Miburo

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.
You are required to prove your claims. Do it, or don't make claims you cannot support with actual evidence.

"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 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.
No they don't.

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.

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?
I post an example of a logical fallacy, and you mimic the fallacy and use it as an argument? Seriously. Wow.
Ever think the interpretations of the photography might possibly be wrong? Or is that completely outside the realm of possibilities?
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....

Yes, because groundWATER and the ground are the same thing and all.

That settles it, if Susn McElwain didn't see a plane then there definitely wasn't a plane.

Actually, the first link was this:http://truthaction.org/debunkingseptemberclues.pdf

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?

Alright. Debunk the pdf first though. I don't want to be wasting my time on junk videos.



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.

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

@Phone call shit-Actually, OFFICIALLY, most of the calls were made from the on-board phones:

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Un...ines_Flight_93

I didn't check them all, but the I glanced through some of the names listed as using cell phones in your post and saw that they did indeed use the on-board phones to make those calls.

Here's an article that addresses one of the phone call controversies about Honor Elizabeth Wainio here:

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Ho...izabeth_Wainio

SimonCP

This is, according to alleged airfone records released after-the-fact. As documented above, the mainstream media gave us the "cell phone" story. So, now we have two contradictory official lines.

I am aware that another news article and the alleged airfone records state that Wainio used an on-board phone. The problem is that Newsweek was using a primary source (Wainio's stepmother) when stating that the call came from a cellphone. The FBI is also using that same primary source. Thus, we have a problem.

If I prove that the "Airplane Story" is impossible, then the "passengers" ball is thrown to the government.

I've made no claims about the passengers -- I've made the claim that the airplane stories were fake. If I can prove that, then the issue of the passengers is up to them, since they told the airplane story in the first place.

Proving that the airplane crashes were faked already proves that the government lied about what happened to the passengers.

Apples and oranges. You're talking about proving A to be B. I'm talking about proving that what we are told is "C" isn't really "C". If the evidence flies in the face of an airplane crash, then there wasn't an airplane crash.

Witness after witness did not hear/see the airplane, despite the fact that they were looking up at the building and in the immediate area. Being scared/confused doesn't impede your vision or your ability to hear.

The indisputable fact that airplanes don't vanish upon impact, and the fact that they contain jet fuel is enough to throw the airplane story into question.

Would it be a logical fallacy if I threw a rock through a store owner's window, and he dismissed the possibility that a plane had hit his shop because the damage wasn't severe enough?

It is, because I am interpreting nothing. All of this can be clearly observed.

What does this have to do with them being a photographer? The fact that they say they didn't smell jet fuel indicates that they know the smell. Also, the simple fact is that if they had smelled kerosene, they wouldn't have said they didn't. Saying you didn't smell something is pretty definitive.

If there had been jet fuel all over the ground, the EPA tests surely would have come up with something.

Unless she is lying, then no, there was no Boeing 757. She is too positive and her description is too detailed -- she is certainly not making a mistake. Had she seen a Boeing 757, these details would have no place in her account.

I tackled all of the video's points -- it just didn't address all of September Clues. The PDF did, however, so I'm going to look it over. I noticed the foreword was by Anthony Lawson (Maker of September Clues Busted), however -- that's a bad sign. :>

__________________




It's Gon Rain!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7UBlZcZSE0

Truth about 9/11
The attacks were an 'inside job': http://killtown.911review.org/
The TV footage is fake: http://www.septemberclues.info/
The Military used hi-tech weapons to destroy the Towers: http://drjudywood.com/

Miburo

Okay. Good. So, based on that information you came to the conclusion that that calls made were IMPOSSIBLE and use that conclusion to support the claim that the plane wrecks were faked?

And you don't think there are any logical fallacies in your argument? Wow. Seriously, read up on non sequiturs. Holy shit.

Not really. One source is from a woman who had talked to her stepdaughter before her death, where it's entirely possible that she mistakenly thought or said the call came from a cell phone; and the other is a phone record of calls made to the woman.

