9/11 Conspiracy Theory Question

[Archaeopteryx]

You usually don't start this tactic until you've failed a debate for an extended period of time. Are you admitting failure at the START of the debate this time?

I was hoping for your 'but the official story is a conspiracy theory too@!' argument. Anything to avoid the explosions you were asked for, which re-affirms what Steezie has noted. No answers.


Btodd

Start what tactic? I've pointed out the fact that you pretending to be a skeptic is laughable when you refuse to critically examine your own conspiracy theory. You are only skeptical of the skeptics. Happens to explain why you don't defend the 9/11 Commission and instead attack those who place it under scrutiny. Am I admitting failure? No. But you should. Anything to avoid actually defending the actions of the 9/11 Commission. "Gotta keep those beliefs compartmentalized and safe from scrutiny."

 

[Kyrisch]

Perhaps the explosion was masked by the explosion of the airplane when the fuel ignited?

Just a theory.

The problem with this stuff is that no one has much by which to go. The Pentagon attack is much more suspicious, imo, because there is more ground for conspiracy theorists to stand on.

 

[Btodd]

Start what tactic?

Simply re-arranging my posts, instead of adding any original thought of your own. Much like your quoting of David Ray Griffin. You don't seem to think for yourself. Seriously.

I've pointed out the fact that you pretending to be a skeptic is laughable when you refuse to critically examine your own conspiracy theory. You are only skeptical of the skeptics. Happens to explain why you don't defend the 9/11 Commission and instead attack those who place it under scrutiny. Am I admitting failure? No. But you should. Anything to avoid actually defending the actions of the 9/11 Commission. "Gotta keep those beliefs compartmentalized and safe from scrutiny."

Bjspurple, skeptic doesn't mean, 'one who doubts'. It really means nothing to call oneself a skeptic in that sense. To call yourself a skeptic would at least involve claiming that you require strong evidence FOR a position before assenting to its validity; as in 'skepticism' as a method (and based on the scientific method). You used to have a position, claiming demolitions AND thermite at the same time, until I called you on it. Since then, having learned your lesson....you've reduced to making no claims at all, instead simply saying, 'need new investigation'. So there's nothing to talk about anymore.

And since you won't present anything, you're going to continue borrowing my words again, in a cheap, mocking attempt to get under my skin in a manner I would expect from someone your age. FAIL.


Btodd

 

[joebudda]

Eyewitness Accounts of WTC Explosions on 911



http://youtube.com/watch?v=n593Hth8h9M

http://youtube.com/watch?v=F7B_9TXCPX4&feature=related

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Simply re-arranging my posts, instead of adding any original thought of your own. Much like your quoting of David Ray Griffin. You don't seem to think for yourself. Seriously.

Bjspurple, skeptic doesn't mean, 'one who doubts'. It really means nothing to call oneself a skeptic in that sense. To call yourself a skeptic would at least involve claiming that you require strong evidence FOR a position before assenting to its validity; as in 'skepticism' as a method (and based on the scientific method). You used to have a position, claiming demolitions AND thermite at the same time, until I called you on it. Since then, having learned your lesson....you've reduced to making no claims at all, instead simply saying, 'need new investigation'. So there's nothing to talk about anymore.

And since you won't present anything, you're going to continue borrowing my words again, in a cheap, mocking attempt to get under my skin in a manner I would expect from someone your age. FAIL.

Btodd

And there still remains the need for a new investigation. Something you won't dare address because you know that you can't defend the 9/11 Commission... so you don't bother to address it at all. And here I'm meant to take a lecture in skepticism from you? When you refuse to address the problems with the official conspiracy theory or to approach it and the Commission with any skepticism or critical examination of your own. As I've said before, you are hardly one to be called a skeptic. That, by the way, is not my failing, but yours. As for someone who apparently thinks for themselves, you sure do have a lot of trouble "thinking" about what could be wrong with the official conspiracy theory. And sure have heaps of trouble, aka, do not address at all, any defense of the 9/11 Commission on which much of the OCF rests. Your arguments have always essentially cringed on the logical fallacy of "There is no alternative to X so therefore X must be true," and a continual attack on the controlled demolition hypothesis rather than actually defending the crumbling OCF. I do not suspect that to change.

