Al Qaeda a myth says Russian

[editor]

yeah but the problem is, if he believes that the towers were brought down from inside and that there's plenty things to suggest that.

'Plenty of things' according to who exactly?

 

[neilh]

'Plenty of things' according to who exactly?

sorry, that could be interpreted different ways; what i meant was if he believes that the towers were brought down from inside and he believes theres plenty to suggest that

i wasn't saying that there is plenty to suggest that.

 

[editor]

sorry, that could be interpreted different ways; what i meant was if he believes that the towers were brought down from inside and he believes theres plenty to suggest that

..none of it supported by credible expert testimony, of course.

 

[neilh]

..none of it supported by credible expert testimony, of course.

but whether or not there is credible evidence is irrelevant to the point i was making, ie why i can understand how someone might not want to or be able to say exactly what brought them down, but still hold the belief they werent brought down by the planes.

 

[editor]

but whether or not there is credible evidence is irrelevant to the point i was making, ie why i can understand how someone might not want to or be able to say exactly what brought them down, but still hold the belief they werent brought down by the planes.

Then the entire exercise is as pointless as trying to discuss someone's belief that the moon is made of cheese or that an invisible UFO hovers above their head.

 

[bigfish]

for the first part of that questio, it seems that he/she has provided a straight answer about what hit the towers, ie wtc1 and 2 hit by planes, wtc 7 not hit by planes. as for the second part, what caused them to fall, though bigfish hasn't specifically sed what caused them to collapse, he has saID it was something that caused the steelwork to simultaneously fail so catastrophically that it fell neatly into its own footprint, so by this it seems he/she is suggesting some explosive device inside the towers before the planes hit.

Thanks neilh, but as a matter of fact, the editor never asked me the question: "what caused them to collapse" in the post I was originally responding to. That point was only added after the fact in order to make it appear as though I didn't answer his question. It's called sophistry, by the way.

 

[editor]

Thanks neilh, but as a matter of fact the editors never asked me the question: "what caused them to collapse" in the post I was originally responding to. That point was only added after the fact in order to make it appear as though I didn't answer his question. It's called sophistry, by the way.

Still waiting for a straight answer...

 

[neilh]

Then the entire exercise is as pointless as trying to discuss someone's belief that the moon is made of cheese or that an invisible UFO hovers above their head.

well why did you ask him then to specifically say what took them down?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Well, I've posted up images of an aircraft banking hard to port slamming into wtc 2 and made the point, because of its trajectory, that most of the aviation fuel it was carrying exploded in a huge fireball outside the building, contrary to the impression we are left with by the NIST simulation. Therefore, it must be bleedin' obvious that I think a plane hit. The same goes for wtc 1, given the photographic evidence. On the other hand, no plane hit wtc 7 and yet it too managed to collapse into its own footprint, just like the other two... odd that, don't you think? Oh, no, you don't think it's odd, because you have worked out all by yourself that an underground shock wave brought building 7 down, haven't you?

As for what really happened, I remain unconvinced by the official yarn of the perpetrators being 19 Arab "fanatics" who were under the control of an "evil mastermind," hiding in a cave somewhere in Afghanistan (the al-Qaeda myth). A single photograph supposedly taken of Atta at Portland, does not prove that he boarded a jet in Boston, nor does the "Mr Blobby Goes To Dulles" video showing 4 blobs passing through an airport mettle detector, prove anything at all—other than the gullibility of those who believe it—especially when one of the blobs named in the video is alive and well living in Saudi Arabia. In addition, the fabricated computer simulation of the attack on tower 2, released just a few days ago by NIST, only serves to reinforce that conviction. In fact, the dubious nature of the south tower simulation tends to lend credence to the idea that powerful forces are at work inside the American state apparatus trying to cover-up the fact that little if any aviation fuel was actually released inside the building. In which case, aviation fuel can largely be removed from the official equation that supposedly explains how the building collapsed. With little or no kerosine to fuel the fires that allegedly heated the buildings insulated steel structure, then the question naturally arises: what caused the steelwork to simultaneously fail so catastrophically that it fell neatly into its own footprint?

The problem for people like us with people like you, is that people like you are incessantly ruminating about this stuff, so you can trot out your pseudo statistics at the drop of a hat.

The rest of us reach a conclusion about what happened, then move on, letting the minutiae slip from our minds. Then, a year, or two, or five later, when you're still going on, we can no longer trot out the evidence or physics that would contradict you from memory, and would have to do major research to recreate it. And after doing it a dozen times, we don't want to do it again. And again. And again.

So we don't, and as a result, you come across looking as if you're knowledgeable, and right.

But not to worry, you're in exactly the same position you've been in for the last three years.