And like I said, your premises don't support your conclusion here.
You haven't done that either.
You said that the government lied in regards to what happened to the passengers. I can quote exactly where you said they were lying, and it was in response in regards to the passengers. That's a claim about what happened to them. You have to prove your claims.

What the fuck are you talking about? You're using premises that don't directly support you conclusions and claims. My analogy is perfectly spot-on. You are saying A and B=Not plane crashes. "Not plane crashes" is your conclusion. That "not" doesn't mean anything in this particular scenario.

But if it makes you happy, I eat raw fish and live in the woods. Therefore I'm not a human. Same thing. Happy? Still a non sequitur. Your logic still sucks.


Are there zero witnesses claiming to have heard or seen a plane? Or are you just ignoring them like you did with the on-board phone thing?

Did anyone claim that the planes did vanish upon impact? Now this is a strawman argument on your part. You're claiming that they vanished, therefore there was no planes since planes don't vanish. I don't think anyone thinks they did vanish. They think they crashed into fucking buildings. It's entirely possible you're just mistaken about them vanishing.

Also, "throwing it into question" doesn't prove your claims any.

Actually, technically yeah. It would be a non sequitur since his premise doesn't support his conclusion. He's not wrong, of course. But his logic is. If he would say it wasn't a plane because it was a brick then he'd be good to go. A =/= B. That's logically sound.

Which is irrelevant, because you're not saying "I am being skeptical and nothing more" here. You're making your own claims. You're not saying "This doesn't make any sense to me." You're saying "There was no planes, the government lied about what happened to the passengers." So you have to logically prove those claims. Which you have yet to do.

I looked at a few pictures and can see chunks of plane and shit. And you've already been caught red-handed with not taking into account all information with the phone thing. Before I brought up the on-board phone records you were saying that they were all cell-phone calls and using that as "proof" that they were fake. You didn't even take the on-board phones into consideration.
Again, non sequitur. If I say I didn't smell wild onions in my backyard when I went out there a bit ago that just means I didn't personally smell any wild onions. You cannot conclude that I know what wild onions smell like based on that. You cannot conclude that there are no wild onions out there. You can only conclude that I personally didn't smell them. Again, lrn2logic.
If they were testing groundwater like you said multiple times? No groundwater contamination doesn't mean there wasn't any jet fuel.
Yeah, that's the logical conclusion. She didn't see it, so it must not have existed. Do I really have to explain how this, like almost every other argument of yours, is a non sequitur too? Really? Really?! Come on.

Cool. Go for it.

Mal

Yo Simon Who Does Not Have CP. Prove that at least one of these people did not die as a result of the attacks. That is all you have to prove, just one.

Gansta_Ninja

There's a conspiracy here and it's towering! I support the following theories:

1.) The Color of Flames

If you look closely, when the airplane hit the tower it created a fire ball of Red-Orange flames. The same type of flame can been seen burning till the towers collapsed. Under open and uncontrolled environment it would be impossible for any flames to reach the melting point of steel. It requires at least a propane blowtorch to cut the WTC steel frames.

The controlled flames from the blowtourch are normally light blue in color. A clear indication of its immense heat of 1,200-1,700 degrees celsius. Strong enough to cut and melt steel. However, that we saw at WTC are just Red-Orange flames, it was not substantial to cause the structural failure.

2.) Use of Demolition charges

Once again, it makes me wonder. Why the whole building including the 14 inch thick steel core reduced into rubble. The Plane struck the higher floor of the building. Even if there was a structural failure above, the remaining layers would withstands the load. What force brought the tower down in a merely free fall of 10 seconds.

By the looks of it, all the supports beams and frames have given way at the same time. Any structural engineering will tell you that the lower floors would at least give some resistance, but in this case we don't see any resistance from the undamaged floors. Expert says if your are at top of the WTC and you throw a ball below. It will reach the grown at free fall time of 9-10 seconds. Strange isn't it?

The videos itself hold the evidence we need. You will see the outer layers of the building blown to bits, also metal beams flew several meters from WTC. What force made all these? By the way, I suggest everyone to watch some videos of controlled demolition and compare it to WTC.

I will appreciate your comments.