 

[joebudda]

I personally found the eyewitness' convincing regarding there being explosions.

 

[jamesrwright3]

Start what tactic? I've pointed out the fact that you pretending to be a skeptic is laughable when you refuse to critically examine your own conspiracy theory. You are only skeptical of the skeptics. Happens to explain why you don't defend the 9/11 Commission and instead attack those who place it under scrutiny. Am I admitting failure? No. But you should. Anything to avoid actually defending the actions of the 9/11 Commission. "Gotta keep those beliefs compartmentalized and safe from scrutiny."

Not this again..you were refuted so many times in the other thread and continually refused to answer our questions.

 

[Btodd]

I personally found the eyewitness' convincing regarding there being explosions.

What does 'explosions' mean, specifically? Loud noises? Buildings collapsing? Floors collapsing? Suicide jumpers hitting the street at over 100mph? A second plane hitting the other tower? Parts of the plane or building falling to the street from the point of impact?

Please be specific in what that means to you. That the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition? Which ones, all three? I want to know what you were convinced OF.

I have no doubt those people heard 'explosions'. What I doubt is your idea of what they meant by saying it, and I haven't noticed any new interviews in which truther websites have conducted in order to get to the 'truth' of the matter. If these people really were talking about what you are implying (explosions meaning 'demolitions'), then they would be the Truth movement's most important members, wouldn't they?

After all, they were able to hear what all of the rest of the city and WTC surivors couldn't, including all video, audio and seismic footage. That is, if they meant 'demolitions explosions'......did they?

Also, keep in mind that if you argue for controlled demolitions, you cannot also throw out arguments for thermate. That means no 'pools of molten metal', no molten metal dripping from the impact point, no ion microspheres (Steven Jones), no references to Steven Jones as an expert, no 'beams sheared at a 45 degree angle', or any of that.


Btodd

 

[Steezie]

Perhaps the explosion was masked by the explosion of the airplane when the fuel ignited?

Just a theory.

You would have had to coordinate the explosion perfectly.

Also to bring down a building in a controlled demolition, you would have multiple explosions one after another and the impact of one single plane would not hide it. The explosives used for building demolition can be heard several MILES away from the site of origin.

It should have been caught by recording devices, seismic devices, and witnesses several miles away. It wasnt which doesnt support the demolition theory

I personally found the eyewitness' convincing regarding there being explosions.

So if there were eyewitnesses, there was sourced and confirmable video footage that contained audio proof of explosions of the magnitude required, right?

 

[joebudda]

What does 'explosions' mean, specifically? Loud noises? Buildings collapsing? Floors collapsing? Suicide jumpers hitting the street at over 100mph? A second plane hitting the other tower? Parts of the plane or building falling to the street from the point of impact?

Please be specific in what that means to you. That the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition? Which ones, all three? I want to know what you were convinced OF.

I have no doubt those people heard 'explosions'. What I doubt is your idea of what they meant by saying it, and I haven't noticed any new interviews in which truther websites have conducted in order to get to the 'truth' of the matter. If these people really were talking about what you are implying (explosions meaning 'demolitions'), then they would be the Truth movement's most important members, wouldn't they?

After all, they were able to hear what all of the rest of the city and WTC surivors couldn't, including all video, audio and seismic footage. That is, if they meant 'demolitions explosions'......did they?

Also, keep in mind that if you argue for controlled demolitions, you cannot also throw out arguments for thermate. That means no 'pools of molten metal', no molten metal dripping from the impact point, no ion microspheres (Steven Jones), no references to Steven Jones as an expert, no 'beams sheared at a 45 degree angle', or any of that.


Btodd

Then don't believe them. I don't really care.

I will take into account their claims along with all of evidence, whatever that evidence maybe, and I will either be persuaded or not. I wasn't there for myself so I listen to what the eyewitness' say and form my own opinion. And I have been persuaded that people actually heard multiple explosions coming from different parts of the buildings as multiple eyewitness' recall.

But you go ahead and believe whatever you what to believe though. I wont stop you.

 

[joebudda]

So if there were eyewitnesses, there was sourced and confirmable video footage that contained audio proof of explosions of the magnitude required, right?