 

[almeria]

The problem for people like us with people like you, is that people like you are incessantly ruminating about this stuff, so you can trot out your pseudo statistics at the drop of a hat.

The rest of us reach a conclusion about what happened, then move on, letting the minutiae slip from our minds. Then, a year, or two, or five later, when you're still going on, we can no longer trot out the evidence or physics that would contradict you from memory, and would have to do major research to recreate it. And after doing it a dozen times, we don't want to do it again. And again. And again.

So we don't, and as a result, you come across looking as if you're knowledgeable, and right.

But not to worry, you're in exactly the same position you've been in for the last three years.

Which is what? You're saying he's right?

 

[editor]

well why did you ask him then to specifically say what took them down?

I was rather hoping that he might have something approaching credible evidence to support whatever it is that he specifically thinks brought the towers down.

Is that so hard to understand?

 

[bigfish]

The problem for people like us...

Who do you mean by us?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Which is what? You're saying he's right?

You've been around here how long?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Who do you mean by us?

Sensible people.

 

[bigfish]

Sensible people.

Hilarious! Like you, you mean?

Forgive me, but aren't you the guy who swallowed the old lies about bin Bogeyman having ties to Saddam bin Bogeyman whole? The guy who was convinced by the endless stream of lies about WMD? The guy who bought all of the hysterical fabrications about Private Jessica Lynch being raped by Iraqi soldiers when in fact she was being nursed back to health by Iraqi doctors?

It would seem that "sensible people" like you have a rather pronounced tendency for getting things spectacularly wrong!

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Hilarious! Like you, you mean?

Forgive me, but aren't you the guy who swallowed the old lies about bin Bogeyman having ties to Saddam bin Bogeyman whole? The guy who was convinced by the endless stream of lies about WMD? The guy who bought all of the hysterical fabrications about Private Jessica Lynch being raped by Iraqi soldiers when in fact she was being nursed back to health by Iraqi doctors?

It would seem that "sensible people" like you have a rather pronounced tendency for getting things spectacularly wrong!

You've got some of your facts wrong, but don't let me confuse you with them.

 

[bigfish]

I was rather hoping that he might have something approaching credible evidence to support whatever it is that he specifically thinks brought the towers down.

"Credible evidence" like the recent NIST computer simulation contained in the report you cited earlier in the thread, you mean?

Or do you mean "credible evidence" like the fabricated BBC web site report purporting to explain how the towers collapsed, you referenced on a related thread then binned when the litany of lies it contains were pointed out to you one by one... is that the sought of "credible evidence" you are talking about?

Here's a straight question for you editor and I promise that I wont alter it around as you did mine, once you have answered:

Do you believe that the NIST computer simulation of the tower 2 attack accurately describes the trajectory and angle of the aircraft as it impacted and passed through the building... Yes or No?

 

[editor]

"Credible evidence" like the recent NIST computer simulation contained in the report you cited earlier in the thread, you mean?

Are you ever going to give me a straight answer or is this a three month obfuscation?

Here's the question: What do you think brought the towers down?

I don't want an ocean of cut and paste.
I don't want yet more wriggling.

I just want a simple explanation: e.g. "I believe that the towers were brought down by Santa's sledge and two million tons of exploding Christmas crackers, cunningly concealed inside the building".

Got the idea? A simple, straightforward answer is required, i.e. something that clearly and adequately explains exactly what you believe happened that day.

 

[bigfish]

Oh, I see now that you have switched to your advanced wriggle mode (complete with the accompanying projection of course) now that I have pointed out that you have been citing fabricated BBC reports in support of your tired old "it was al-Qaeda wot done it, honest guv" conspiracy theory.

You fruit-the-loops are really something else.

I gave you a straight answer to your original question the first time, as neilh quite rightly pointed out. That you then went on to change the wording of your follow up post that demanded a different answer to the one I had already given, is called sophistry and is really something you ought to take a look at in respect to your own credibility in the future.

 

[neilh]

Oh, I see now that you have switched to your advanced wriggle mode (complete with the accompanying projection of course) now that I have pointed out that you have been citing fabricated BBC reports in support of your tired old "it was al-Qaeda wot done it, honest guv" conspiracy theory.

You fruit-the-loops are really something else.

I gave you a straight answer to your original question the first time, as neilh quite rightly pointed out. That you then went on to change the wording of your follow up post that demanded a different answer to the one I had already given, is called sophistry and is really something you ought to take a look at in respect to your own credibility in the future.

that might or might not all be true, but are you not as well now just answering what he's now asking for stuff to move on?

 

[editor]

Oh, I see now that you have switched to your advanced wriggle mode (complete with the accompanying projection of course) now that I have pointed out that you have been citing fabricated BBC reports in support of your tired old "it was al-Qaeda wot done it, honest guv" conspiracy theory.

