Official "story" nuts.

[lovepg]

The people in this forum are approaching this subject in entirely the wrong way.
Instead of trying to explain your ideas of how things went down you should get those who believe the official nut bag version put out by the government to explain there goofy story.
This version has not one but 2 magic passports that survive explosions hot enough to slice thru steel buildings to identify the highjackers. The worlds most heavily fortified defended building being attacked after over an hours warning in exactly the area of the building that was being renovated and that happened to contain workers working on auditing the missing 9 billion dollars that Rumsfeld confessed was missing days earlier. Without one jet able to intercept.
It involves pilots barely trained enough on small easy to fly planes to get a pass certificate flying large jets at high speeds into small targets. It involves Pentagon exercises involving jet planes being highjacked and flown into buildings on THE VERY DAY jets are being highjacked and flown into buildings. It involves three large buildings falling into there own footprint without explosives something that is so hard to do there are but a few companies considered expert enough to pull it off WITH explosives. Perhaps they can explain why we should not always take down large office buildings from now on by flying large jets into them since this method seems to work so well.
It involves two planes crashing into targets and disinigrating to the point there was little to no debris. One of them disinigrated from the heat of its firey explosion into the Pentagon to the point that mainly just DNA evidence was left to identify its victims but still kept its structural integrity to the point it puntured all the thick fortified walls and punched a hole into the inner circle. Yes to believe this nonsense requires a special kind of stupidity.
Start asking them to back up this story with facts and evidence and watch how fast it gets silent in here.

[Bolo Boffin]

1. Please document these claims you say the "official nut bag version" is making.

you should get those who believe the official nut bag version put out by the government to explain there goofy story.

"their goofy story," you mean. Using bad grammar when you're calling others goofy is goofy.

This version has not one but 2 magic passports that survive explosions hot enough to slice thru steel buildings to identify the highjackers.

"hijackers," you mean. I'm not sure quite what to make of the tangle of phrases, "that survive explosions hot enough to slice thru steel buildings". Do you mean the explosions were hot enough to slice through buildings, or do you mean the passports? Either way, I don't think anyone's ever claimed that. And the passports themselves are only part of the way the hijackers were identified. They certainly weren't needed to do so at all. The main way they were identified was their names on the passenger manifests. Tracking those individuals and the credit cards they used to buy the tickets and the places they lived, etc., the FBI derived more than enough information to identify them all. Ziad Jarrah was IDed through DNA evidence.

And small items like passports always survive plane crashes.

The worlds most heavily fortified defended building being attacked after over an hours warning in exactly the area of the building that was being renovated and that happened to contain workers working on auditing the missing 9 billion dollars that Rumsfeld confessed was missing days earlier.

The Pentagon was neither the world's most heavily fortified building (I believe the Great Pyramid takes that honor) nor is it the most defended building in the world. It simply isn't. It's got more fortification and defense than your local grocery store. But it's not what you're claiming.

What it is, though, is the world's largest office building, bigger even than either of the WTC towers.

There was not an hour's warning that something was going to attack the Pentagon. Planes crashing in New York is not a warning that the Pentagon is going to be attacked.

The area that was being renovated was Wedge 1, one-fifth of the largest office building in the world. Do you know what that makes the odds of hitting the renovated area? One in five. Actually the odds are even better because the plane flew as straight a path as possible to get to the Pentagon, and Wedge 1 was right there. And the plane barely hit Wedge 1. The debris smashed through into the unrenovated Wedge 2. It set off a fire in the roof that threatened to take the entire building.

No doubt any group of people it took out would have been vital to some part of the national security. They all would just as easily been claimed by you to have been possible targets for this and that.

Without one jet able to intercept.

Yep.

It involves pilots barely trained enough on small easy to fly planes to get a pass certificate flying large jets at high speeds into small targets.

All the pilots had passed their flight certification. The actual pilots of the plane did the hard part - taking off. The hijackers had to take control of the airplane, check the instrumentation to make sure the autopilot was still engaged, take a piece of paper out of their pockets, plug in the necessary coordinates, and sit back. When the target was acquired by sight, the hijacker pilots then had to take the plane off autopilot and aim the plane at the target. Hani Hanjour had to do a simple banking turn to bleed off some altitude before making his approach.

And these were not "small targets." Three of the largest office buildings on earth are not "small targets."

It involves Pentagon exercises involving jet planes being highjacked and flown into buildings on THE VERY DAY jets are being highjacked and flown into buildings.

This is factually inaccurate. None of the exercises that day had this scenario. If you think otherwise, produce your evidence.

It involves three large buildings falling into there own footprint without explosives something that is so hard to do there are but a few companies considered expert enough to pull it off WITH explosives.

"their own footprint," you mean. And you want a comma after the first use of the word "explosives."

And, no, the buildings did not fall into their own footprint. The debris went all over.

Perhaps they can explain why we should not always take down large office buildings from now on by flying large jets into them since this method seems to work so well.

You have no idea what you're talking about. If any demolition crew produced the god-awful mess of Ground Zero on purpose, they would be sued out of existence.

It involves two planes crashing into targets and disinigrating to the point there was little to no debris.

"disintegrating," you mean. DU has a spell check function. Make use of it.

I assume you mean the first two planes, the planes in New York. Debris from both of those planes was found on the surrounding streets and rooftops. The debris left in the towers went through the collapses. Not much is left of almost anything caught between masses as big as the upper and lower sections of the Twin Towers.

One of them disinigrated from the heat of its firey explosion into the Pentagon to the point that mainly just DNA evidence was left to identify its victims but still kept its structural integrity to the point it puntured all the thick fortified walls and punched a hole into the inner circle.

"disintegrated," "fiery," and "punctured," you mean.

Structural integrity is not a requirement of the damage dealt to the interior of the Pentagon, including the hole in the inner circle. All you need is mass and a shockwave strong enough.

Yes to believe this nonsense requires a special kind of stupidity.

You require a comma after "Yes."

The nonsense you say is the official story is NOT the official story. It is a straw man argument. Kindly deal with the actual words and assertions of the various people who have examined this event.

You will find extensive studies of the collapses here:

http://wtc.nist.gov

And other scholarly papers dealing with the collapses here:

http://ae911truth.info/tiki-index.php?page=Scholarly+Papers

You will find immense amounts of research into this day here:

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com
http://www.911myths.com/
http://www.debunking911.com/
http://911mysteriesguide.com/

And a couple of crucial papers on these issues here:

http://ae911truth.info/pdf/blanchard_implosion.pdf
http://ae911truth.info/pdf/drg_nist_review_2_1.pdf

Start asking them to back up this story with facts and evidence and watch how fast it gets silent in here.

Mm-hmm. How about this? Why don't you document every claim you've made in the OP about the OCT? Point to book, chapter, and verse on each of the points you say is being claimed?

[lovepg]

7. OH good this is gonna be fun.

Great rebuttal. Attacking grammer and spelling??????
Thats the sign of a great mind ehhhhhh??????
The passports in question survived the explosions fire and mayhem of the Towers and the crash in Pennsylvania to be found intact enough in both instances to identify the highjackers. In fact in the Shanksville crash this passport and a red bandana were the only debris found at the crash site. An amazing circumstance if it were to happen once but twice????
I take it you adhere to the official "story" found in the various reports because thats where this nonsense is found.
My favorite nonsense you spewed was that structural integrity was not needed for the plane to puncture the pentagon walls just mass.
WHERE IS THE MASS IF THE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY IS GONE?????
Do you think before typing this stuff? If a plane burns up and explodes apon impact to the point only DNA evidence is left and little to no debris field explain where is it that your mass comes from for it to crash thru the other 4 walls.
About here is where the oh wells start coming in. Oh well there was some debris. The nose cone was intact ect,ect.
The premise of my post was to get you to explain your "STORY" you believe to be true.
So MR.Boffin exactly how much mass was left according to your story after this event at the Pentagon to crash thru the other four walls?
An equation bandied about will not qualify. Do not forget this has been investigated and this is the official story.
Cite the evidence that shows clearly how this could occur.
WE will get to the towers falling later.

