The 9/11 Conspiracy - Fandom Forums
Fandom Forums

Go Back   Fandom Forums > Indepth Interests > Debates Section > Conspiracy Theories

Conspiracy Theories Talk about your theories here.

Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
Old 10-15-2009, 08:04 PM   #11
Deos Fortioribus Adesse
Miburo's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Valhalla
Posts: 3,546
Thanks: 34,399
Thanked 17,679 Times in 5,440 Posts
Miburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond repute
Re: The 9/11 Conspiracy

Originally Posted by SimonCP View Post
If you can't see the way that a magician performs his magic trick, but you can see discrepancies, and thus, evidence that it is a trick, does that mean the magic trick is real? Of course not.
Actually, yeah, the magic trick is real. Magic tricks are, by definition, tricks. A magician isn't going to say his magic tricks aren't tricks without looking stupid.

Also, you're still not getting this logic thing (Or analogies...). If a magician says he's preforming actual wizard magic then he has to PROVE he's doing that since he made that claim. You're claiming that the government lied about what happened to the passengers on those flights. You have to prove that. The burden of proof is on you if you're going to make claims. To do so, you have to supply proof that supports your claim, your conclusion. Such proof would be that the passengers are still alive, that they were dropped off somewhere, etc. Otherwise you cannot make that claim. Simple logic. It's not really that hard to understand.
The media/government has presented a story, and by disputing it with evidence/questions, I am not required to fill in the blanks that they left me with.
You are required to prove your claims. Do it, or don't make claims you cannot support with actual evidence.

If I was a relative of one of the passengers, I'd demand that the government/media tell me the truth. After all, if the airplane story is a lie, then it's they who will hold the answers, not the conspiracy theorists. The conspiracy theorists weren't in attendance when this was being planned.
"If" being the keyword there. The conspiracy theorist in this situation is you. And you're claiming that the government lied about what happened to the passengers. You're. Claiming. _______. You have to prove it now.

If I can provide evidence that the damage is clearly inconsistent with an airplane crash, then that is evidence that there wasn't an airplane crash. The simple fact is that airplanes don't vanish when crashing into fields or buildings. Airplanes don't crash while containing thousands of gallons of jet fuel and leave only a minor amount of smoke/heat damage. A huge tail section cannot hit a wall at 530 mph on it's sharp end and leave no mark. A lightweight aluminum plane cannot fly through a steel/concrete building as if it is flying through air. A Boeing 767-200 cannot fly at over 500 mph while at low altitude.
If I say I live in the woods and eat raw fish then that is evidence that I'm a bear. That doesn't support the conclusion that I actually am a bear though. I explained it to you pretty well. I don't see what you're not understanding about this, really.
These impossibilities and others tear the "Airplane Story" that we've been told to shreds.
No they don't.

Have you ever been to an airport? Commercial airplanes are extremely loud, even when they're not flying that fast. They are also very massive. The eyewitnesses on the ground report hearing no sounds of an airplane approach and not seeing anything, even though they were looking up at the Towers. This would be impossible, had a commercial jetliner struck the building while traveling at top speed.
Yeah. I actually lived near an airport half my life. I've also been to a city. I've also met people who were mistaken about stuff, especially when they're scared and in a state of confusion. I also know how logic works, which is why I'm not making claims I can't back up or buying into silly conspiracy theories.

Furthermore, when massive wide shots showing the Pentagon, the entry hole, and the lawn in front of it show no airplane wreckage, then that is evidence that no jetliner crashed into the building. As said earlier, airplanes do not fly into buildings and 'poof'. This is even more true in the case of the Pennsylvania "crash", which happened in a field! All we had was an empty hole and some smoke/heat damage. Try finding another airplane crash like that (There's plenty of airplanes that have crashed into fields) -- you won't.
Again, that's not evidence of what you claimed. Also, what was the cause then, if there was no airplanes? A missile? Explosives? What purpose would launching a missile or setting off some explosives in a field serve? Was there any missile or explosive debris found in the field that could not have possibly come from a plane? Or is "LOL THERE WAZN'T ENUFF FIRE OR CONTAMINATED WATER, THEREFORE NO PLANE DUUUURR HURR" all you have?
At the Pentagon:
-No damage above the upper floors where the 44ft tail section would have hit at 530 mph.
-No wreckage visible in the wide shots of the lawn.
-No disturbance to the grass on the lawn in front of the Pentagon.
-No serious fire damage on the inside of the first ring.
-An exit hole three rings down that could not have been caused by the plane.
-The entry hole is a square, despite the fact that the nose/fuselage is circular.

In this case, concluding that there was no plane would be quite reasonable.
I post an example of a logical fallacy, and you mimic the fallacy and use it as an argument? Seriously. Wow.
The photographs surely weren't wrong -- the camera has no bias or confusion. Unless they were fake, then the grass around the crater was unburnt, dirt inside the crater was unburnt, and there was a surprisingly small amount of smoke/heat damage in the crater, despite the fact that it was a jetliner with thousands of gallons of fuel still in it, even though small planes have crashed and caused much more heat/smoke damage.
Ever think the interpretations of the photography might possibly be wrong? Or is that completely outside the realm of possibilities?
So, then we have the photographer who said he didn't smell any jet fuel -- Surely, someone who has made a statement like that has smelled jet fuel before. And he didn't smell it there. That was his statement. Had he smelled it, he wouldn't have said that he didn't.
Well photographers definitely know their shit when it comes to the smell of commercial jet fuel, and are flawless and completely immune to error in general. So you have a point there, I guess....

We are left with the EPA -- they conducted tests and found that there was absolutely no groundwater contamination. I seriously doubt that they missed gallons of jet fuel contaminants in the ground.
Yes, because groundWATER and the ground are the same thing and all.

Susan McElwain saw a small white aircraft that had no wings. Her description matches that of an advanced drone aircraft.
That settles it, if Susn McElwain didn't see a plane then there definitely wasn't a plane.

The debunking, "September Clues -- Busted" (Made by a former voiceover the British government's BBC scare/propaganda network), has been heavily debunked on all issues. Here's an old debunking of it that I wrote:
Actually, the first link was this:

Umm. Feel free to debunk the entire thing. Remember to address all points. Because, as you know, not addressing all points raised is called strawman tactics.

Also, did that video you "debunked" really only have that small amount of points in it? Or did you miss some?

So, yes, the debunking is BS. Check out the movie here:
Alright. Debunk the pdf first though. I don't want to be wasting my time on junk videos.

It was the government that made the "Airplane" claim in the first place. I'm using the available evidence to dispute that claim.
I'm not debating the government. I'm debating with you. And you're making claims and conclusions. I'm just asking you to provide proof for them, since that is how one does things logically.

It's not my job. I can't explain how a magician does her/his magic tricks, but I know they aren't real and, if I am observant, I can see discrepancies.
If I say magic tricks are tricks I can provide logical proof to back that claim. It's easy. Tricks are tricks. A=A. So your analogy sucks. Now that we've established that, back up your claims logically or don't make them.
Miburo is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Miburo For This Useful Post:
Azumi (10-21-2009), Mal (10-15-2009)

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
Thread Tools
Display Modes

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

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:31 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.