Why is it so hard for you to give an honest, straight answer to this simple question: What do you think brought the towers down?

That's what the recent report is about, so it's an entirely relevant question. So why are you unable to answer it?

 

[bigfish]

Why is it so hard for you to give an honest, straight answer to this simple question: What do you think brought the towers down?

That's what the recent report is about, so it's an entirely relevant question. So why are you unable to answer it?

I'll tell you what, if you answer my straight question then I'll answer yours. Thats fair isn't it? Bearing in mind I have already answered your original question which was somewhat different to the one you are asking me now.

Here it is again for you:

Do you believe that the NIST computer simulation of the tower 2 attack accurately describes the trajectory and angle of the aircraft as it impacted and passed through the building... Yes or No?

 

[editor]

I'll tell you what, if you answer my straight question then I'll answer yours. Thats fair isn't it? Bearing in mind I have already answered your original question which was somewhat different to the one you are asking me now.

So that's a 'no' to my request of a straight answer then?

Oh well. Keep on wriggling.

 

[bigfish]

So that's a 'no' to my request of a straight answer then?

Oh well. Keep on wriggling.

Once again:

Do you believe that the NIST computer simulation of the tower 2 attack accurately describes the trajectory and angle of the aircraft as it impacted and passed through the building... Yes or No?

 

[fela fan]

Once again:

Do you believe that the NIST computer simulation of the tower 2 attack accurately describes the trajectory and angle of the aircraft as it impacted and passed through the building... Yes or No?

I do.

10,000 pages and 200 experts said so.

 

[editor]

Do you believe that the NIST computer simulation of the tower 2 attack accurately describes the trajectory and angle of the aircraft as it impacted and passed through the building... Yes or No?

FFS: seeing as you're the bedroom 'sleuth' claiming to know 'the truth' while the rest of us presumably blunder on in unenlightened ignorance, why are you having such trouble spitting it out?

You've never been slow to spout your laughable conspiraloon shite in the past (often via FAQ-busting cut'n'paste marathons), so what's holding you back now?

Cat got your tongue?

Oh, and if it'll shut up your incessant whining, point me to the version of NIST computer simulation you're banging on about (URL please) and I'll take a look at it and offer an opinion (not that its remotely relevant to my request that you tell me what you think caused the tower's collapse).

Once you've explained what it is I should be looking out for, I'll furnish you with my opinion (not that its remotely relevant to my request that you tell me what you think caused the tower's collapse)..

 

[editor]

I do.

10,000 pages and 200 experts said so.

I thought you preferred the words written on laughable websites written by liars and charlatans because you don't "do" the news?

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

Oh, and if it'll shut up your incessant whining, point me to the version of NIST computer simulation you're banging on about (URL please) and I'll take a look at it and offer an opinion (not that its remotely relevant to my request that you tell me what you think caused the tower's collapse).

http://realex.nist.gov:8080/ramgen/wtc_plane_segment_2.rm

Post 757. Page 19.

I just want a simple explanation: e.g. "I believe that the towers were brought down by Santa's sledge and two million tons of exploding Christmas crackers, cunningly concealed inside the building".

Got the idea? A simple, straightforward answer is required, i.e. something that clearly and adequately explains exactly what you believe happened that day.

In other words: You want a story.

You demand speculation only so that you can point out that it is speculation and demand 'evidence' for such.

So, you have a story injected into your mind by various media channels, reinforced by computer generated graphics (complete with spooky music, etc) repeated again and again, all building up to a nice, neat story - everything ties up like some John Irving novel...

Except - WAIT! There are inconsistencies. Odd facts that stick out all over the place, that don't make sense in the context of the story peddled by the mainstream media... The 'put' options, the Odigo warnings, the 'pools of moulten steel' - many, many things that don't fit neatly into the official story...

So what do we do? Do we examine these inconsistencies? Or do we take the position that in order to even question the validity of the 'official' story, we must first construct an unassailable, bomb-proof piece of fiction to displace the one that you appear to have already ingested?

Only in the mind of a Sophist would the integrity of the 'official' story only be challenged by such a thing - rather than the fucking great holes and inconsistencies it already contains.

The media sell stories. That's their job - smooth out or ignore all the bits that don't make sense and present a narrative in a nice, easily digestable package.

I'm not interested in stories.

 

[bigfish]

(massive insultfest snoreathon deleted) ... point me to the version of NIST computer simulation you're banging on about (URL please) and I'll take a look at it and offer an opinion...

Once you've explained what it is I should be looking out for, I'll furnish you with my opinion..

See my original post responding to your introduction of the NIST report into the dicussion here...

 

[FridgeMagnet]

I'm not interested in stories.

Well, generally, we call them "theories".