[SDuderstadt]

8. Um, it's "grammar", not "grammer"...

and, whether you think it's fair or not, it makes you less credible.

In fact in the Shanksville crash this passport and a red bandana were the only debris found at the crash site.

of course, this claim is dead wrong, as shown by these pictures:







And there are many, many more where those came from. Since you can't even get basic facts such as these right, it hardly seems necessary to take the time to debunk the rest of your nonsense.

[lovepg]

10. Nice fib

Those objects were NOT found in the crater the Plane burned in. The crash site you describe is not the crater.
They were found in the area. Undamaged (somehow lol) paper floating around the area the woods ect.
Of course now you gave yourself an out to answering the unanswerable questions in your story about the Pentagon plane.
Nice try.

[SDuderstadt]

13. Um, wtf are you talking about? I'm trying to figure out how you think those items were not found..

I'm trying to figure out how you think those items were not found at the crash site. You do, of course, realize the crash site is bigger than just the crater, right?

I'm also still marveling at your amazement that paper could emerge unburned from a plane crash. In fact, it happens all the time.

I'm also invoking "Lared's Rule". Since you're new here, I'll explain it to you. It's named after a DU member named Lared who reasons it's a waste of time trying to reason w/ people who believe goofy "no planes" theories. It's an excellent rule. Bye.

[lovepg]

62. The only items found on top of the crater where the plane crashed...

Where the bandana and the passport.
The items you showed were found in the areas around the crater.
Give me a plausable scenario as to how that passport makes it intact enough to read on top of the smoking crater where a firey explosion of such force occured nothing was left but a smoking crater?

[SDuderstadt]

63. The passport gets blown into the sky by the explosion...

and later comes to rest upon the crater. You really need to study accident dynamics. It's not unusual at all for passports and other fragile documents to survive.

[lovepg]

73. High jackers up front HELLO?????

So the magic passport drops out the highjackers pocket survives the firey explosion at terminal velocity where every other item but one a red bandana is destroyed??
THE ONE PAPER DOCUMENT to make it? I mean if that happened once that day maybe you could chalk it up to what you are saying. BUT TWICE????
The odds are very very long.

[SDuderstadt]

76. Dude...I've already pointed out that other things survived.

With all due respect, this is over your head. Bye.

[lovepg]

82. A few other things survived yes.......

But the biggest subset of items to survive firey crashes that day?????
PASSPORTS belonging to highjackers.
Wow nothing weird about that in your world?

[Bolo Boffin]

79. There were other paper documents that "made it".

The Moussaoui indictment has a long display of exhibits that survived, both from the hijackers and the passengers.

http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution.html

[lovepg]

83. Yes amazing how many photos of highjackers made it through the fire..

How the fires and destruction managed to not destroy the part of the identifications that HAVE THE PICTURES on them is more than a little amazing.
I looked through the photos in your link of ID that made it through and of the say ten items that they found 6 to 8 were highjacker IDs with intact photos.
I can believe some stuff made it. But i cannot believe of the small amount of stuff that did most of it was highjacker ID. That was a big screwup on their part.

[lovepg]

148. I never said I was a no planer?????????

Yet you magically come to that conclusion based on nothing while lecturing me on the waste of time dealing with people who do not apply logic.
See the apparent unintentional irony. You must because you always lecture others on that as well.

[SDuderstadt]

154. I'm sorry...I don't have my...

''lovepg-to-English'' dictionary handy tonight. I can't figure out wtf you're babbling about.

[lovepg]

157. You don't need it.....

You talk about Lareds rule about not needing to bother wasting time talking to no planers.
Read your post. (yes I know its an odious task).

[SDuderstadt]

161. Dude, your posts, for the most part...

are nearly incoherent. Sorry to be the bearer of bad tidings.

[lovepg]

176. Mostly your the bearer of .........

boring. Yawn.

[Subdivisions]

34. My $40 scanner makes better pictures than the ones used in the Moussaui trial...

Heck, my $20 webcam takes better pictures than the ones the government produced!

[SDuderstadt]

36. Great, why don't you donate them?

I'm sure with the current fiscal crisis, your contributions will be greatly appreciated.

[Bolo Boffin]

18. Oh, good, that makes one of us.

Great rebuttal. Attacking grammer and spelling??????
Thats the sign of a great mind ehhhhhh??????

Grammar and spelling are a sign that you're willing to respect the other person enough to remove all possible impediments to communication. It's particularly remarkable when someone is carrying on about how stupid and goofy their opponents are and yet they themselves write with crappy grammar and shoddy spelling. It's a lot like that MORANS guy that gets posted here at DU a lot.

The passports in question survived the explosions fire and mayhem of the Towers and the crash in Pennsylvania to be found intact enough in both instances to identify the highjackers. In fact in the Shanksville crash this passport and a red bandana were the only debris found at the crash site. An amazing circumstance if it were to happen once but twice????

As I explained to you in the last post, the recovered passports were not the only way the hijackers were identified. As SDuderstadt has already shown you, there was much more debris at the Shanksville site than a passport and a bandanna. Wallace Miller, the coroner that worked the scene, said that about 800 pounds of human remains were discovered, for example. There was lots more debris than you claim.

You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.

My favorite nonsense you spewed was that structural integrity was not needed for the plane to puncture the pentagon walls just mass.
WHERE IS THE MASS IF THE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY IS GONE?????

Actually I never said "structural integrity was not needed for the plane to puncture the Pentagon walls." Your statement was so convoluted at that point (as I pointed out) that I had no idea you were referring to the Pentagon there or the WTC Towers.

Mass is mass is mass, whether it is assembled by humans into a structure or not. And that mass in motion has the same momentum, whether it is assembled by humans or not. You obviously have no clue as to the forces in play at the Pentagon. I suggest you find Patrick Creed and Rick Newman's Firefight for an detailed examination of what happened when Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

Do you think before typing this stuff? If a plane burns up and explodes apon impact to the point only DNA evidence is left and little to no debris field explain where is it that your mass comes from for it to crash thru the other 4 walls.

There was debris all over and in the Pentagon. If we are going to discuss this, you are going to have to adhere to reality.

About here is where the oh wells start coming in. Oh well there was some debris. The nose cone was intact ect,ect.
The premise of my post was to get you to explain your "STORY" you believe to be true.

The nose cone was most definitely not intact, not after contact with the Pentagon. Please stop putting words in my mouth. That's rude.

The premise of your post was actually the erection of a gigantic straw man and dare anyone try to defend it. I'm trying to point you to where the facts are.

So MR.Boffin exactly how much mass was left according to your story after this event at the Pentagon to crash thru the other four walls?
An equation bandied about will not qualify. Do not forget this has been investigated and this is the official story.

You don't have a clue what the official story is. All of the mass of the plane that hadn't been blown back out of the impact area plus the debris being swept along that began in the Pentagon was left plus the concussion of the fuel tanks. ALL OF THAT crashed through the other columns and whatever walls were there.

Cite the evidence that shows clearly how this could occur.
WE will get to the towers falling later.

The best account of this is in Firefight, pp. 25-30. Those pages have 21 endnotes for documentation. For more on the Pentagon blasts:

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/911pentagonflight77evidencesummary

Please do not respond to me until you have at least gone through Mark Roberts' evidence. Reading Firefight would be very nice as well. A failure to consider these sources will demonstrate your complete lack of good faith in this discussion and I reserve the right never to address you again.

[lovepg]

91. The big problem with the piledriver story........ .

The mass of the upper floors is dissapearing as the top falls. It is expelled outwards into pulverized concrete and rather heavy steel girders that are hitting buildings across the street.
So it is losing mass as it falls. Also as it falls the decreasing top mass is encountering the much larger weight bearing steel girders of the lower building. This would slow any momentum gained from additional floors adding to the mass over the core as it fell. At the very least it would decrease the speed of decent out of freefall range.
Unless of course explosives were being used.

[AZCat]

96. How much, exactly...

would you expect the "speed of decent" to be decreased below "freefall range" in a non-assisted collapse? Please to provide calculations.

