Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

[Mr. Skinny]

To what question are you referring? If you remember my heated debates with Gravy, you'd know we went as far as research would allow in trying to determine where the pieces in the dumpster went, where they came from and if they were identified as being from Flight 93. Let's call it a stalemate at best.

I'm referring to this question:

The more appropriate question is if they are from 93.

What, specifically, is a legitimate debate topic, in your opinion, which has been posited here recently?

Well, nothing recently, which I think is why Mackey started that thread of his asking for something new.

There were lot's of interesting debate topics back in the old days, though some were so nutty I'd hate to label them legitimate.

I think the examination of the Harrit paper that found thermite in the WTC dust was a very legitimate debate topic, and not to belabor a sore spot, but the amount of money Silverstein got from the insurance companies was a good debate point. There have been many other topics regarding the effects of fire on steel that were legitimate, and discussion of fire protection and fire fighting. I could think of others if that's not convincing enough.

Why would it be a waste of time? If the debate topic is legitimate, the moderation fair, then this is an opportunity to humiliate the "dirty, lying bird." Imagine an ibis having to eat crow.

Again, IMHO, it's worthless because you don't really engage in the debate.

I think at this point, if you want a moderated discussion that satisfies your definition of legitimate, you need to start it yourself. Arrange for the moderation yourself, then start out a thread presenting your evidence to support your position.

And I'm not interested in seeing you "eat crow". I'd much prefer you be more straightforward in your debate and tell us what you really think happened, rather than just keep picking nits. Give us your theory or theories, if you have one or two.

In the years I've read your posts, I really don't know what you believe outside of "the information that's been offically provided is wrong, and bad people in the government are responsible", and frankly, I'm not even sure of that much.

 

[Clayton Moore]

And of course methinks thou dost protest too much.

 

[carlitos]

Or even:

The lady doth protest too much, methinks



On edit - sorry, I thought this was the general discussion thread. My bad.

 

[chrismohr]

The RJ Lee Group HAS samples with an iron clad chain of custody. Unfortunately, because of the government and media campaign to trash and discredit anyone who questions the OCT, no one who does business with the government will. Hopefully, as the truth about 9/11 spreads, this will change.



Well let's see. Here's the chain of events I'd like to see. If at any time this chain is broken, I will snap back to my usual extreme 911 skepticism but for now I am open to see if this happens:

1.) I am familiar with the fact that Harritt/Jones/etc did everything humanly possible to keep the chain of custody solid with their dust, and will tell anyone who will listen that I have reason to believe them.
2.) If they turn over some of that dust to RJ Lee for analysis and RJ Lee finds thermitics of some kind, then there are two possibilities: a) someone purposely tainted the sample b) the original dust has thermites. I would not assume the former and would be very impressed (knowing the people involved personally) that the latter is a real possibility.
3.) Then we (and I would be part of the call for an investigation at that point) publicize the results and look for a completely independent source of the dust. NIST has already personally told me they would blow off a dust analysis (no pun intended) on the chain of custody issue alone, so the next job would be to shift the scientific consensus first.
4.) If yet another study with dust from a completely independent source shows thermitics, then it's time to do some kind of litigation to get a proven source of dust from RJ Lee or the government vaults (preferably RJ Lee). Do they do FOIAs on dust?
5.) As scientific consensus changes, pressure builds and things get very ugly.

Will any of this happen? I totally doubt it. It would blow my mind. It would be the biggest surprise of my life. But if it does, then I will be proud of the small part I played in exposing a real conspiracy. I won't say impossible in advance, that's not scientific. It will unfold as it does.

Thermites in the dust? I'd say wow Bush/Cheney were even worse than I thought but I'd be OK with that information. If the 911 Truth movement doesn't release the dust for independent analysis, that will speak volumes for their credibility. Either way is OK by me. If they release the dust and RJ Lee says no thermitics, that's OK but don't expect me to believe the 911Treuth justifications for that if it occurs. If they find thermitics both times and then the government comes in to crush further research, that speaks volumes too. We just take the research to India or Germany and carry on until the scientific evidence is compelling enough to shift the consensus. Whatever the truth is is OK by me. Truthfully. And we'll see how many 911 Truth skeptics on this thread would blow this line of reasoning off and how many would take interest in it.

Bottom line: I've thrown down the gauntlet and told the 911 Truth activists we need an independent dust study if I am to believe their claims. It's the concluding challenge of my whole 18-part video series. If they take me up on my challenge, great. If not, that says a lot. Either way, those of us who really want the truth will get more truth because I made this challenge. If it pans out, it'll change my life and change the world. If it doesn't, it'll confirm what I am 99.999% certain is true.

And Chris 7 will have to tell me if he likes beer, wine, margaritas or sparkling apple cider because I would definitely owe him one.

 

[Clayton Moore]

Isn't it kinda standard procedure to reassemble a commercial aircraft to determine the cause of a crash?

 

[beachnut]

I've never heard of anyone being UNconvinced that the 9/11 collapses were not some kind of controlled demolitions.