__________________

Miburo

You argument is flawed. You argument is that the fire wasn't hot enough to melt steel, therefore it would be impossible for that to cause structural failure. Melting steel and structural failure are two different things.

Wouldn't there be evidence of this found in the debris? Pretty sure there would be. Actual evidence would be helpful in making your argument more than just semi-uneducated speculation.

mewmew

Simon, how about PROVE that there were no other witnesses other than those you mentioned. If you can't, PROVE that your witnesses "subjective" experiences are more CORRECT than majority of the other witnesses. Miburo has proven so far that you're supposedly "objective" evidences doesn't stand logically.

__________________

Mal

On top of Miburo's above TRUTH:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gansta_Ninja There's a conspiracy here and it's towering! I support the following dumb-ass theories: 1.) The Color of Flames If you look closely, when the airplane hit the tower it created a fire ball of Red-Orange flames. The same type of flame can been seen burning till the towers collapsed. Under open and uncontrolled environment it would be impossible for any flames to reach the melting point of steel. It requires at least a propane blowtorch to cut the WTC steel frames.

Flawed2THEMAX, yo. The existence of one degree of flames does not mean no other flames existed, as will be explained in this counter example:
If I cannot see something, it does not exist.
I cannot see air.
Therefore, air does not exist.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gansta_Ninja 2.) Use of Demolition charges Once again, it makes me wonder. Why the whole building including the 14 inch thick steel core reduced into rubble. The Plane struck the higher floor of the building. Even if there was a structural failure above, the remaining layers would withstands the load. What force brought the tower down in a merely free fall of 10 seconds.

See below to understand why claiming the towers fell in 10 seconds is stupid.
The lower floors did put up some resistance, but each floor weighed ~4,090,909kg, without taking into account the contents of the buildings. Each additional floor that collapsed added another 4M kg. Merely half way down the tower there would be almost 220,000,000kg coming down. Each floor's maximum load was ~2,000,000kg (100lbs/sqft, 208ftx208ft), so even one floor collapsing would have been enough. However, the collapse started ~15 floors down, dropping ~ 60,000,000kg on the next floor. It shouldn't be surprising that a floor designed to support 2,000,000kg collapsed almost instantly under 60,000,000kg.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gansta_Ninja By the looks of it, all the supports beams and frames have given way at the same time. Any structural engineering will tell you that the lower floors would at least give some resistance, but in this case we don't see any resistance from the undamaged floors. Expert says if your are at top of the WTC and you throw a ball below. It will reach the grown at free fall time of 9-10 seconds. Strange isn't it?

What's strange is that people believe the towers collapsed in 10 seconds. Most counters are stopped just after the 10 second mark, which is when the outer columns hit the ground. These same outer columns and other large debris can earlier be seen (in free fall) falling much faster than the rest of the building. Another 40 stories of the building is still standing behind the debris cloud.

The building, in free fall, would collapse in:

Quote:

t = (2d/a)^1/2 t = (834m/9.8m/s^2)^1/2 t = 9.23s

And it's speed at this point would be approximately:

Quote:

v = at v = (9.8m/s^2 x 9.23s) = 90.4m/s

Just one second later and the building would have fallen almost 1/4 of it's total height. The actual time of the collapse is closer to 13 seconds. Had the the towers been in free fall for this duration of time, they would have fallen 150% farther than they actually did.
They collapsed at significantly less than free fall speeds.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gansta_Ninja The videos itself hold the evidence we need. You will see the outer layers of the building blown to bits, also metal beams flew several meters from WTC. What force made all these? By the way, I suggest everyone to watch some videos of controlled demolition and compare it to WTC.

Funny you should bring up videos of controlled demolitions. When did you last see a video of a controlled demolition that blew apart the "outer layers" and sent metal beams flying several meters away?