[lovepg]

97. I can provide the common sense.......

Something the NIST report cannot do.
How does the so called pile driver gain momentum while losing mass the whole time it is falling?
One of you quite rightly pointed out the extensive range of the debris pile in rebutting a statement about the towers falling neatly into their own
footprints. THATS because the building was losing mass in disinigration and ejection out the sides. And while this is occuring we are to believe that the disinigrated top of the falling building is providing enough momentum to collapse the much bigger weight bearing columns. AND IN FREEFALL speed. The speed of no resistance is what it should be called for this discussion.

[SDuderstadt]

98. I'm sorry...

I just can't take someone who thinks "disintegration" is spelled "disinigration" seriously.

[lovepg]

99. Yes its good I mispelled a word late at night.....

Now you can avoid answering my point. But that seems to be your tactic most of the time anyway.
Find some tangental issue to deflect away from the point and use that as an excuse to summarily dismiss the poster as being beneath your great intellect LOL.

[SDuderstadt]

101. Dade, it's not just a misspelling...

all of your posts are riddled with poor spelling, grammar and writing. It's hard to take you seriously.

[wildbilln864]

171. "Dade"?

It sure looks like you're taking them pretty seriously else you'd feel no need to respond. :shrug:

[defendandprotect]

139. Try "ignore" --

What I see on my screen is a lot of wasted effort and energy trying to respond

to someone who should be on "ignore."

[SDuderstadt]

141. This may be D&P's ...

most unintentionally ironic post ever.

[lovepg]

149. Your right I will just ignore it from now on.

[AZCat]

106. I'd really prefer some sort of calculations.

There's that whole "engineering" thing. You know - the basis of the NIST reports that most of you haven't read.

[defendandprotect]

142. NIST didn't do the investigation -- it was contracted out to SAIC, for one . . .

In a previous filing with NIST Dr. Wood got a definitive definition of what ?collapse? would be from NIST; ?a falling in, loss of shape, or reduction to flattened form or rubble of a structure.? Which leaves the NIST study a fraud, as it never did the job it was paid to do.

Further complications come from the fact that the ?experts.? those who did the testing and research for NIST, come from the same sources that would have resources to destroy the towers in NYC. Some of the defendants named are Applied Research Associates (ARA), Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), and Underwriters Laboratories.

The filing claims the corporate and individual defendants committed actionable fraud under the False Claims Act. Her lawsuit seeks reimbursement of monies paid, penalties and interest. " defendants?committed fraud in seeking to have NCSTAR 1 deceive the public into not recognizing that WTC1, 2 could not reasonably or possibly have been destroyed in the manner seen absent the use of DEW. Some of the defendants knew as much; other defendants either knew or if they did not, they should have known. To the extent they did not know, such ignorance was willful, intentional and actionable under the False Claims Act."

Dr. Wood?s lawyer, Jerry Leaphart of Connecticut, has already served notice on NIST of the filing. No dates are set for any actions when this article was written.

?The most shocking claim may be that some of the defendants include those actually involved in development and manufacture of directed energy weapons and the development of covert psychological operations, which Wood claims were key ingredients in the events of 9/11,? Leaphart stated.

http://911review.org/Media/NIST_Fraud.html

And here's info on SAIC from Vanity Fair --
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/03/spyagency200703?printable=true¤tPage=all

And, as usual, when we get a closer look at the right wing, we see sexual perversion --
See "young-boys" further down in article!

[PufPuf23]

14. How many more passports were found? Pictures?

Question; "This version has not one but 2 magic passports that survive explosions hot enough to slice thru steel buildings to identify the highjackers."


Bolo's answer; "And small items like passports always survive plane crashes."

How many passports were found of the victims?

Oh yeah -- most were domestic passengers that didn't need passports? Right?

How about driver's licences, Visa's and Costco cards?

Who needs DNA?

[Bolo Boffin]

17. Post #8 has a picture of someone's driver's licence, Marriot's Rewards info, etc.

And all of the passengers of 93 were IDed with dental and DNA records from the crash site. Wallace Miller said that some passengers had remains identified in all five search zones at Shanksville.

DNA is very useful.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[leftofthedial]

44. please document your official nutbag request for documentation

in triplicate, with one copy to each of the appropriate departments.

Prove you're not an official nutbag theorist.

[SDuderstadt]

2. Since your "post" is just a Baker's Dozen previously debunked CT's...

I'm just going to respond by pasting a link to "9/11 myths".

http://www.911myths.com/

As far as watching " how fast it gets silent in here", I suspect it has more to do with astonishment that you somehow believe the nonsense you post hasn't been dealt with before.

[procopia]

3. Thanks

Thanks at least for using the term "dealt with." It's appropriate.

[SDuderstadt]

4. "dealt with" = debunked

just so you know...

[procopia]

16. claiming something is debunked doesn't mean it is actually debunked

just so you know...

[SDuderstadt]

21. Just because it isn't debunked to you doesn't mean it...

isn't debunked.

[Subdivisions]

26. It's not debunked. n/t

[SDuderstadt]

27. Oh, yeah it is, Subdivisions....

I know it sucks to be in a dying movement, but...

[Subdivisions]

28. Oh no it hasn't. n/t

[SDuderstadt]

29. Read the OP's laundry list again, Subdivisions....

Are you saying you stand by all of them? Are you?

[Subdivisions]

30. Nope. I have my own ideas. The OP is obviously new here and may

be new to the truth movement. Regardless, the more for our side, the merrier. I'm not a no-planer either, but I don't consider them silly or goofy and we share the same goal - a new investigation. You, on the other hand, seem to have no real purpose here since your mind is made up. Which means that you are wasting your time.

To the OP: Welcome.

[SDuderstadt]

31. Do you honestly claim you don'r have YOUR mind made up, Subdivisions?

If you really had an open mind, you would be open to some of the proof from the debunking side.

More importantly, answering "Nope. I have my own ideas" is a tacit admission that at least some of what the OP is presenting has already been thoroughly debunked.

[Subdivisions]

32. On the contrary, dude...

There are lots of debunked points that I agree with. It's the ones I don't that bother me. And I have no intention of ever listing them for you so don't even ask.

Like I said: You are wasting your time. You will NEVER change my mind as to whether a new investigation is necessary. I want a second opinion on 9/11.

[SDuderstadt]

33. "I want a second opinion on 9/11."

Okay, dude. Let start with NIST. Do you honestly think NIST would come to a different conclusion today? Do you honestly think NIST did not make an honest effort to get to the bottom of the collapses? If they didn't, doesn't it occur to you that after Obama was elected, someone within NIST would come forward and say, "I was told not to investigate certain things" or "I was asked to alter my conclusions" or "I worked on this part of the investigation, but I think something fishy was going on in that part of the investigation"?

Find that smoking gun and I will gladly support a new investigation into something other than Bush and Cheney's post-9/11 crimes.

[Subdivisions]

35. For now I'll just hang on the hope that NYC-CAN will get their ballot referendum...

...and let that investigation find the smoking gun for me.

As to the rest of what you said, time-waster:

[SDuderstadt]

37. So, you admit that there is no smoking gun but...

you expect a new investigation to find one? Can you imagine being a federal prosecutor, convening a grand jury and saying to them, "well, we really don't have any evidence against this guy, but could you please indict them anyway?".

[Subdivisions]

38. Did I admit there's no smoking gun? I don't think so. Bye. n/t

[SDuderstadt]

39. Then where is it, Subdivisions?

Why is that so hard? If you or the "truth movement" actually have one, wouldn't that result in a huge upswing in "truth movement" membership?

See, one of the huge problems with the "truth movement" is they keep promising this smoking gun and never can produce it. Maybe you might want to read the story of Peter and the Wolf.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

41. So, no smoking gun.

Why didn't you just say so?

[Subdivisions]

42. ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=256706#256948

[SDuderstadt]

43. Here...put this on your Christmas list...

[MrMickeysMom]

108. No, no, no... that's the wrong picture, SDuderstadt!

Don't use the one that you shoot yourself in the foot with all the time.

