Okay here's the challenge to all 911 debaters! - Page 11

wayside · 12-01-2007, 02:58 PM

As an outsider watching you experts go at it a couple of things come to mind.

1. Was the U.S. government involved in 9/11 either as a passive bystander or an active participant?
2. Were the WTC towers felled by the aircraft that flew into them or by some pre-arranged demoltion techniqe?
3. Was the Pentagon hit by a missle or the named aircraft?
4. Did an aircraft crash in the fields of Pennylvania because the passengers revolted against their hijackers and forced it down or was it hit by a missle?
5. Were the aircraft that hit the WTC real or trickery?
6. Were the aircraft that hit the WTC remote controlled?

I think I could go on but this seems enough fodder for hours of arguments.

My basic question is what does number 1. on this list have anything to do with any other number? All of the other numbers could have been achieved without number 1. being true.

Now, what's being aked by some is to show scientific data for numbers 2 through 6 without referencing number 1 as number 1 would have nothing to do with factual evidence for numbers 2 through 6 inclusive. An example. A car hits goes out of control and plows into a house. The house is destroyed. Now, if I asked for proof that the car destroyed the house you could probably come up with all sorts of forensic evidence that would provide factual information that the car was the direct cause for the house's destruction. Now, if I asked if the driver was drunk whether he was or not has not causal effect on the facts concerning the destruction of the house. It is critical in determining culpability but it doesn't change any of the scientific data as to what caused the house to burn to the ground. If asked for the cause of the collapse of the house the experts would say, "the car plowed into some supporting timbers, weakening the structure and the ensuing fire cause its final collapse. Would the guy being drunk change that? I think not. What happens in this thread is that the two seperate and distinct elements of 9/11 are being co-mingled with the result being that the facts of both are being confused and distorted. If you want to prove that the WTC fell for reasons other than the two planes that hit them then set about it and leave the who was at the bottom of it for another discussion. The house fell because the car plowed into it...don't attempt to prove driving while impaired also...it weakens you case.

anhailla · 12-01-2007, 03:02 PM

I'd be surprised if you get ONE answer to any of those questions

dadakarma · 12-01-2007, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wayside

As an outsider watching you experts go at it a couple of things come to mind.

1. Was the U.S. government involved in 9/11 either as a passive bystander or an active participant?
2. Were the WTC towers felled by the aircraft that flew into them or by some pre-arranged demoltion techniqe?
3. Was the Pentagon hit by a missle or the named aircraft?
4. Did an aircraft crash in the fields of Pennylvania because the passengers revolted against their hijackers and forced it down or was it hit by a missle?
5. Were the aircraft that hit the WTC real or trickery?
6. Were the aircraft that hit the WTC remote controlled?

I think I could go on but this seems enough fodder for hours of arguments.

My basic question is what does number 1. on this list have anything to do with any other number? All of the other numbers could have been achieved without number 1. being true.

Now, what's being aked by some is to show scientific data for numbers 2 through 6 without referencing number 1 as number 1 would have nothing to do with factual evidence for numbers 2 through 6 inclusive. An example. A car hits goes out of control and plows into a house. The house is destroyed. Now, if I asked for proof that the car destroyed the house you could probably come up with all sorts of forensic evidence that would provide factual information that the car was the direct cause for the house's destruction. Now, if I asked if the driver was drunk whether he was or not has not causal effect on the facts concerning the destruction of the house. It is critical in determining culpability but it doesn't change any of the scientific data as to what caused the house to burn to the ground. If asked for the cause of the collapse of the house the experts would say, "the car plowed into some supporting timbers, weakening the structure and the ensuing fire cause its final collapse. Would the guy being drunk change that? I think not. What happens in this thread is that the two seperate and distinct elements of 9/11 are being co-mingled with the result being that the facts of both are being confused and distorted. If you want to prove that the WTC fell for reasons other than the two planes that hit them then set about it and leave the who was at the bottom of it for another discussion. The house fell because the car plowed into it...don't attempt to prove driving while impaired also...it weakens you case.

You and I have already gone down this road, Wayside. My opinion still stands:

Without a thorough investigation of all the evidence, documents, sworn testimony, etc., we'll never know what happened.

And as I said to you before, anytime the Bush administration decides to be forthcoming (and they are the only entity capable of laying this to rest, because of their authority and custody of the missing vital info), I'm all ears.

But their track record, coupled with the contradicting accounts, missing and altered or destroyed evidence, thwarting of a thorough investigation, lying, etc. renders their credibility highly questionable - the burden is on them to show what happened, not merely 'tell' us some sloppy-ass, ridiculous tall tale full of holes, then demonize as 'crazy' or 'unpatriotic' anyone who justifiably questions it.

dadakarma · 12-01-2007, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by anhailla

I'd be surprised if you get ONE answer to any of those questions

Surprise!

bornright · 12-01-2007, 03:07 PM

On a prior post....may have been on bill maher site you sited an expert. I checked him out. He was a air traffic controller that was fired by Ronald Reagan in 1981. It does not mean he was lying about his thoughts on 9-11 but it does give him a reason to attack a Republican administration. Perhaps all of these so called witnesses have an axe to grind. Maybe just maybe that is the conspiracy.

sunflower · 12-01-2007, 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by anhailla

apologies? excuses?

it was Sf's analogy...

