Stundie's "people who don't buy the official theory" thread

[maccy]

Maccy, I am very new to the world of forums! I haveonly ever been in 1 other forum regarding bank charges.

Here is what happened, you started off a thread. I defend what I've put and then mention something else to either back may claim or use it as a cross reference, then I'll get umpteen number of skeptics picking up every little thing I said, saying thinks like you can't prove that...it's just you opinion, then i post something to back up my claim which again in turn opens up other questions.


It the question which in turn make me go off the subject. I'm not making excuses but all of the posts that you see in my profile are all directed to the 3 links you created. I will try my best to keep on the subject but only if others do too.

You may call this a tactic from a CTer but it's just inexperience!!

OK I believe you when you say it's just inexperience. Ultimately, though, you don't help your own argument by bringing in new points before addressing points you've already raised. You can't be surprised if people try and deal with the new points you raised as well. It may not be a tactic but that's what it looks like.

In all honesty I think this thread has become pretty much useless - it started off being about your list people who don't support the official version and has veered off in too many directions to be much use any more.

Also, i think it is agreed that it is better to discuss the facts and evidence about the official accounts and the various alternatives than to get too bogged down in appeals to the authority of people who question or affirm a particular account or theory.

For this reason, I suggest you stop posting here and focus your attention on the other threads that covers points you have raised here:

This thread is about NIST vs Popular Mechanics.

This thread is about Norman Mineta's testimony.

This thread is about the NORAD 'stand down'

This thread is about the financial aspects of 9/11 including the asbestos and the put options.

By sticking to the subject in each of these threads, your argument would be much easier to follow. If you don't want to argue in four areas at once, stick to one and leave the others for later.

Really, though, this thread is a lost cause.

 

[chipmunk stew]

I wish you skeptics would stop assuming things about me.

These are eye witness accounts, this may prove that a plane hit the building, but it doesn't mean its the one we were told about you. As I said in previous posts, just release the footage of the plane hitting the Pentagon and that will shut me up and plenty of other CTers wouln't it?

edit: Your question pre-supposes that there is footage that clearly identifies flight 77. There is no reason to assume that such footage exists. The evidence converges overwhelmingly on flight 77 having hit the Pentagon. There is an abundance of physical evidence: hundreds of identifiable plane parts, passenger DNA matches, at least one photo of a burnt corpse in an airplane seat, a flight data recorder that closely matches the known flight path of AA77. There is an abundance of eyewitness testimony: dozens (hundreds?) attest to having seen the plane that struck the Pentagon, described in ways consistent with the appearance of AA77. There is also circumstantial evidence: flight 77's last known position and heading put it on course to strike the Pentagon at the time the Pentagon was struck; there is no evidence of 77, physical or eyewitness, anywhere else in the world.

How does the lack of one video that may or may not exist outweigh all that other evidence? How would seeing this video instantly change your mind? If any of the above could have been faked, surely a video could be too. Why is the above not enough?

This is another trait from the Skeptics, I give you eyewitness accounts but now you assume they are all DOLTS?? Your logic for coming to that conclusion? Is it because it doesn't fit in with the offical story so they must be dolts hey?

Very clever!! Anyway....if you wanna continue this, open another thread!!

I believe Beachnut was referring to the people in the list from the OP (none of whom were eyewitnesses) as dolts, not the eyewitnesses.

I'm puzzled as to what you think your quotes demonstrate. Is there a meaningful contradiction with the official account hidden in there somewhere that we must, for some meaningful reason, consider differently from the the way we consider the contradictory testimony that is typical in such a large-scale investigation of such a broadly witnessed event?

 

[Belz...]

These are eye witness accounts, this may prove that a plane hit the building, but it doesn't mean its the one we were told about you. As I said in previous posts, just release the footage of the plane hitting the Pentagon and that will shut me up and plenty of other CTers wouln't it?

Releasing pictures of a meteorite striking the earth would shut up those creationists, too. But it ain't comin'. Not every piece of evidence is in video format, Stundie.

This is another trait from the Skeptics, I give you eyewitness accounts but now you assume they are all DOLTS??

Eyewitness testimony is notiriously unreliable because memory and perception are frivolous things. If most people see a plane strike the pentagon, that helps credibility. The fact that a few people didn't see very clearly and recall different things does not mean that a plane DIDN'T strike the pentagon. The fact that thousands of pieces, bodies and a large hole were found at the pentagon helps prove the fact that that plane DID strike the pentagon.

Your logic for coming to that conclusion? Is it because it doesn't fit in with the offical story so they must be dolts hey?

Strawman. Also, irrelevant to the issue.

 

[chipmunk stew]

Really, though, this thread is a lost cause.