What a hoot it is to read yet another OP on this forum that call you to shoot your mouth off again...

then get the boyz to point out spelling errors...

then get bait and switch the obvious point of having a real investigation of 911.

You and da BOYZ have no such desire, so why don't you put your gun away for now and go listen to Black Op Radio tonight. Then, you can hear the many, many scholars, experts and witnesses take the Warren Commission's inaccurate story to task.

Bye.

[SDuderstadt]

110. "the many, many scholars, experts and witnesses"

You mean like Fletcher Prouty? I do have to say, I am impressed that you would show your face again after stupidly claiming that the only reason that the DPD converged on Oswald at the Texas Theater was because someone saw him enter without paying for his ticket.

[MrMickeysMom]

111. Quit making up excuses for walking that narrow road...

You know... the one where my or other people's claims are stupid and the testimony you cherry pick from that fiction put out by the Warren Commission describe Oswald's tasks of shooting a police officer and especially JFK.

You do just fine by yourself with the "embarrassment" stuff, which is well within your right, by all means!

Go right ahead, and make sure your boyz jump in that big cesspool of fun!
:popcorn:

[SDuderstadt]

112. It's pretty funny when the 'cherry-picker" accuses her opponent of 'cherry-picking"...

Especially after you read Johnny Brewer's affidavit, then tried to claim the only reason he called the police or had them called is because Oswald "did not pay for his movie ticket". I admire your bravery in returning to get your ass kicked on the facts again, but I have zero desire to go back and forth with you, dudette. Tell "Mr. Mickey" I said hi.

[Kalun D]

124. I LOVE IT

When SDude says he has no desire to go back and forth with someone

when he goes back and forth with people more than anyone else in the 911 forum... LOLZ!!!!

[SDuderstadt]

127. If you don't know the difference between ''someone''...

and ''people'' (in general), Kalun, you need more help than I can provide.

[Kalun D]

130. I know exactly what I said

sorry if you're having trouble comprehending

[SDuderstadt]

131. Dude, not wanting to go back and forth...

with certain people (like you, for example) doesn't rule out doing it with other people (for example, people other than yourself who, unlike you, don't have the nasty habit of twisting things I've said into things I've never ever said).

This is why you're not taken seriously here, dude.

[lovepg]

146. Prove he is not...

Yes thats your claim. Back it up big boy.

[SDuderstadt]

153. You need to learn the difference between a claim...

and an opinion, dude...

[lovepg]

155. I think i just did. A claim is an opinion......

If you say it is. And an opinion is fact if you say it is. About sums it up.

[SDuderstadt]

158. Absolutely wrong, dude...

An opinion cannot be a claim because it isn't presented as a statement of fact in the first place. In order to be a claim, it must be falsifiable. If I state, ''red is really the best color'', can you tell me how you could possibly falsify that??

Dude, as I have suggested MULTIPLE times, you could really benefit from taking a critical thinking class. Your local community college will have them.

[lovepg]

164. Wow ...

I guess I have to explain to you those appear to be your definitions of the two aforementioned items.

[SDuderstadt]

167. Nice try, dude...

explain how an opinion can be a claim. You do realize that claims have to be presented as statements of fact, right? Is an opinion a statement of fact? Hint: no. Again, you would benefit greatly from a critical thinking class. your local community college will have them.

[lovepg]

169. Oh how tedious...

Okay..
Sometimes people explain the idiocy of what other people are trying to do with a thing called sarcasm.
They try to point out that what that person is saying is erroneous by showing the absurd nature of their words.
When i made the statement you are seriously disputing i was JOKINGLY showing the absurdity of your words by pointing out your definitions change with the wind depending on convenience to your arguing position.

[SDuderstadt]

172. Is it my imagination or...

do you try to be incoherent?

[lovepg]

173. Do you try to be argumentative?

Or is it just me.

[SDuderstadt]

174. It's just you....

Do you try to be annoying?

[lovepg]

175. Do you try to be boring???

I mean come on and try and be a little creative for god sake.

[wildbilln864]

187. self deleted.. nt

[tenseconds]

5. lets start

Lets start with the lack of pilot efficiency. What's your explanation as to how these hacks managed to fly better than ace pilots.

[SDuderstadt]

6. Ace pilots typically don't slam their planes into buildings...

what makes you think you need highly advanced skills to aim a plane and hit a very large building?

BTW, are you a "no-planer"'?

[lovepg]

11. No of course any idiot can fly a plane into a building....

at speeds of 500 miles an hour mere feet above the ground like the Pentagon plane did.
Wanna try?
I am a lets get an actual investigation guy.
You are the guys with the STORY!

[SDuderstadt]

12. Why would a suicidal hijacker care...

about taking such a risk? You're still left with trying to prove that something which has already happened, could not have happened. not a great starting point.

[lovepg]

20. Not the point... again

the point is the skill level needed to pull it off not the willingness to do it.
Do you guys ever answer a question directly?

[SDuderstadt]

22. "Lared's Rule"

n/t

[lovepg]

150. He wants to complete the mission, And not die in vain?

[tenseconds]

19. detaIls please

Please go through the whole procedure here. First the takeover. Then the navigation. Please describe how this was managed in detail. Then the maneuvers prior to their crashing the planes.

[SDuderstadt]

23. Start with the 9/11 Commission Report....

if you have questions past that, I'm certain Bolo can supply you with a list of reference books.

P.S. How hard do you think it is to stab a pilot to death when he's strapped into his seat and you've got the jump on him?

[lovepg]

24. Or how hard is it for a barely able to fly manic to fly a huge jet into .....

The pentagon flying just above ground height at 500 miles per hour???
You say it is easy. All you have to do is take over the jet and punch in the right numbers into the planes computer.
Even an idiot can see the difficulty level of this flight path. One false move and the mission misses the target.
From a practical point of view it makes no sense at all. Coming in from the top makes way more sense from a difficulty level and a potential damage level.
It only makes sense to do it this way if you are trying to AVOID damaging the part of the pentagon that was not undergoing renovation.
And add in the fact that workers there in that section of the building were working on auditing the 9 Billion dollars Rumsfeld admitted was missing just days before.......
Well its all just a little too much isn't it?
Not for the official story nuts.

[SDuderstadt]

53. I just figured this out...

"manic" = "maniac".

Now your post makes a little more sense.

[lovepg]

56. My typing is pathetic.LOL!

[lovepg]

151. Actually manic makes sense as well. If flying a plane into a building....

mere feet above the ground at 500 miles per hour does not make you a little manic what will?

[SDuderstadt]

156. I'd say trying to...

decipher your posts comes pretty close.

[tenseconds]

45. you not him or anyone else

I'm asking you not bolo.
So the pilots and co-pilots were all effectively murdered in their seats with the apparent exception of flight 93.

Now that that deed is done with boxcutters by men weighing 40-50 pounds less than the pilots who were completely unaware of the cockpit entrances of the hi-jackers what navigational system was used by the hi-jackers?

[SDuderstadt]

46. Simple question...

Are you a "no-planer"?

[lovepg]

47. No I am a not a no planer......

At this point in time. But I am open to seeing evidence that might change my mind.
My official position is this. The Bush administration is full of PROVEN facist thugs and criminal liars.
They were in charge of the report that gathered and interviewed the principles and the evidence availible that created the official story.
The official story is full of unbelievable elements that make it impossible for me to take it seriously.
Therefore I wish nothing more than a new investigation by credible people who have full powers of government investigation at their disposal to get to the bottom of what really occured.

[AZCat]

48. You have proof...

the people in charge of the NIST reports are "facist (sic) thugs and criminal liars"? Please to provide evidence.

[SDuderstadt]

49. Excuse me, but what is a "facist"?

Someone who makes faces? I think you mean "fascist".

With all due respect, your "reasoning" process is backwards. Instead of looking at the evidence and working forward to conclusions, you decide that, since the Bush admin was guilty (of whatever), all evidence must point in that direction.

I, on the other hand, think we need to pursue indictment, prosecution and conviction of Bush/Cheney for their actions after 9/11. When you develop actual evidence of either LIHOP or MIHOP, I'll gladly sign on.