Quote:

“It [the J.L. Hudson building] took us 24 days with 12 people doing nothing but loading explosives…” James Santoro – Controlled Demolition Incorporated" via History.com

24 days. Each tower is ~3 times the size of the J.L. Hudson. If these buildings were to be filled with explosives, and we assume the crews were equally competent, it would have taken over 430 people to do in the 5 days claimed by Loose change. And that is even without the worry of secrecy, which would have greatly increased the time required.

mewmew

Gangsta ninja does think like a ninja. lol. if they really did it in 5 days, United States of America dedicated an entire department's worth of manpower. That will also include all security, some management, maintenance and people who work at the building in the conspiracy. If not, these people were probably equipped with futuristic alien stealth suits so that no one in that very crowded, very busy, well guarded workplace would notice them bringing in and rigging the entire building with "super hitech" explosives. Funny People indeed!

__________________

Gansta_Ninja

It’s your argument that is flawed; you can't just simply negate my statement without producing any facts . The director of the original investigation (W. GEN CORLEY) revealed that it was the fire that followed the crash brought the two towers down.

As I said earlier, uncontrolled open fires like those of the WTC can’t generate enough heat to melt the steel trusses, frames and beams. Let me cite one very simply example for you; Gas Stove versus Steel Pot. You can cook all day without melting your steel pot even under the intense heat generated from the Gas stove. Where its controlled flame is far greater than those of the WTC.

This is not the first time the world saw a skyscraper inferno. The Madrid Skyscraper fire (Windsor Building), the 32 storey building that burnt for 10 hours. http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHART...fire_2005.html
This was the same level of fire can be seen at the WTC, but the building withstood the 10 hour blazing inferno. So what the hell happened at WTC??

Here’s a question for you, of which I hope you can shed some light.

1.) The North tower was hit first, then why did the South Tower was the first to collapse?




Whether you like it or not there are Flame classification, depending on the fuel supplied. Colors of the flames, especially those controlled ones are indications of its heat energy.

Fires are normally use as colloquial terms for the general public to understand. Now, I hate to say this but your “I CANNOT SEE AIR” example is stupid or somehow slightly pathetic. Air itself is a combination of gases, and FYI there many types of gases. Before we go off –topic, I hope you know what is a Carbon Monoxide.

Your theory only proves that the WTC should be a pancake collapse and not a total obliteration. FYI, the WTC had a structural core from its bedrock foundation to its roof. A 100 percent steel-framed, of which some larger columns measured 54 inches wide.

What happened to them? Even if there were tons of collapsing floors, the steel core will remaining standing.

This is a conspiracy to victimize US itself and it involves a lot of powerful people both in and out of the Government sector. As a matter of fact they placed the entire building under full coverage maintenance 2 weeks prior the claimed attack. Surveillance cameras were turned-off during the entire maintenance program.

Later I will share some of photos I gathered.

__________________

Mal

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gansta_Ninja It’s your argument that is flawed; you can't just simply negate my statement without producing any facts . The director of the original investigation (W. GEN CORLEY) revealed that it was the fire that followed the crash brought the two towers down.

Miburo did produce facts. or do you think it's impossible for a building to collapse without its support beams melting?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gansta_Ninja 1.) The North tower was hit first, then why did the South Tower was the first to collapse?

Oh shit guys! He found us out! Who would have guessed he'd know that, despite all probability, conditions in both towers were 100% identical‽‽‽

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gansta_Ninja As I said earlier, uncontrolled open fires like those of the WTC can’t generate enough heat to melt the steel trusses, frames and beams. Let me cite one very simply example for you; Gas Stove versus Steel Pot. You can cook all day without melting your steel pot even under the intense heat generated from the Gas stove. Where its controlled flame is far greater than those of the WTC. This is not the first time the world saw a skyscraper inferno. The Madrid Skyscraper fire (Windsor Building), the 32 storey building that burnt for 10 hours. http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHART...fire_2005.html This was the same level of fire can be seen at the WTC, but the building withstood the 10 hour blazing inferno. So what the hell happened at WTC?? ... Whether you like it or not there are Flame classification, depending on the fuel supplied. Colors of the flames, especially those controlled ones are indications of its heat energy. Fires are normally use as colloquial terms for the general public to understand. Now, I hate to say this but your “I CANNOT SEE AIR” example is stupid or somehow slightly pathetic. Air itself is a combination of gases, and FYI there many types of gases. Before we go off –topic, I hope you know what is a Carbon Monoxide.