I disagree. Stundie has shown he is not completely immune to evidence in this thread.

He has all but conceded at least one point:

I’ll give you credit, I could be wrong about the passenger lists on AA77 which I said didn’t have any Arab Names on, but hey I was basing that of information under the FOIA.

It may be a jumbled and tangential thread, but it's not hopeless, IMO.

 

[stundie]

Stundie, have you looked any further into these discrepant numbers?

Do you still think Gravy was lying about this?

Not sure too be honest, this is where misinformation goes a little wild. The thing is that Gravy lied to about Cheney and Minetas testimony to fit his agenda. His evidence didn't match mine but it's not the point whether it had Asbestos on 38th or 68th Floor or any other floor.

The point was the Port Authority lost a 10 year court battle with insurance companies to fund the abatement program. Which would have cost $600 million to do.

He said the Asbestos was safe and I agree, then he went on to say that any time an office was emptied that they would remove the asbestos but my point was that it wouldn't need to be removed if it ws safe.

I pointed out that if the building was ever to be demolished. The asbestos would have to be removed before demolition as it would be unsafe, so there would be a $600 Million bill before the cost of the demolition.

So like I said, I'm not 100% sure but I would suggest that my figure is more accurate, although as I've said before, i'm always open to new evidence that would change my opinion.

 

[bob_kark]

 

[Regnad Kcin]

...The thing is that Gravy lied to about Cheney and Minetas testimony to fit his agenda...

It will be very interesting to see if you retract this once the man corrects you.

By the way, what, specifically, is Gravy's "agenda?"

 

[Horatius]

The point was the Port Authority lost a 10 year court battle with insurance companies to fund the abatement program. Which would have cost $600 million to do.

... The asbestos would have to be removed before demolition as it would be unsafe, so there would be a $600 Million bill before the cost of the demolition.

But once again you're ignoring the fact that that $600 million figure was for every building they owned, not just the WTC. Ignoring such facts doens't make us inclined to accept anything else you say. For someone who harps on about others alleged "lies", you're doing an awful lot of fact fudging yourself.

He said the Asbestos was safe and I agree, then he went on to say that any time an office was emptied that they would remove the asbestos but my point was that it wouldn't need to be removed if it was safe.

He also said that it was removed at the request of the new tenants. There's been so much hype about the dangers of asbestos that, unfounded or not, a lot of organizations don't want to have anything to do with it, for fear of being sued.

Have you ever bought a house? Asbestos was one issue that came up during the inspection of the house I bought a few years back. Why wouldn't it be an issue in these cases?

Take a look around at the rest of the JREF topics, and you'll quite quickly find that there are a lot of people who react to things without any consideration for the science behind it all. This is no different.

ETA: See what Gravy said here, in case you missed it.

 

[stundie]

It will be very interesting to see if you retract this once the man corrects you.

By the way, what, specifically, is Gravy's "agenda?"

Whats this....The Gravy Appreciation Club!! lol

No need for me to retract anything because Dick Cheney was at the POEC before flight AA77 hit the Pentagon. Regardless of what Gravy has to say about it.

Please scroll up and or look at the Norman Mineta thread for evidence of this!!

 

[chipmunk stew]

So like I said, I'm not 100% sure but I would suggest that my figure is more accurate, although as I've said before, i'm always open to new evidence that would change my opinion.

Then I would have to ask: Why?

The source you provided (wikipedia) referenced an article by someone who "did not check his writing with [people he quoted] for accuracy of fact", who quoted the president, since deceased, of a company that had nothing to do with the asbestos in the WTC as a primary expert supporting his argument, and who did not contact U.S. Mineral Products, ALCOA, the Port Authority, or, apparently, anyone connected with the buildings' construction.

On what basis do you conclude that your figure, based on this highly dubious source, is more accurate than the NIST figure? NIST was in contact with everyone they could find who was involved in the buildings' construction.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Whats this....The Gravy Appreciation Club!! lol

I can't speak for anyone else, but I for one do very much appreciate Gravy. His reputation as an authority on these subjects is well-earned.

Once again: What, specifically, is Gravy's "agenda?"

 

[Horatius]

Whats this....The Gravy Appreciation Club!! lol

Isn't in interesting how someone who doesn't have much experience with internet forums makes the same allegations against us as all the troothers at places like LCForum?

Things that make you go "Hmmm..."*

No need for me to retract anything because Dick Cheney was at the POEC before flight AA77 hit the Pentagon. Regardless of what Gravy has to say about it.

Please scroll up and or look at the Norman Mineta thread for evidence of this!!

Perhaps you could do the same, and address his comments here:

Dick Cheney arrives at POEC at 9:52, when it was Lynne who arrived at this time.