In the meantime, the really funny thing is you want a "new investigation by credible people who have full powers of government investigation at their disposal to get to the bottom of what really occured". The irony, of course, is that would be the, um, government. In the meantime, do you know anything at all about Richard Ben-Veniste, Bob Kerrey, Jamie Gorelick, Lee Hamilton or Tim Roemer? BTW, you don't interview a "principle", you interview a "principal".

Let me know when you find a:

[tenseconds]

51. re: smoking gun

You're not here to find a smoking gun even if one was stuck up your ass.If you can't determine from valid science and the oodles of disinfo presented to the public on 9-11 after the fact that it was a false flag operation you just haven't the ability to step out of the box or the egocentric stubborness not to do so.

Too much kool-aid here.

[SDuderstadt]

52. I see...if I disagree with you on the facts...

I "haven't the ability to step out of the box". Or, maybe you're just wrong, dude.

Why are "truthers" always so cranky?

[lovepg]

54. You make some good points.....

You are right another government investigation would not do much good.
I was thinking more along the lines of an independent prosecuter.
Its apparent to me no matter what we believe on this particular event the discussion and exchange of information i crave on this subject is not served with personal sniping at each other.
I value your ideas or i would not be here. I started off on the wrong foot lets start over.

[SDuderstadt]

57. My lack of patience with "truthers" is....

I find that many of them have not even read the reports they are criticizing. Thus, they continually ask questions for which we already know the answers. It's real easy to castigate the various investigations as the work of the "Bush administration" when it is clear that it not only would have been impossible for the Bush administration to control their work, the staff would have openly resisted such attempts.

For example, the 9/11 Commission staff examined 2.5 million pages worth of documents. Both co-chairs (including the Republican, Tom Kean), were openly critical of the Bush administration attempt to stonewall the Commission. That doesn't sound much to me like an effort to protect Bush. Having said that, however, there is little doubt that the Commission/Report could have been improved. But to ignore the work of the Commission, as well as the various NIST reports, the Pentagon BPAT, etc. leaves one almost totally dependent upon CT websites for your information. My question is how accurately can someone characterize the work of the various investigations without a more detailed understanding of it.

At first, I was more open to the various conspiracy allegations but, invariably, I sought out more information and would find out that quotes had been cherry-picked, conclusions had been misrepresented, dedicated public servants had been unfairly maligned. I don't know how anyone can look at the extraordinary number of FBI agents, local law enforcement, NIST and other agency scientists and others involved in the various investigations and somehow reach the conclusion that all of them would willingly or even unwillingly suppress the truth. That hardly means they got it 100% right, But, it wasn't for lack of trying.

[lovepg]

59. I see your point.

But that goes both ways. Many people who support the official story have never bothered to actually read it either.
Its hard for us "truthers" to understand the faith in the science that changes from one report to another.
The pancake collapse becomes something else to explain the messy freefall speed issue ,something that could have been explained one way or the other if the evidence had not been destroyed and carted away.
Now we are told the rabidly disinigrating upper floors of the tower contained so much momentum and mass it was able to cause the collapse of the lower floors that contained the much thicker structure support beams in near freefall time.
Mass is mass I believe is the argument. But if that mass is moving out away from the core structure as it falls and is spreading out into space the mass cannot exhibit the same force and momentum it had at the start on the contained area over the core.
The additional momentum obtained from each floor piledriving down was also balanced somewhat by the pulverization up and into the air into clouds much of the mass of the falling structure.
This element IS at work if official story people chose to ignore it or not. Add this into the equation and your new explanation for collapse at freefall speed has obvious problems.
The initiation of the collapse by the top section is still viable but its far from conclusive from the videos how long the mass of that section maintains structural integrity.
As it falls and breaks up into clouds it loses mass over the core as it hits the weight bearing columns below it. Collapse by all laws of logic should slow as the piledriving momentum is lost due to the mass disapating outwards
and the hitting of the weight bearing stronger lower columns. While these may not be enough to STOP the collapse it should have slowed it down out of the realm of freefall speed.

[SDuderstadt]

61. something that could have been explained one way or the other if the evidence had not been...

destroyed and carted away"

Right off the bat, you're relying upon another myth about 9/11. The "evidence" was not destroyed and carted away. Every square inch of the site was combed and the debris left behind was shipped to various recovery sites, where it was sorted and analyzed. Relevant evidence was, in fact, preserved. Gene Corley, the engineer who oversaw several joint projects with the American Society of Civil Engineers, testified before Congress that they were able to get the evidence they needed to study.

You need to study the Fresh Kills Recovery Site and pay particularly close attention to how extensively it was staffed. The argument you're making rests upon the assumption that the personnal at the site were not interested in solving the crime, an assumption I totally reject.

[lovepg]

65. So where is the steel?

Crimes scenes are not scrubbed clean and then have the investigators decide what is relevant evidence from whats left.
This statement alone smacks of a foregone conclusion. You look at all the evidence and see what it tells you.
The crime was solved as far as the Bush administration was concerned the day it happened. It was Bin Laden.
And the investigation was only to prove their foregone conclusion.

[SDuderstadt]

67. Dude...this is getting ridiculous....

Your argument is essentially, "well, I don't think it should have been done like this". Are you seriously arguing the debris should have been left in place at a recovery site? Again, i am going to say the problem you have is the way you look at things. As far as where the steel is, look at the attached site and about halfway down the page is a picture of just some of the steel being preserved.

No offense intended, but your lack of knowledge about the actual facts of 9/11 makes it near impossible to educate or reason with you.

http://www2.scholastic.com/browse/article.jsp?id=3747920

[lovepg]

69. Yes SOME of the steel was saved.....

Most was hauled away and scrabbed. If i walked into a crime scene cleared out the contents of the room then threw away 90% of the contents the cops would be apoplectic.

[SDuderstadt]

71. EVERY piece was examined to see if it needed to be preserved, dude...

See? This is why I am declining to engage with you. No offense.

[lovepg]

75. You are simply wrong...

The steel was not examined like a crime scene.
It may have been examined but if you are looking for one scenario and the steel does not tell you anything about that scenario then saying okay take it away does not pass muster on a serious examination.
It may very well say another thing about what happened. THATS WHY YOU PRESERVE THE EVIDENCE,
And thats why the investigation is suspect.

[SDuderstadt]

77. Dude...do you have any idea how much steel we're talking about here?

I'm done with your nonsense. Take your suspicions to a US Attorney and see if he/she laughs at you. This is silly.

[lovepg]

81. Yes a hell of a lot of steel. But why is that an excuse?...........

To not do a proper investigation. Could we not have waited to haul the steel away for as long as it took to do a real investigation?
After all New Yorkers have walked by the empty hole for years. Its not as if it was not an important thing to do this right and come to the correct conclusion.
THAT just feeds the conspiracy nuts like me LOL!!!

[SDuderstadt]

84. Done

n/t

[lovepg]

87. Yes id say so.

[colombo]

103. How Do You Know

"EVERY" piece was examined to see if it should be preserved?
Please provide detailed documentation of your statement.B-)

[SDuderstadt]

104. after you told me to "STFU"...

and called me an "imbecile" you think I'm going to respond to you???


you're kidding right?

[lovepg]

165. Translation...

I can't really answer that question LOL!!!!

[SDuderstadt]

168. You might want to check what happened to that poster...

his username used to be "Colombo". I think he made it all the way up to 6 or 7 posts.

[Bolo Boffin]

50. "The Bush administration is full of PROVEN facist thugs and criminal liars."

What's Al Qaeda full of?

[lovepg]

55. You are correct.

i guess I just expect a higher standard of conduct for our guys.
We are the good guys right?

[lovepg]

86. Bolo told me in another post the 911 commision was just....

Hypothesis after I cited the pancake collapse as the first official story.
So what is it then flawed conjecture or the bedrock of science we are to read to get the FACTS??????