Yes it was my analogy....I think it's pretty basic, don't you? In her case, SCIENTISTS were all missing the diagnosis...for what reason, you'll have to read her book to find out.

My point is that hundreds of experts CAN be wrong. On either side...you see?

dadakarma · 12-01-2007, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bornright

On a prior post....may have been on bill maher site you sited an expert. I checked him out. He was a air traffic controller that was fired by Ronald Reagan in 1981. It does not mean he was lying about his thoughts on 9-11 but it does give him a reason to attack a Republican administration. Perhaps all of these so called witnesses have an axe to grind. Maybe just maybe that is the conspiracy.

Yes!! That MUST be it! We're all just a bunch of Bush haters!

Wake the fuck up.

sunflower · 12-01-2007, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bornright

On a prior post....may have been on bill maher site you sited an expert. I checked him out. He was a air traffic controller that was fired by Ronald Reagan in 1981. It does not mean he was lying about his thoughts on 9-11 but it does give him a reason to attack a Republican administration. Perhaps all of these so called witnesses have an axe to grind. Maybe just maybe that is the conspiracy.

That answer seems to go to "incompetence theory." Other professionals who have nothing to do with this current administration have also cast doubt on the official line.

anhailla · 12-01-2007, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dadakarma

Surprise!

that was an answer?

errrr.......ok

dadakarma · 12-01-2007, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by anhailla

that was an answer?

errrr.......ok

Did you forget what you posted? errr....ok

Originally Posted by anhailla
I'd be surprised if you get ONE answer to any of those questions

12-01-2007, 02:58 PM	#101 (permalink)
wayside Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: The Top Hat Lounge Posts: 1,290 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	As an outsider watching you experts go at it a couple of things come to mind. 1. Was the U.S. government involved in 9/11 either as a passive bystander or an active participant? 2. Were the WTC towers felled by the aircraft that flew into them or by some pre-arranged demoltion techniqe? 3. Was the Pentagon hit by a missle or the named aircraft? 4. Did an aircraft crash in the fields of Pennylvania because the passengers revolted against their hijackers and forced it down or was it hit by a missle? 5. Were the aircraft that hit the WTC real or trickery? 6. Were the aircraft that hit the WTC remote controlled? I think I could go on but this seems enough fodder for hours of arguments. My basic question is what does number 1. on this list have anything to do with any other number? All of the other numbers could have been achieved without number 1. being true. Now, what's being aked by some is to show scientific data for numbers 2 through 6 without referencing number 1 as number 1 would have nothing to do with factual evidence for numbers 2 through 6 inclusive. An example. A car hits goes out of control and plows into a house. The house is destroyed. Now, if I asked for proof that the car destroyed the house you could probably come up with all sorts of forensic evidence that would provide factual information that the car was the direct cause for the house's destruction. Now, if I asked if the driver was drunk whether he was or not has not causal effect on the facts concerning the destruction of the house. It is critical in determining culpability but it doesn't change any of the scientific data as to what caused the house to burn to the ground. If asked for the cause of the collapse of the house the experts would say, "the car plowed into some supporting timbers, weakening the structure and the ensuing fire cause its final collapse. Would the guy being drunk change that? I think not. What happens in this thread is that the two seperate and distinct elements of 9/11 are being co-mingled with the result being that the facts of both are being confused and distorted. If you want to prove that the WTC fell for reasons other than the two planes that hit them then set about it and leave the who was at the bottom of it for another discussion. The house fell because the car plowed into it...don't attempt to prove driving while impaired also...it weakens you case.
	Top

12-01-2007, 03:02 PM	#102 (permalink)
anhailla Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: iowa Posts: 4,546 Thanks: 187 Thanked 116 Times in 87 Posts	I'd be surprised if you get ONE answer to any of those questions __________________ ...either I go, or that wallpaper does. Oscar Wilde
	Top

12-01-2007, 03:07 PM	#105 (permalink)
bornright In The Slammer Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Texas Posts: 814 Thanks: 1 Thanked 19 Times in 16 Posts	On a prior post....may have been on bill maher site you sited an expert. I checked him out. He was a air traffic controller that was fired by Ronald Reagan in 1981. It does not mean he was lying about his thoughts on 9-11 but it does give him a reason to attack a Republican administration. Perhaps all of these so called witnesses have an axe to grind. Maybe just maybe that is the conspiracy.
	Top

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode