masterfully played the evasion to its end thusly:
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
Georgio, you are one of the few people here who I think has some integrity and not a game player.[1]

Having said that, I believe you are being 'played', and like most people, you like being accepted.[2]

For me, the price of social acceptance here is too high.[3]

Regretfully, "speculation" is a waste of time in this forum because most members cannot restrain their childish incivility. For most here it is way more fun to mock and bait "twoofers".[4]

Frequently the gamers ask for speculation and then have a field day attacking the requested speculation because <drum roll>...it's SPECULATION![5]
[1]: Playing up to Georgio; gaining trust through compliments
[2]: Projection - accusing vaguely alluded to third parties of doing what Criteria just did himself (play games)
[3]: Red herring - C_S's, Georgio's and my questions were never about social acceptance
[4]: Remember that Criteria himself first offered his own "speculative opinion" when he was asked what, according to his own conviction, is known to be true, and worked hard to evade writing down such "factual information".
[5]: Criteria complains that Georgio is playing on the goal posts that Criteria set himself!


What deceitful trickery!


I suggest that we insist that Criteria posts factual information, that he insinuates he has, concerning what is currently known to be true about “who flew the planes”, “passengers and crew” - after all, he first insinuated that something is currently known to be true about this.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected. (Gilbert Keith Chesterton)

Last edited by Oystein; 5th April 2016 at 07:17 AM. Reason: Names formatted blue; Exchanged "he" for name a couple of times
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th April 2016, 08:07 AM   #89
Andy_Ross
Penultimate Amazing
 
Andy_Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 47,040
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
Why did it take years before it was discovered that VW was defeating emission control standards?
How does that relate? VW was a software thing in engine management, not a physical thing on a few selected vehicles.
Modifying a commercial jet for remote control would involve obvious changes to the aircraft that would be seen by the engineers and technicians servicing and repairing the aircraft. Commercial jets have strict type approval. Any unauthorised modification would be picked up by the highly trained staff certified for the particular model. You demonstrate a lack of knowledge of the certification, maintenance and training regimes involved.
Andy_Ross is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th April 2016, 02:25 PM   #90
Axxman300
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
Let's take this from the top.

In the week following the 9-11 attacks, some members of the Bush NSC asked the DoD to update a plan to invade Iraq. This was in spite of the overwhelming evidence that Al Qaeda had carried out the attacks. The reasoning of the these Bush NSC members was that there was no way that Al Qaeda could have carried out the attacks without a state-sponsor, and Iraq was a terrorist clearing house in 2001.

So, while the evidence continued to pile up pointing to Al Qaeda as the sole actor, where the pilots actually trained inside the US, and the hijackers lived among us for a time, these higher-ups continued to believe that Saddam Hussein had a hand in the attacks as well.

Source: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...c/alqaeda.html

What you have here is a bunch of people who did not believe the "Official Story" of 9-11, and found a way to act on their beliefs.

To be blunt: The invasion of Iraq is the ultimate result of a branch on 9-11 Trutherism.

Adding to the fun, Jihadists flooded into Iraq and Afghanistan crippled by the belief that 9-11 was staged to justify an invasion of two countries the US really didn't care about in August, 2001. 9-11 Truth has fueled murder in the Middle East and Central Asia with their lies. All the while they claim they are only looking for answers and justice while ignoring the blood on their hands.

So no, I'm not patient with Troofers.
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th April 2016, 03:08 PM   #91
Crazy Chainsaw
Philosopher
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 7,895
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
Let's take this from the top.

In the week following the 9-11 attacks, some members of the Bush NSC asked the DoD to update a plan to invade Iraq. This was in spite of the overwhelming evidence that Al Qaeda had carried out the attacks. The reasoning of the these Bush NSC members was that there was no way that Al Qaeda could have carried out the attacks without a state-sponsor, and Iraq was a terrorist clearing house in 2001.

So, while the evidence continued to pile up pointing to Al Qaeda as the sole actor, where the pilots actually trained inside the US, and the hijackers lived among us for a time, these higher-ups continued to believe that Saddam Hussein had a hand in the attacks as well.

Source: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...c/alqaeda.html

What you have here is a bunch of people who did not believe the "Official Story" of 9-11, and found a way to act on their beliefs.

To be blunt: The invasion of Iraq is the ultimate result of a branch on 9-11 Trutherism.

Adding to the fun, Jihadists flooded into Iraq and Afghanistan crippled by the belief that 9-11 was staged to justify an invasion of two countries the US really didn't care about in August, 2001. 9-11 Truth has fueled murder in the Middle East and Central Asia with their lies. All the while they claim they are only looking for answers and justice while ignoring the blood on their hands.