False. Prior to that Cheney was in the hallway, where he made calls and watched television. He moved to the PEOC after Lynne Cheney's arrival in the hallway. Believe different? Produce your evidence. Mine is in the Commission report. Read the footnotes. Remedial reading class continues.

Rather than just repeatedly asserting that Gravy has lied, why don't you post some actual evidence that his timeline is wrong?

And just so you know, your analysis of Norman Minetta's testimony doesn't count as "evidence".





*Am I showing my age with this? Dangnabit!

 

[Pardalis]

He said the Asbestos was safe and I agree, then he went on to say that any time an office was emptied that they would remove the asbestos but my point was that it wouldn't need to be removed if it ws safe.

I pointed out that if the building was ever to be demolished. The asbestos would have to be removed before demolition as it would be unsafe

So what is it? Was the Asbestos safe or unsafe, according to you?

 

[Gravy]

Not sure too be honest, this is where misinformation goes a little wild. The thing is that Gravy lied to about Cheney and Minetas testimony to fit his agenda

False. Remedial reading class continues. Cross-referenced records show that Cheney was in the tunnel when Lynne arrived at 9:52. From there they moved to the PEOC conference room, arriving between 9:55 and 10:00. See footnote 213 to Chapter 1 of the 9/11 Commission report.

How can you question the official version if you don't know what it is? I've asked you to to read the 9/11 Commission report. You haven't done so.

His evidence didn't match mine but it's not the point whether it had Asbestos on 38th or 68th Floor or any other floor.

Yes, there is a very important point. You don't know how to use reliable sources.

The point was the Port Authority lost a 10 year court battle with insurance companies to fund the abatement program. Which would have cost $600 million to do.

Remedial reading class continues. $600 million was the Port Authority's projected cost of all asbestos abatement projects at all of their properties. The Port Authority has over 1000 properties.

He said the Asbestos was safe and I agree, then he went on to say that any time an office was emptied that they would remove the asbestos but my point was that it wouldn't need to be removed if it ws safe.

Remedial reading class continues. The court and NIST said that, not me. I gave you the quotes.

I pointed out that if the building was ever to be demolished. The asbestos would have to be removed before demolition as it would be unsafe, so there would be a $600 Million bill before the cost of the demolition.

Remedial reading class continues. $600 million was the Port Authority's projected cost of all asbestos abatement projects at all of their properties. The Port Authority has over 1000 properties. If this sounds familiar, it's because it's the fourth time I've said it.

So like I said, I'm not 100% sure but I would suggest that my figure is more accurate, although as I've said before, i'm always open to new evidence that would change my opinion.

Remedial reading class continues. You've been given the evidence. Please present your evidence that shows the courts and NIST to be wrong.

 

[beachnut]

I wish you skeptics would stop assuming things about me.

These are eye witness accounts, this may prove that a plane hit the building, but it doesn't mean its the one we were told about you. As I said in previous posts, just release the footage of the plane hitting the Pentagon and that will shut me up and plenty of other CTers wouln't it?

This is another trait from the Skeptics, I give you eyewitness accounts but now you assume they are all DOLTS?? Your logic for coming to that conclusion? Is it because it doesn't fit in with the offical story so they must be dolts hey?

Very clever!! Anyway....if you wanna continue this, open another thread!!

I am talking about your list of experts!

Russ the pilot, is not very good, his opinion is wrong, and he is not a witness of anything about what you say he said!

The list of experts you say are not nut cases are mostly nut cases on the issues of 9/11 or have nothing to prove CT about 9/11.

Not much to make of your list.

Remember you made the list and your pilot CT guy is wrong!

Simple list, simple minds.

Where is this official story stuff posted?

Where is your support of you pilot Russ? What great fact did he present? Facts, do you have some?

 

[Regnad Kcin]

It will be very interesting to see if you retract this once the man corrects you.

Well, Stundie?

And again, what, specifically, is Gravy's "agenda?"

 

[beachnut]

Well a few days have passed since I was last on here.

NIST and Popular Mechanics didn’t contradict themselves as I stated in an earlier post because you sceptics have said that NIST were talking about the initial collapse and PM was talking about the actual collapse!


So what you sceptics believe is that NIST and PM did collaboration on the WTC collapse. Like when Tarrantino and Rodriguez produced the 1st & 2nd parts (Respectively) of that great mobster/vampire film From Dusk Til Dawn…………..Yeah!!


Even though NIST CONTRADICTS the PM version of the collapse and THEY DO NOT SUPPORT THE PANCAKE THEORY AT ALL!!

I’m laughing as I type this because no doubt you Skeptics will still be trying to defend the following contradiction with plenty of double-speak!