I just don't see any reason for the witness' to lie about what they experienced.
I am not saying you should believe it. All I am saying is it persuaded me that there were multiple explosion in different parts of the building.

 

[Steezie]

I just don't see any reason for the witness' to lie about what they experienced.

I never stated they were lying. Because their claims are not backed up by any conclusive physical evidence (Evidence of detonation, detonation debris, true evidence of chemical explosives etc etc) I can only conclude they are mistaken.

All I am saying is it persuaded me that there were multiple explosion in different parts of the building.

Which tells me that you care more about your position being supported than you do about any actual evidence. You have a confirmation bias

 

[joebudda]

I never stated they were lying. Because their claims are not backed up by any conclusive physical evidence (Evidence of detonation, detonation debris, true evidence of chemical explosives etc etc) I can only conclude they are mistaken.

Which tells me that you care more about your position being supported than you do about any actual evidence. You have a confirmation bias

Then I must assume you don't think eyewitness accounts regarding what they saw and heard is evidence.


Good for you.

 

[Btodd]

Then don't believe them. I don't really care.

As I said, I do believe that they heard explosions. I asked you for the interpretation of what they meant, what it means for you, what it convinced you OF (you said it was convincing)....and if those people are on record as supporting a controlled demolitions hypothesis, since they would be the most important members the Truth movement could ever hope for.

So I believe them.......I'm just not sure I believe you. Tell me what you think they meant, and if it means you think controlled demolitions are a plausible explanation their testimony is in support of.

I will take into account their claims along with all of evidence, whatever that evidence maybe, and I will either be persuaded or not. I wasn't there for myself so I listen to what the eyewitness' say and form my own opinion. And I have been persuaded that people actually heard multiple explosions coming from different parts of the buildings as multiple eyewitness' recall.

But you go ahead and believe whatever you what to believe though. I wont stop you.

That all sounds fine, as long as you admit that you don't know what they meant, they haven't confirmed the meaning you imply (nor has the Truth movement bothered to check in 6 years), and that their memory doesn't trump audio, video and seismic sources, along with thousands of other people who were also right there.

That's beside the many implausibilities we haven't even touched on yet (amount of wiring needed, number of workers and setup time required, how the wiring and explosives survived the impact and massive fires from the planes, the superfluous insanity of adding an extra step to the process which is another chance to get caught or for it to go wrong, etc).

Have you thought about those things? I haven't even played the real demolition video yet, which immediately exposes how ludicrous this idea is.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1163325265308161708&q=implosion&ei=-zZXSJy_B4Hk4ALVnqChDwhttp://video.google.com/videoplay?d...08&q=landmark+tower&ei=MjlXSLzZH5T44gKa8MinDw


Where was all that on 9/11?


Btodd

 

[joebudda]

I'm just not sure I believe you.

Then don't, I could care less. And I never asked you to.

 

[Btodd]

Then don't, I could care less. And I never asked you to.

I'm sorry, I thought this was a debate forum. I wanted to see what you were convinced of when you heard that testimony. If your belief is so private, I don't know why you are on a public forum.


Btodd

 

[joebudda]

I'm sorry, I thought this was a debate forum. I wanted to see what you were convinced of when you heard that testimony. If your belief is so private, I don't know why you are on a public forum.


Btodd

I have expressed what I believe. I believe the eyewitness' and there being witness to multiple explosions in different parts of the building.

And I supplied video showing what the eyewitness' said they heard and saw.

If you can show them wrong or are lying, I am all ears.

 

[oldbetang]

Then I must assume you don't think eyewitness accounts regarding what they saw and heard is evidence.

Do you believe the eyewitness accounts regarding the Pentagon strike?

 

[joebudda]

Do you believe the eyewitness accounts regarding the Pentagon strike?

I take all evidence into account. But I wasn't aware we were talking about there being bombs in the pentagon, I was under the opinion that we were talking about the WTC.

 

[Steezie]

Then I must assume you don't think eyewitness accounts regarding what they saw and heard is evidence.

If they are not supported by the physical evidence, no I dont. I consider them mistaken judgments of un-trained and very frightened people