[Bolo Boffin]

89. The 9/11 Commission wasn't a scientific group and they didn't say pancake anyway

NIST did the science part.

http://wtc.nist.gov

[lovepg]

90. Then why should we start there to get "educated".....

If its basically political cover for poloticians and not a serious inquiry????

[Kalun D]

125. Suggested LINKS

Start with the 911 Ommission Report (you know the one, vetted by those paragons of virtue and morals, the Bush Boy and mr. Cheney.)

then if you get through that try the

N-ot
I-ntended to
S-how the
T-truth

report.

If that's not punishment enough SDude also recommends

911myths.bogus, cuz it's incredibly biased and has unknown authors and unknown sources.

""How hard do you think it is to stab a pilot to death when he's strapped into his seat and you've got the jump on him?""

Pretty hard when he's a Vietnam Marine Vet, and you're one of those incompetent looking "terrorists" with a box cutter, that can't even light a shoe bomb.

How exactly did they "stab" them with boxcutters SDude? And the more relevant question might be how did they get NORAD to stand down using boxcutters?

[SDuderstadt]

126. We've been through this over and over, Kalun...

frankly, no one (including me) cares whether you believe it or not.

[vincent_vega_lives]

160. First

it is not established that what they acomplish indicated "these hacks managed to fly better than ace pilots" what ever that is.

[Subdivisions]

25. Dealt with by whom? n/t

[SDuderstadt]

9. Listen up, "truthers"...

You're being "schooled" by lovepg.

[Theobald]

58. If your premise is based on false constructs, your results will be wrong.

Just one of many, but it is glaring; you said that the Pentagon was "The worlds most heavily fortified defended building". Your basic premise here is completely false and you have no evidence to assert your claim. How could the Pentagon been the most heavily fortified and defended building if a highway ran within a couple hundred yards of the building on two sides?

[lovepg]

60. LOL. If you doubt how heavily defended it is try walking in..

Unannounced.
Edwards Air force base is less that five minutes away. Satellite survellance.
RADAR HELLO? cameras everywhere. Thats why you know there are other views that exist that show the plane hitting.
Missile batteries, armed troops ect.

[SDuderstadt]

64. "Thats why you know there are other views that exist that show the plane hitting."

You're assuming that you know where the cameras are aimed and I'd bet you have no idea what frame rate the cameras were recording at.

It's also silly to compare trying to walk into a heavily secured area and having a plane barrel into the building @ 500 MPH. Your personal incredulity is what's holding you back here, not the "official story".

[lovepg]

66. It always gets personal with you guys when you are having problems,,

Look its silly to argue the fact that the pentagon is not a heavily defended building.
Its the kind of goofy look over here tactic that makes this exchange of ideas difficult.
But that is the point correct? Security cameras are aplenty at the pentagon and to argue other just makes you look silly.

[SDuderstadt]

68. If you'd read what I wrote, the issue wasn't whether there are cameras there or...

how many, it's WHERE THEY'RE AIMED! Since most approaches to the Pentagon would be on foot or by vehicle, do you honestly think a number of cameras are pointed so they would have recorded the approach of the plane?

With this, I will politely bow out of further (pointless) conversation with you.

[lovepg]

70. Lol, pointless when you are advocating a silly point of view.....

I imagine every square inch of the parking lot is covered by various cameras.
Remember Oklahoma city? Trucks with explosives? Come on dude.

[SDuderstadt]

72. Dude...think this through...

were the trucks going 500 MPH? FYI, the frame rate on the cameras is one frame/second. Do the math and figure out how many frames would have recorded the plane.

[lovepg]

74. maybe you should............

You know about the confiscated views from security cameras in the area?
And why would the Pentagon have security cameras that have such low shutter settings.
Must be lack of funds LOL!!!!!

[SDuderstadt]

78. No, dude....it's a low frame rate so you maximize the number of images...

Have you ever noticed how security tape is jerky? Hint: that's why.


I'm done.

[lovepg]

80. How does that make sense??

Lower frame rate means LESS images!
The jerkyness comes from the gaps between the images much like old movies that had a lower frame count per minute.

[SDuderstadt]

85. Done

n/t

[lovepg]

88. LOL!!!!!

[Realityhack]

178. Which means more images per tape/megabite/etc.

Security tapes are not exactly their main line of defense against someone sneaking in to steal documents. They are something you go back to when you need to check when a car entered the lot for example.
You are making an enormous number of post hoc assumptions regarding Pentagon security. And most of them are not even remotely logical.

[Theobald]

92. No, it is silly to argue with you.

You made the outlandish, unsubstantiated claim, that the Pentagon was the most heavily fortified and protected building in the world. Then you pull this straw man shit where you suggest it is silly to argue the Pentagon wasn't a heavily defended building, when in reality I am not arguing, and it is impossible to construe that I am arguing, that the Pentagon wasn't a heavily fortified building, but what I am arguing is that it is not the most heavily fortified and defended building in the world, which was your original unsubstantiated claim. I did not argue about cameras, so your next claim is more bullshit also.

The Pentagon had two highways that ran within a couple hundred yards of the outer walls. The Pentagon allows a hundred thousand visitors each year, not to mention the private tours given by employees to their friends and relatives. The Pentagon is in a densely populated area with numerous privately owned buildings looking down upon the building. Civilians can walk, unannounced within a few hundred feet of the building. Planes routinely fly within a mile of the pentagon.

[Name removed]

94. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

95. If you believe the Pentagon is the most heavily defended building....

why don't YOU offer some proof of your claim?

There's an interesting pattern here. "Truthers" continually and aggressively make assertions without a lick of proof, then turn around and demand ever increasing levels of proof from skeptics. You aren't entitled to your own facts and you certainly are not entitled to a double standard for evidence.

[lovepg]

100. Yet you cannot disprove my assertion......

Show me the most heavily defended building in the world and prove it.
It is no more than you are asking of me. Which is why it is beyond you.
After all it is YOU who dispute my assertion so prove it wrong then.

[SDuderstadt]

102. Dude, no one has to disprove your claim...

You made the claim so it's your burden of proof. In Logic this is called "try to shift the burden of proof". So, now we need to add a poor grasp of Logic to all your other deficiencies. You might wamt to try an easier forum.

[lovepg]

107. No you claim the towers came down like the Nist report says yet..

We have the burden of proof to prove the assertions you believe to be true wrong.
Interesting......

[SDuderstadt]

109. Dude....pay attention...

YOU made the fucking claim...no one else has the burden of proof for YOUR claim but you. Demanding that your opponent disprove your claim or it may be presumed to be true is called "trying to shift the burden of proof". Then you try to change the subject to how the towers came down. The subject is your silly claim that the "Pentagon is the most heavily defended. fortified structure in the world". Not how the towers came down.

It's clear that the logical capacity necessary to hold your own in the forum is sadly lacking. I'm not wasting anymore time on it. I'm sure if you check that DU has some sort of a starter forum somewhere.

[lovepg]

113. You made the claim the NIST report is correct PROVE IT,,,

[SDuderstadt]

114. Show me where I said that, dude...

You can't.

In the meantime, you're being called on your lack of proof for your claim about the Pentagon and you can't wiggle out of it.

[lovepg]

118. SO you admit the NIST report is wrong????????

You admit you never said the Nist report is correct.
Finally an official story nut comes around.
You may have more brains than I thought possible!!!!!!

[SDuderstadt]

119. No, dude.....

Logic is not your strong suit. For the life of me, I don't understand why you keep flailing away at it.

[lovepg]

143. Its real funny reading the stuff you write.

Very entertaining. It makes it all worthwhile.

[SDuderstadt]

144. You might want to read a study entitled "Unskilled and Unaware of it"...

Would it surprise you to learn that illogical people lack the cognitive skills to realize that they are illogical?

[lovepg]

145. Would it surprise you the ignorant are usually the most arrogant?

It should.

[SDuderstadt]

147. Dude...you get your ass kicked on the facts regularly...

yet, your arrogance in the face of that is simply stunning.