Yet another sceptics says….


So Bonavada agrees there is a difference of opinion? Yet all you other Skeptics think there is no contradiction. hahahaha!

I could laugh at you lot falling all over yourselves.

Then another one says…

So he agrees with NIST Pancaking theory, which they state they don’t agree with the Pancake theory…

I'm going to wet myself here...


I was expecting intelligent debate instead, yet all I’ve received are smart alex answers and people telling me things, then providing no proof to back up there claims.

So you guys expect me to believe that there were no abnormal put options even though….

To the embarrassment of investigators, it has also [learned] that the firm used to buy many of the ‘put’ options ... on United Airlines stock was headed until 1998 by ‘Buzzy’ Krongard, now executive director of the CIA.” Krongard was chairman of Alex Brown Inc., which was bought by Deutsche Bank. “His last post before resigning to take his senior role in the CIA was to head Bankers Trust—Alex Brown’s private client business, dealing with the accounts and investments of wealthy customers around the world.”
http://news.independent.co.uk/business/news/article161862.ece

And of course there is nothing suspicious at all….As South Parks finest Officer Barbrady would say “There is nothing to see here!”

OH, so you are the one who has proof of the put options and they were part of a cover up,

PULITZER PRIZE IS COMING YOUR WAY?

But I bet you will just wet yourself instead.

You have presented nothing new, no facts, and just cute little references to total junk.

Prove anything you have and you have a Pulitzer Prize.

And of course there is nothing you have at all….As South Parks finest Officer Barbrady would say “There is nothing to see here"

And waiting for you next burst of brain ripe tripe is so exciting I think you should wet yourself again! good job

 

[Alt+F4]

You see I never said that NORADs protocol was outdated, but yet you sceptics of got on your high horse to demand answers from things I never even posted.

Yeah, you did. Re-read your comments from Nov. 23 & 24. But what would I expect from someone like you who uses as a credible source a doctor who says things like "plane crashes" and "victims" and insinuates that some 9/11 victims are in some way responsible for their own murders.

 

[maccy]

Disentangling this thread

OK stundie, as I'm inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you come here in good faith, looking for a genuine discussion, I've copied some of your posts and the responses from this thread into more relevant ones. I urge you to check out the threads listed in the post below before posting again on this thread. Once you've done this, please stay on topic in each of the threads - I believe this will make your arguments much easier to follow.

OK I believe you when you say it's just inexperience. Ultimately, though, you don't help your own argument by bringing in new points before addressing points you've already raised. You can't be surprised if people try and deal with the new points you raised as well. It may not be a tactic but that's what it looks like.

In all honesty I think this thread has become pretty much useless - it started off being about your list people who don't support the official version and has veered off in too many directions to be much use any more.

Also, i think it is agreed that it is better to discuss the facts and evidence about the official accounts and the various alternatives than to get too bogged down in appeals to the authority of people who question or affirm a particular account or theory.

For this reason, I suggest you stop posting here and focus your attention on the other threads that covers points you have raised here:

This thread is about NIST vs Popular Mechanics.

This thread is about Norman Mineta's testimony.

This thread is about the NORAD 'stand down'

This thread is about the financial aspects of 9/11 including the asbestos and the put options.

By sticking to the subject in each of these threads, your argument would be much easier to follow. If you don't want to argue in four areas at once, stick to one and leave the others for later.

Of the four threads listed above, only the NORAD one doesn't have anything from this thread copied into it. I've also copied some of your posts about molten metal and thermite to this thread:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=65353

 

[maccy]

Oh, and if you do decide to stick around in this thread, stundie, can you respond to this post?

Thanks.

As far as this thread is concerned, I think the point still stands that most of the people you have listed do not believe that there was a government conspiracy behind 9/11. Some of those that do have been shown to have beliefs on other subjects that would suggest that their relationship with reality is tenuous at best.

I'd like to know what you think about the following tinhatters in the movement:

Alex Jones (apparently believes every conspiracy theory ever, plus some he's made up himself)
Steve Jones (cold fusion)
Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds (star wars beam weapons, no planes)
Jim Fetzer (JFK)
Rick Ratjer (no planes, holocaust denier)
Eric Hufschmid (holocaust denier)

Plus the following cynical exploiters, profiting form a tragedy:
Dylan Avery, Korey Rowe, Jason Bermas (deadbeat kids trying to get themselves a career in movies).
Alex Jones, again (cynicism dependent on how deluded he really is, but he still profits).

Do you stand for or against these people?

And can you find a single person that supports a theory of any kind of deliberate action on behalf of the government to cause 9/11 (either MIHOP or LIHOP) who isn't crazy or doesn't have a financial motive for perpetuating conspiracy theories?