So no, I'm not patient with Troofers.
Exactly truthers have as much or more blood on their hands as Bush does, just atleast Bush is not continuing to add to it as truthers are.
How many ISIS Jihadist became ISIS Jihadist because of truther lies?
Crazy Chainsaw is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th April 2016, 03:49 PM   #92
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 60,375
When it comes to disrespect for the Dead,it's hard to beat the whole "Vicsims" routine.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th April 2016, 04:16 PM   #93
Mark F
Graduate Poster
 
Mark F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,744
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
WTC7
Unlike the targets on 9/11 which were each iconic, world famous and full of thousands of potential victims, 7 World Trade Center was a virtually unknown and certainly unimportant building in which no one had died and which was not a target on 9/11. Its collapse had been expected at the time and the proximate reason for its collapse was known well before it even fell. Further, the loss of 7 WTC was of almost no significance given the greater events of that day.

And yet somehow you found this a compelling case for MHI?

The mind boggles
__________________
So I'm going to tell you what the facts are, and the facts are the facts, but then we know the truth. That always overcomes facts.

Last edited by Mark F; 6th April 2016 at 05:51 PM.
Mark F is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th April 2016, 04:39 PM   #94
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
It is like 9/11 truth takes the dumbest possible path of most stupid:
7 WTC is the perfect McGuffin for 9/11 truth idiotic claims. Why not pick something dumber than dirt to build the inside job on. We have Larry saying Pull It, and a fringe few gullible followers of 9/11 truth (a name only Goebbels could love) calling it CD. And worse we have failed 9/11 truth followers taking simile to support CD, and they cite Dan "the man" Rather as inspiration. With no evidence for CD 9/11 runs into the fantasy world based on ignorance, mocking the murder of thousands.

Speculation about 9/11, like remote control aircraft, and similar fantasy versions of 9/11 are mocking those murdered on 9/11. Remote control of four stock aircraft, which somehow end up with 19 terrorists on board, without the airliners and pilots knowing, a billion dollar plot involving thousands, is idiotic and proof ignorance is why the mocking takes place.
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th April 2016, 04:42 PM   #95
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,203
I quite often get the feeling that Truther's get their entire understanding of the world via Hollywood movies.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th April 2016, 05:00 PM   #96
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,203
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
I quite often get the feeling that Truther's get their entire understanding of the world via Hollywood movies.
Actually I'm going to go further then this. I quite often get the feeling that many of them believe that they are in a real life Hollywood movie, where they play the plucky hero, a Jason Bourne, Robert Langdon, or Angela Bennett, and just like in most modern time movies, the Government, or a group of people in the Government, is the bad guy and it's up to them, the plucky hero to uncover the sinister plot and save the day.

They live in a world where satellites can read car licence plates and follow you around all day, where remote controlling a plane is as easy as someone dressed as a airline mechanic plugging a black box into the plane's flight computer via a hatch in the bottom of its hull just before take off.

They live in a world crafted not by physics and logic, but by a scriptwriter's pen that doesn't have to follow the natural laws or logic, just the whim of the story, yet they accept it all as real and incorporate it into their world view. Their world is one of Hollywood plots, science, and physics, and we keep seeing that repeated here time and again.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th April 2016, 07:24 PM   #97
HotRodDeluxe
Muse
 
HotRodDeluxe's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 692
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
I quite often get the feeling that Truther's get their entire understanding of the world via Hollywood movies.
I agree, it's like they think the Bond films are an authentic representation of modern geopolitics, or that disaster films represent actual events (one building's collapse in 'San Andreas' was a little 'iffy').

Last edited by HotRodDeluxe; 6th April 2016 at 07:25 PM.
HotRodDeluxe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th April 2016, 02:10 AM   #98
Cosmic Yak
Philosopher
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 7,173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
Criteria, you have stated that this is just speculation, and I will respect and acknowledge this by not asking for evidence of any of your propositions.

I am more interested in the origins of this speculation, the timeline if you will.
Could you then tell me where these speculations came from?

Was there something you noticed about the events of 9/11 that led you to form these ideas, which then led you to conclude that there was some sort of "orchestration"?

Alternatively, did you start with an assumption of conspiracy (by persons other than members of Al Qaeda), and these speculations are a post hoc attempt to figure out how it was done?
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
WTC7
I'm sorry, but I'm not following this line of reasoning at all.
It appears that you are saying that observing the collapse of WTC7, which was not hit by a plane, led you to conclude that all four planes used in the initial attacks some 7 hours previously were remotely controlled.
Could you please clarify? I cannot for the life of me see how your observation leads to your conclusion (speculative though it may be).
__________________
'Of course it can be OK to mistreat people.'- shuttlt

Bring Back the Yak! P.J. Denyer
Cosmic Yak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th April 2016, 05:31 AM   #99
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
All troofers do. Criteria is a troofer.
Don't you think everybody can see the lame trick you are using?