[lovepg]

152. And you seem totally unaware you are guilty of doing exactly the same...

things you accuse others of doing. ALL THE TIME. Its really funny.
Getting my ass kicked on the facts is your opinion. I really didn't realize this forum was gonna be a territorial pissing match of geeks calling each other names.
Its a good thing your not all in the same room together or you would be challenging each other to pocket protector duals hourly.
How about growing up and actually engaging in a discussion instead of trying to derail the discussion at every chance with tangent al argumentative tripe.

[SDuderstadt]

159. I haven't called you or anyone else a single name, dude...

Please show where I have.

See? Tou just got your ass kicked on the facts again.

[lovepg]

163. How can I take anyone seriously who thinks You is TOU........

Really as YOU would say that affects your credibility when YOU Do that.
YOU need to take a class or YOU need to read a book so YOU will not Do that anymore.

[SDuderstadt]

166. By looking at the fucking keyboard and noticing...

that the "t" and "y" keys are next to each other. Then you can point out where I have ever taken you to task for a mere typo, dude. You're really stretching here, dude, but that's probably all you've got.

[lovepg]

170. Except you made the same statement about my typo??????

Now that is no longer valid because.......
I wait with baited breath apon your next rationalization.

[Realityhack]

179. Oh my. Are you trying to set a record for the most logical fallacies?

You have attempted to move the goalposts, thrown up an absolutely ridiculous straw man, and now you are trying to shift the burden of proof.

Even if you were not committing a blatant logical error it should be immediately apparent to anyone with half a clue that the pentagon is most likely NOT the most heavily defended building in the world. As was pointed out to you it is NOT on a military base, there are nearby highways, planes fly nearby, civilians are given tours of sections of the building, etc. etc.

I imagine there are several nuclear weapons storage buildings, launch silos, chemical and biological weapons facilities, special warfare buildings and other military buildings on military bases that are more secure in many respects.

[lovepg]

180. You imagine there are more heavily defended launch silos weapons facilities ...

Wow there is a statement with the full impact of actual proof behind it Huh. You inflated poofter lecturing me while making the statement that is supposed to nail me with I IMAGINE THAT?????

Guess what I Imagine about YOU?

[SDuderstadt]

182. I don't know, Lovepg....

what do you "magine"?

BTW, I don't recall you ever offering proof of your claim about the Pentagon.

[lovepg]

185. Ahh nor have you offered a shred of proof it is not.

See how stupid this game is? No of course you do not you are invested in it fully because you are its creator.
But let me assure you your thinking you are logics master by "nailing" me on the worlds most defended building claim when you knew full well the pentagon to be at least ONE the worlds best defended buildings shows how bankrupt your position is. You have no answer for a question and the first thing you do is look for misspellings grammar errors or some stupid niggling argument to derail and distract from your inability to argue your position.

[SDuderstadt]

186. Dude...

I keep urging you to take critical thinking classes. They would really do you good. Let me try to walk you through this. Hopefully, you can get it.

You made a claim about the Pentagon being the most heavily defended building/site in the world (or something like that). You were nearly immediately challenged for proof. To date, you haven't provided a shred of it. But, for some strange reason, you keep pointing out that no one has "disproven it". If you were trying to pull this shit in a critical thinking class, I suspect the instructor would seriously entertain the notion of disenrolling you.

YOU made the fucking claim. YOU have the burden of proof. When someone challenges you for proof or points out that you haven't supplied any, that ISN'T a fucking claim. What you're doing is trying to shift the burden of proof. I'm going to say it one last time. It's YOUR FUCKING CLAIM. Either you can prove it or you can't (so far "can't" is winning). You keep trying to claim that no one has disproven it in an attempt to distract from your inability to prove your claim.

This would be akin to a criminal prosecutor putting on no case, then, when the trial judge dismisses the case for lack of evidence, informing the court that he intends to appeal because the defendant did not prove he didn't do it.

It's bullshit like this that frustrates nearly everyone here to no end with you and it's also why no one takes you seriously. If you can't get this through your fucking head, I have difficulty understanding how you navigate the ins and outs of basic life.

As I have urged many times before, you would benefit greatly from a critical thinking class. Your local community college will have them.

Fallacy: Shifting the Burden of Proof

Scully: Your sister was abducted by aliens? Mulder, that's ridiculous!
Mulder: Well, until you can prove it didn't happen, you'll just have to accept it as true.

The truth may be out there, but who has the job of producing it in an argument? In the section on "Validity, Truth, and Soundess," we discuss the concept of a burden of proof, which is defined there as "how much each side of a dispute needs to prove in order to win someone's agreement." Sometimes, however, whoever is carrying the heavier burden attempts to shift that onus onto the other side--as Mulder does above. In claiming that his sister was abducted by aliens, he carries a much greater burden of proof, because we normally consider alien-abduction stories as incredible; as a result, it is up to Mulder to produce proof of his claim. But in the dialogue above, he shifts that burden to Scully, creating the fallacious impression that, if Scully can't prove it false, Mulder's alien-abduction story must be true. On the contrary, since Mulder is making an incredible claim, it is up to him to support it.
In easily verifiable claims, the person initiating the claim normally assumes the burden of proof. Not doing so, however, should probably not be considered a fallacy. The fallacy occurs whenever someone shifts the burden of proof to avoid the difficulty of substantiating a claim which would be very difficult to support.

http://www.sjsu.edu/depts/itl/graphics/adhom/burden.html

[lovepg]

188. Finally read this drivel...

Do me a favor. Run to google. Type in quote, Pentagon worlds most well defended building and magically all sorts of quotes and articles appear on the very subject.
My favorite is an article on how conspiracy theories work that says while talking about 911, " the pentagon which should be the worlds most heavily defended building"
My objection to this stupid argument is it is an obvious deflection device. The point changes little if indeed there is another more well defended building somewhere in the world.
It does not change the fact that the jet which hit its target at the pentagon that day never should have been able to.

[SDuderstadt]

189. Dude....if you type in your "search phrase"...

it links to other CT claims which are as badly in need of proof as yours is.

"Truther Logic": If I find other people making the same claim as me, that proves my claim.

[lovepg]

190. Well if you get to site questionable science from commissions appointed by

administrations engaged in a war on science as proof I suggest you just hush up young man!

[Realityhack]

191. Did you read the section on the logical fallicy you are commiting?

Your claim: The pentagon is THE most heavily defended building/site in the WORLD.
Not *a* heavily defended site.
Not just well defended
But THE most heavily defended in the entire world.

You were asked for evidence and have provided absolutely none. The burden of proof is on you to prove your claim. Or of course you could back away from it and admit that it may or may not be the most heavily defended but is heavily defended.

Anyway the burden of proof is on YOU.

I pointed this out. I also pointed out some examples of sites that you would have to PROVE the Pentagon was more heavily defended than. I do not have to disprove your claim by proving that a nuclear weapons storage facility on a military base is more heavily defended. You made the claim regarding The Pentagon and must prove my examples of potentially better defended buildings/sites are not as well defended.

And I doubt you can.

Furthermore, even if we granted that The Pentagon is 'the most heavily defended building in the world' (a very silly proposition) it does not follow that an aircraft should not have been able to hit it. We know from what little is released on military security testing etc. that it often isn't anywhere near as secure as one would expect. And it is very very hard to stop a diving airliner.

So you are very far from proving your complete claim that the airliner should not have been able to hit.

[vincent_vega_lives]

93. Don't forget

GI JOE is there!

YO JOE!

[Realityhack]

177. The goal posts... they are a'movin. n/t

[lovepg]

181. You mean like how official story nuts said that there were no structural..

engineers disputing the NIST report and then when there were it was they do not have expertise in skyscrapers and then when they got those ..
Well I don"t know what is your current excuse anyway????
But thats not really moving the goalposts is it? As long as its YOU doing it.

[SDuderstadt]

184. Could you provide the name of even one of these...

"official story nuts" who ever said anything remotely like what you claim, dude?

You and your stupid strawmen.

[Realityhack]

192. Oh look a red herring.

If you point out where I moved the goal posts I may very well admit I was wrong or that the 'initial placement' was wrong and make a case for why.
But that is completely irrelevant to YOUR moving the goalposts.
Either you did, or you did not.
You did.
Claiming someone other nebulous party did as well does not erase or excuse your doing so.

Going from 'The most heavily defended building in the world'
And 'airliner should not have been able to hit it'
to: 'you wouldn't be able to just walk in'
Is absolutely moving the goal posts and is an incredibly silly argument. I can't just walk in to the safe at my savings bank. Has nothing to do with wither an aircraft can hit the building. A very stupid attempt to show how secure the building was on your part given the two are entirely unrelated.

[Name removed]

105. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kalun D]

115. Actually

""in exactly the area of the building that was being renovated and that happened to contain workers working on auditing the missing 9 billion dollars that Rumsfeld confessed was missing days earlier.""

actually the correct number was $2.3 TRILLION

And Rumsfeld announced it on 9-10, knowing the next day when NORAD phoned him to ask if they could shoot-down some jets, he would not answer the phone.

[SDuderstadt]

116. Truther Logic...

If $2.3 Trillion cannot be tracked, that means it's missing or has been stolen.

http://www.911myths.com/html/rumsfeld__9_11_and__2_3_trilli.html

[Kalun D]

117. $2.3 TRILLION

If $2.3 Trillion somehow can't be accounted for, shouldn't they be trying to find out what happened?

Have they been looking?

Did they find out what happened to it yet?

Where did it go SDude?

[SDuderstadt]

120. Dude...

you know as little about accounting as you do engineering.

[Kalun D]

122. What Do I Need To Know?

If $2.3 TRILLION is unaccounted for what happened to it?

Have they been looking?

Did they find out what happened to it yet?

Where did it go SDude?

Is it okay with you if a company or government is "missing" $2.3 TRILLION on it's books?

Go ahead mr. accounting expert, explain it to us.

[SDuderstadt]

128. You need to learn how to read, dude...

the money isn't ''missing''.

[Kalun D]

129. "missing" is the REAL word

The lawyer weasle-speak word might be un-accounted for.

[SDuderstadt]

132. $2.3 Trillion wasn't stolen, dude...

and I'm not wasting any more time on this with you, so go find some other totally debunked ''truther'' myth to thump, dude.

Again, this is why you aren't taken seriously here, dude...

[Name removed]

134. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

137. I've answered your stupid question repeatedly, Kalun .

Yet, you insist on perpetuating this myth that $2.3 Trillion is "missing". Tell me something, Kalun. If you're not trying to mislead the reader into believing the money is stolen, could you please define precisely what you mean by "missing"? Are you seriously trying to suggest that you're not attempting to create the impression that the money is actually gone? Why else would you describe the money as missing?

Because the technique you're using is even more subtle than that. Here's the situation Rumsfeld was referring to:

In fiscal 1999, a defense audit found that about $2.3 trillion of balances, transactions and adjustments were inadequately documented. These "unsupported" transactions do not mean the department ultimately cannot account for them, she advised, but that tracking down needed documents would take a long time. Auditors, she said, might have to go to different computer systems, to different locations or access different databases to get information.

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=44199

Do you see anywhere in there where it says money is "missing", Kalun? 0f course not because, once again, you're twisting the facts to take a relatively ordinary occurrence and make it sound sinister. And, of course, in the process, you display your ignorance of facts, accounting and propriety.

So, I'm going to call your bluff, Kalun. You're certainly no progressive and I highly doubt that you, in any way, support the Democratic Party. Your constant references to "our crooked government" are a dead giveaway. Are you calling the 0bama administration "our crooked government"? How odd. Kalun, the truth is you're nothing more than a run-of-the-mill anti-government crank, masquerading as a progressive.

LOLZ!!! taken seriously by people like you? I couldn't give a rat's as* what people like you think, I'm here for the reader. And I get congratulatory PM's all the time for kicking OCT as* on a regular basis.

One more thing, dude. 0f course you don't give a rat's ass what people like me think because you have little, if any, regard for the truth. As far as all the "congratulatory PM's" you get, why don't your supporters praise you right here in the forum? Three reasons come to mind. 1) they don't really exist. 2) your "supporters" fear the ridicule they'd get for openly "supporting" your ludicrous claims and poor reasoning, or 3) you don't want the rest of us to see that your supporters are the same 2 or 3 fellow "truthers" who regularly get their asses kicked on the facts by just about everyone here. Or all three.

P.S. I have a really hard time taking someone who laces his posts with "LOLZ!!!" seriously, dude.

[Kalun D]

136. Missing

""the money isn't ''missing''.""

sure it is, it's missing on the books

where did it go?

are they looking for it on the books?

what's taking so long?

[defendandprotect]

121. You're right . . . amazing how little the "coincidences" matter to the OCT believers . . .

happened to contain workers working on auditing the missing 9 billion dollars that Rumsfeld confessed was missing days earlier.

Actually, McKinney was asking Rumsfeld about the $2.3 TRILLION missing -- which I think is now
$3.4 TRILLION -- but there was also tons of cash missing in Iraq and at this point I'm not
sure but I think it was 8 or 9 million.

Again -- I'm not positive about the cash amounts -- haven't come across that story in a while.
So -- I'm just saying what I think I remember.

Meanwhile .... this is very funny . . . !!!

It involves three large buildings falling into there own footprint without explosives something that is so hard to do there are but a few companies considered expert enough to pull it off WITH explosives. Perhaps they can explain why we should not always take down large office buildings from now on by flying large jets into them since this method seems to work so well.



:evilgrin:

[Kalun D]

123. $BILLIONS STOLEN, OCTers look the other way.

""Actually, McKinney was asking Rumsfeld about the $2.3 TRILLION missing -- which I think is now
$3.4 TRILLION -- but there was also tons of cash missing in Iraq and at this point I'm not
sure but I think it was 8 or 9 million.""

the money "missing" in Iraq was 8 or 9 $Billion. Just like Enron in Califa.

but people like SDude seem to think this is not a big deal.

[SDuderstadt]

133. Show me where I said anything remotely like that, dude...

this is just one more example of you twisting my words and precisely why I'm wasting no more time on you.

Bye, dude.

[Kalun D]

135. What Really Happened??

What do you think happened to the $2.3 TRILLION SDude?

are you not going to give us an answer? (not likely) We know you hardly ever answer a direct question because you know you usually get a beating when you do.

""and precisely why I'm wasting no more time on you.""

LOLZ!!! do you promise SDude? No more time, EVER??

[SDuderstadt]

140. Define "missing", Kalun...

then see if you can differentiate "money" from "balances, transactions and adjustments". If you actually understood accounting, we wouldn't be having this silly exchange. You might note this actually took place before Rumsfeld became Sec Def or Bush was inaugurated. Do you really think the Bushies wouldn't have screamed bloody murder if $2.3 Trillion was actually "missing" from the Clinton administration? Do you honestly think the GOP Congress would just let it go by?

In fiscal 1999, a defense audit found that about $2.3 trillion of were inadequately documented. These "unsupported" transactions do not mean the department ultimately cannot account for them, she advised, but that tracking down needed documents would take a long time. Auditors, she said, might have to go to different computer systems, to different locations or access different databases to get information.

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=44199

I'm not going to try to help explain things you can't seem to comprehend. I'm done, dude. I also note you can't seem to provide an example of me saying anything remotely like what you claim. If you continue to twist what I've actually said, we'll let someone else resolve it.

[defendandprotect]

138. $ 8 or $ 9 BILLION MISSING IN IRAQ . . .!!!

Funny how you can mix up those billions and millions -- !!!

Actually, don't think we bother with millions any more -- !!!

Thanks -- !!

[SDuderstadt]

162. "Start asking them to back up this story with facts and evidence and watch how fast it gets...

silent in here"...

I was just wondering how you're enjoying all this "silence."

[lovepg]

183. If you STFP for a post maybe we could hear???

[Realityhack]

193. STFP??

Hear what?
We have had lots of discussions in this forum on various 'theories' (the word must be used very lightly in this case) that truthers have come up with. The evidence has always been missing.

If you have a theory with evidence write it up and I will see what I think of it.