You're obviously incapable of recognizing a quality counter example.
My argument was exactly like yours. "I can't see something, therefore it does not exist." You assue that since only red/orange flames were seen, that no other flames existed. For centuries people only ever saw white swans, so they thought that all swans were white. However, if you go ask Zer0 (my favourite Aussie) what colour swans are, he'll tell you they're sometimes black.
Oh, and no I don't know what "is a carbon monoxide".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gansta_Ninja Your theory only proves that the WTC should be a pancake collapse and not a total obliteration. FYI, the WTC had a structural core from its bedrock foundation to its roof. A 100 percent steel-framed, of which some larger columns measured 54 inches wide. What happened to them? Even if there were tons of collapsing floors, the steel core will remaining standing.

The total potential energy of WTC1/2 was:

Quote:

KE = (mv^2)/2 = (5,072,120kg x (63.93m/s)^2)/2 = 10,363,863,011J (average per floor) 110 floors * 10,362,544,260J = 1,139,879,868,600J (total)

1.1 trillion joules of energy is equivalent to 272 tons of TNT, meaning each tower had as much potential energy as a small nuclear warhead, and you want to believe the central columns would have survived that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gansta_Ninja This is a conspiracy to victimize US itself and it involves a lot of powerful people both in and out of the Government sector. As a matter of fact they placed the entire building under full coverage maintenance 2 weeks prior the claimed attack. Surveillance cameras were turned-off during the entire maintenance program. Later I will share some of photos I gathered.

First, was it two weeks or five days? Get your "facts" straight.
Second, "a conspiracy to victimize the US?" Surely there must have been easier alternatives than this absurdly complex "plan".

mewmew

dude, the theory fails even before the fire started. You people filtered out evidence in favor of your theory that there are no planes in the first place. about a hundred thousand people suddenly lose credibility to support your theory. is that supposed to be logical presentation of evidence?

also, you haven't even shown any "feasible" evidence that would solve the logistic problem of rigging two towers with lots of explosives within a set "realistic" time frame. it's one thing to make up a plan, but its another thing to execute it in "real life".

with you're way of selective evidence presentation (throw away the parts that doesn't support your theory-kind-of-inference), the photos "you" have selectively gathered hold no credibility against evidence found and assessed by innumerable "real life" professionals. Yours will be credited as pure speculative assumptions from a non-professional, non-first hand witness, observer from a distance. it's easy to find pictures and assess it within your own intellectual capacity by compositing your ideas with a pseudo-expert angle, but its another thing to truly understand evidence from a non-paranoid professional perspective.

__________________

Miburo

I did produce facts. Like the fact that your argument sucks since the premise doesn't support the conclusion. Like Mal said, you never showed that it would be impossible for a building to collapse without having all the steel in the building melt. If you think about it, it's actually a ridiculously stupid thing to even suggest.



Like I said earlier, it doesn't matter since steel melting =/= structural failure.

I think that perhaps the differences in building size and structure might have been a factor. And the fact that the Windsor Building wasn't hit by MASSIVE FUCKING PLANES could have played a role as well.

Seriously? Wow.

Like Mal suggested, it's probably because the damage they suffered wasn't identical. Therefore the conditions weren't identical. Etc. Or it could be proof of a MASSIVE CONSPIRACY LOLOLOLOL...if you topped your pizza with paint chips when you were a kid, of course.

Mal

Quote:

Originally Posted by Miburo I think that perhaps the differences in building size and structure might have been a factor. And the fact that the Windsor Building wasn't hit by MASSIVE FUCKING PLANES could have played a role as well.

Speaking of which, the energy of the planes hitting the buildings would have undoubtedly been converted into a substantial amount of heat, on top of the flames.

Quote:

KE = mv^2 KE = (100,000kg)(200m/s)^2 KE = (100,000)(40,000) KE = 4,000,000,000J

Despite being a conservative estimate, that's as much energy as a ton of TNT with its entire explosion directed at the buildings.