If the only things available to advance your arguments are tricks, what does that say about your arguments?
FalseFlag is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th April 2016, 05:36 AM   #100
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
Don't you think everybody can see the lame trick you are using?

If the only things available to advance your arguments are tricks, what does that say about your arguments?
That they're functionally identical to yours?

(which is of course a joke. His are accurate. Yours, not so much)
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th April 2016, 05:39 AM   #101
Seymour Butz
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 884
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
Don't you think everybody can see the lame trick you are using?

If the only things available to advance your arguments are tricks, what does that say about your arguments?

That they really aren't necessary.

Simply laughing at troofers behind their backs is all that's needed.
Seymour Butz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th April 2016, 05:40 AM   #102
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
That they're functionally identical to yours?

(which is of course a joke. His are accurate. Yours, not so much)
I clearly pointed out a trick a skeptic was using. Now you claim that I am doing the same thing. Maybe you could advance you argument with proof by pointing out one of the tricks you claim I am using.
FalseFlag is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th April 2016, 05:41 AM   #103
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
That they're functionally identical to yours?

(which is of course a joke. His are accurate. Yours, not so much)


Great to see that someone still has a sense of humour and fun.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th April 2016, 05:42 AM   #104
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by Seymour Butz View Post
That they really aren't necessary.

Simply laughing at troofers behind their backs is all that's needed.
You just proved yourself wrong by using the exact same trick I called out in the first place.
FalseFlag is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th April 2016, 05:49 AM   #105
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
I clearly pointed out a trick a skeptic was using. Now you claim that I am doing the same thing. Maybe you could advance you argument with proof by pointing out one of the tricks you claim I am using.
Always asking for proof and never providing any.

(proof I didn't provide any? )

Skeptics don't need tricks. We have reality. You people are the ones who need tricks to keep the conversations going. Why do you think terms like squibs, thermite, column 79, "free fall" and the like exist in these conversations?

What happened on 9/11 is so simple a child can figure it out. As I said, I suspected collapse before they happened, because even I, as a lowly printer who doesn't even make 20 bucks an hour, knows that steel and fire aren't the best mix.
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th April 2016, 07:36 AM   #106
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
All troofers do. Criteria is a troofer.
Don't you think everybody can see the lame trick you are using?

If the only things available to advance your arguments are tricks, what does that say about your arguments?
The statement is accurate. Where is the "trick" that you imagine to be present?
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th April 2016, 07:38 AM   #107
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
I clearly pointed out a trick a skeptic was using. Now you claim that I am doing the same thing. Maybe you could advance you argument with proof by pointing out one of the tricks you claim I am using.
Non-sequiturs.
Reversing the burden of proof.
Failing to support your claims.
Claiming expertise while also claiming to have no expertise.
JAQing.

And so on.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th April 2016, 07:56 AM   #108
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
I clearly pointed out a trick a skeptic was using. <snip>
Actually, the closest you got to this was to tell a poster that "everyone could see" the "trick" they were using. You utterly failed to identify the "trick" you claim was being used. For that matter, you failed to identify the poster as "a skeptic".
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest
"The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David
"Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze
Slowvehicle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th April 2016, 07:58 AM   #109
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 34,249
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
Don't you think everybody can see the lame trick you are using?
Let me guess: Formulating a logically sound syllogism?

Dave
__________________
There is truth and there are lies.

- President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th April 2016, 09:17 AM   #110
Joey McGee
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 10,307
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
Let's take this from the top.

In the week following the 9-11 attacks, some members of the Bush NSC asked the DoD to update a plan to invade Iraq. This was in spite of the overwhelming evidence that Al Qaeda had carried out the attacks. The reasoning of the these Bush NSC members was that there was no way that Al Qaeda could have carried out the attacks without a state-sponsor, and Iraq was a terrorist clearing house in 2001.

So, while the evidence continued to pile up pointing to Al Qaeda as the sole actor, where the pilots actually trained inside the US, and the hijackers lived among us for a time, these higher-ups continued to believe that Saddam Hussein had a hand in the attacks as well.

Source: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...c/alqaeda.html

What you have here is a bunch of people who did not believe the "Official Story" of 9-11, and found a way to act on their beliefs.

To be blunt: The invasion of Iraq is the ultimate result of a branch on 9-11 Trutherism.

Adding to the fun, Jihadists flooded into Iraq and Afghanistan crippled by the belief that 9-11 was staged to justify an invasion of two countries the US really didn't care about in August, 2001. 9-11 Truth has fueled murder in the Middle East and Central Asia with their lies. All the while they claim they are only looking for answers and justice while ignoring the blood on their hands.

So no, I'm not patient with Troofers.
Nonsense.
Joey McGee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th April 2016, 10:21 AM   #111
Axxman300
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
WTC-7 is a case similar to why James Randi got into this business.

Think about it, a magician put on a show, and if he's good one or two people leave the show believing in magic.

Why?

Because they saw it with their own eyes.

They didn't see behind the scenes. With WTC-7 all of the quality footage is the undamaged side of the building, so it looks like a perfectly sound structure collapsed. If we had footage from the other side there would be no mystery.
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th April 2016, 10:34 AM   #112
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
They didn't see behind the scenes. With WTC-7 all of the quality footage is the undamaged side of the building, so it looks like a perfectly sound structure collapsed. If we had footage from the other side there would be no mystery.
We do, albeit with poor quality. Something to do with a ton of smoke and debris, but it's there.





NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th April 2016, 11:19 AM   #113
Mark F
Graduate Poster
 
Mark F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,744
Hey look at that, an entire column (#20) is missing completely on this only slightly damaged building that suffered a few tiny office furniture fires.

How odd.
__________________
So I'm going to tell you what the facts are, and the facts are the facts, but then we know the truth. That always overcomes facts.

Last edited by Mark F; 7th April 2016 at 11:23 AM.
Mark F is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th April 2016, 01:34 PM   #114
Axxman300
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
We do, albeit with poor quality. Something to do with a ton of smoke and debris, but it's there.
I've seen those, I'm sure Truthers have too but choose to ignore them.

My poorly stated point was that if we had a full video of the collapse from the front as we have from the rear their would be no issue.

Nice to see these photos in this thread anyway.
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th April 2016, 01:56 PM   #115
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,692
I thought that this split thread was civil enough and interesting enough to be in the main section rather than in AAH. Moderators were so kind to move it after I asked. Please don't spoil that by engaging in personal attacks.

Last edited by pgimeno; 7th April 2016 at 02:04 PM.
pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th April 2016, 02:06 PM   #116
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by Mark F View Post
Hey look at that, an entire column (#20) is missing completely on this only slightly damaged building that suffered a few tiny office furniture fires.

How odd.
If an entire column is missing, why does this not appear in the NIST computer model? Also, if the building is missing an entire column, why didn't NIST take the easy road out and blame the collapse on this?
FalseFlag is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th April 2016, 02:37 PM   #117
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,692
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
If an entire column is missing, why does this not appear in the NIST computer model?1 Also, if the building is missing an entire column, why didn't NIST take the easy road out and blame the collapse on this?2
1It does.



2Do your research.
pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th April 2016, 03:14 PM   #118
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 34,249
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
Also, if the building is missing an entire column, why didn't NIST take the easy road out and blame the collapse on this?
Because the objective of the NIST analysis was not to "take the easy road out," it was to determine whether there were actual design weaknesses in the building that contributed to its collapse.

Dave
__________________
There is truth and there are lies.

- President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th April 2016, 03:25 PM   #119
Mark F
Graduate Poster
 
Mark F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,744
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
If an entire column is missing, why does this not appear in the NIST computer model? Also, if the building is missing an entire column, why didn't NIST take the easy road out and blame the collapse on this?
Not if - there is a whole lot of empty where Column 20 should be. All that is required to confirm that is the gift of sight and a rudimentary idea of where the columns are located.

Clearly the loss of Column 20 did not cause the building to collapse since 7 WTC stood for 7 hours after 20's loss, nor is there any logical reason to expect that it should have. You may like to take the easy road out perhaps since it relieves the burden of having to think - that is the CT way - but real investigators don't. NIST did their job.

Column 20 is not a critical column. Stop with this over-simplistic nonsense where you assume all columns are the same like you assume all buildings and all building fires are the same. You can not expect to be taken seriously that way.

Some folks might even accuse you of trolling.

Col. 20 was not a factor in collapse initiation. NIST said as much when they reported that physical damage to the south face from the impact of falling North Tower debris was not a factor in the collapse. That would include Col. 20 as the graphic above demonstrates now wouldn't it?
__________________
So I'm going to tell you what the facts are, and the facts are the facts, but then we know the truth. That always overcomes facts.

Last edited by Mark F; 7th April 2016 at 03:29 PM.
Mark F is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th April 2016, 03:36 PM   #120
Joey McGee
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 10,307
Originally Posted by Joey McGee View Post
Nonsense.
Have you read the Iraq War Resolution? So they did the Iraq war because of 911... Jesus *********** Christ that is stupid... you're the conspiracy theorist.
Joey McGee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:33 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.