Thousand of kids who matured, gained knowledge, and learned to think for themselves. Your failed research skills are showing. No wonder you have no clue what happen on 911. You are off-topic, and spewing nonsense. What you are saying is people who have no clue what happen on 911 can't gain knowledge and reject your moronic delusions and idiotic claims. You are the big winner.


wow

ahhahahhaha

If 9/11 weren't an inside job you'd be frying your fish elsewhere. Why else would so many people who consider themselves oh so intelligent be so pent up about truthers who they say are numbingly dumb?

What?
Your are spreading lies, and have failed to make a point as you post off-topic. You claims are dumber than dirt, and you can't do much more than post off-topic. What is your point? You make no sense, and I believe this is a factor why you can't figure out the COMPLEX PLOT OF 911.
Plot.
1. Take planes.
2. Crash planes into large buildings.

Too complex, so you make up wild lies out of ignorance.

 

[Mr. Skinny]

Isn't it kinda standard procedure to reassemble a commercial aircraft to determine the cause of a crash?

Not if the cause of the crash is obvious.

 

[Travis]

Isn't it kinda standard procedure to reassemble a commercial aircraft to determine the cause of a crash?

Actually, no it is not. Reassembling a crashed aircraft is rare enough to warrant news coverage whenever it is done. It's hard to do and you need a good reason to attempt it.

 

[ozeco41]

The RJ Lee Group HAS samples with an iron clad chain of custody. Unfortunately, because of the government and media campaign to trash and discredit anyone who questions the OCT, no one who does business with the government will. Hopefully, as the truth about 9/11 spreads, this will change.

Well let's see. Here's the chain of events I'd like to see. If at any time this chain is broken, I will snap back to my usual extreme 911 skepticism but for now I am open to see if this happens:

1.) I am familiar with the fact that Harritt/Jones/etc did everything humanly possible to keep the chain of custody solid with their dust, and will tell anyone who will listen that I have reason to believe them.
2.) If they turn over some of that dust to RJ Lee for analysis and RJ Lee finds thermitics of some kind, then there are two possibilities: a) someone purposely tainted the sample b) the original dust has thermites. I would not assume the former and would be very impressed (knowing the people involved personally) that the latter is a real possibility.
3.) Then we (and I would be part of the call for an investigation at that point) publicize the results and look for a completely independent source of the dust. NIST has already personally told me they would blow off a dust analysis (no pun intended) on the chain of custody issue alone, so the next job would be to shift the scientific consensus first.
4.) If yet another study with dust from a completely independent source shows thermitics, then it's time to do some kind of litigation to get a proven source of dust from RJ Lee or the government vaults (preferably RJ Lee). Do they do FOIAs on dust?
5.) As scientific consensus changes, pressure builds and things get very ugly.

Will any of this happen? I totally doubt it. It would blow my mind. It would be the biggest surprise of my life. But if it does, then I will be proud of the small part I played in exposing a real conspiracy. I won't say impossible in advance, that's not scientific. It will unfold as it does.

Thermites in the dust? I'd say wow Bush/Cheney were even worse than I thought but I'd be OK with that information. If the 911 Truth movement doesn't release the dust for independent analysis, that will speak volumes for their credibility. Either way is OK by me. If they release the dust and RJ Lee says no thermitics, that's OK but don't expect me to believe the 911Treuth justifications for that if it occurs. If they find thermitics both times and then the government comes in to crush further research, that speaks volumes too. We just take the research to India or Germany and carry on until the scientific evidence is compelling enough to shift the consensus. Whatever the truth is is OK by me. Truthfully. And we'll see how many 911 Truth skeptics on this thread would blow this line of reasoning off and how many would take interest in it.

Bottom line: I've thrown down the gauntlet and told the 911 Truth activists we need an independent dust study if I am to believe their claims. It's the concluding challenge of my whole 18-part video series. If they take me up on my challenge, great. If not, that says a lot. Either way, those of us who really want the truth will get more truth because I made this challenge. If it pans out, it'll change my life and change the world. If it doesn't, it'll confirm what I am 99.999% certain is true.

And Chris 7 will have to tell me if he likes beer, wine, margaritas or sparkling apple cider because I would definitely owe him one.

Once again may I commend you chrismohr for going the extra mile to meet truthers on their own ground - complete with tilted playing fields, distorted logic and the other forms of mendacity.

In this instance you are prepared to credit any presence of thermXte on-site as indicative of some serious political misdemeanours.

So, sorry, I recognise your willingness to go that extra mile BUT...

...you give in far too easy.

Of itself presence of thermite in dust is only one building block in a many blocks claim. Don't forget that the truther claim is MIHOP assistance on top of impact and fire damage using demolition techniques to ensure collapse. That simply did not happen. There was no demolition and there are at least several paths of logic to establish the fact of "no demolition". It would not matter one iota to the MIHOP demolition claims if there was a ten tonne stock pile of thermXte on site. In fact, with hindsight, maybe the terrorists should have planted some.

Part of your going the extra mile to discuss with truthers is that you are giving credibility to the stock standard bit of truther illogic that focuses on one aspect of a claim standing alone; ignores all the other evidence and claims victory on the basis of that one factor (or rather attempts or intends to claim - I am not aware of a single relevant aspect of WTC 9/11 collapses that truthers have raised and sustained against rebuttal).

Even if there is/was thermXte on site there is still a long way to go to prove demolition. I understand why you are prepared to handicap the side which is really interested in truth by giving all the advantages you can to the side using the other meaning of "truth".

One benefit is that you have managed to keep a partial dialogue going with chris7 BUT purely on his grounds. Whenever you, like me and others, push him at his sticking points he digs in deep. Witness the twisted gobbledegook he is using to misrepresent the thermal factor in collapse of WTC7.

So keep up the good work. The end point is in sight.

 

[RedIbis]

I'm referring to this question:




Well, nothing recently, which I think is why Mackey started that thread of his asking for something new.

There were lot's of interesting debate topics back in the old days, though some were so nutty I'd hate to label them legitimate.

I think the examination of the Harrit paper that found thermite in the WTC dust was a very legitimate debate topic, and not to belabor a sore spot, but the amount of money Silverstein got from the insurance companies was a good debate point. There have been many other topics regarding the effects of fire on steel that were legitimate, and discussion of fire protection and fire fighting. I could think of others if that's not convincing enough.




Again, IMHO, it's worthless because you don't really engage in the debate.

I think at this point, if you want a moderated discussion that satisfies your definition of legitimate, you need to start it yourself. Arrange for the moderation yourself, then start out a thread presenting your evidence to support your position.

And I'm not interested in seeing you "eat crow". I'd much prefer you be more straightforward in your debate and tell us what you really think happened, rather than just keep picking nits. Give us your theory or theories, if you have one or two.

In the years I've read your posts, I really don't know what you believe outside of "the information that's been offically provided is wrong, and bad people in the government are responsible", and frankly, I'm not even sure of that much.

Well, I've always found you civil and friendly and you've even made me laugh at what must be frustrating about my approach. Still, when asked a direct, specific question, rather than disingenuous hypotheticals, I have tried to answer as sincerely as possible. If you ask me vaguely, "what do you think happened?" The only honest answer is "I don't know." I don't know what happened in Shanksville, but the initial claim is still under enormous scrutiny with the obligation to provide evidence. If this obligation isn't met reasonably, just because no alternative theory is presented does not make it correct.

I agree with your picks for topics. I agree that the wheat has to be separated from the chaff, but you must notice that for every wacky space beam theory, there are literally hundreds of posts choosing to focus on such topics and avoiding some of the ones you've mentioned. With that, this sub-forum is absolutely flooded with rancor and worthless topics about Twoofers, and other such nonsense (although with some recent housecleaning I bet that will be cut down some).

If there's a thread or a debate devoted entirely to objective research and civil discussion, you'd probably not find me anywhere else. I imagine you'd appreciate that as well. There are a few, on both sides who would enjoy a mature, friendly environment to research what might be the most compelling and complicated historical event in history without it always descending into a childish pissing match.

 

[beachnut]

Isn't it kinda standard procedure to reassemble a commercial aircraft to determine the cause of a crash?

If we don't know the cause! We know exactly what caused 93 to crash. We have people who died on Flight 93 testified before death, that terrorists took over the plane. In fact, Passengers on Flight 93 figured out 911 in minutes, a task you have failed to do in 10 years! At least you have company, RedIbis shares your inability to figure out 911.

Once again your lack of knowledge is exposed. The NTSB does not do crime, 911 was a crime, no need to put the plane together since the crime was on purpose fling the plane into the ground, as seen in the FDR information which you could get if you knew how.

 

[beachnut]

... I don't know what happened in Shanksville, but the initial claim is still under enormous scrutiny with the obligation to provide evidence. If this obligation isn't met reasonably, just because no alternative theory is presented does not make it correct. ...

The FDR shows 93 impacted as it did, where it did.
RADAR shows 93 impacted where it did.
Passengers reported the terrorists took the plane.
ATC has the pilots screaming as they are killed and the plane is taken.
Aircraft parts were found exactly where on RADAR the plane went down.
All the passenger, crew, and terrorist DNA in the hole in the ground, just like in accidents like the USAF has with high speed impacts.

What we have here is your inability to gather evidence, comprehend evidence and make a valid conclusion. Instead you act up and pretend there is no evidence, a lie, and you repeat this every so often, acting as if you were not debunked, making up new reasons to avoid the evidence.

There are not two sides. 911 truth has delusions, they have not stepped into reality with evidence, they have failed opinions, lies and delusions. You picked to ignore reality and act like a kid, pretending evidence does not exist, and repeating it until you believe it. Your signature says it all.

"enormous scrutiny", that is nonsense, you are confusing the enormous ignorance of 911 truth with scrutiny.

 

[TJM]

Yet it's debunkers who post most of the threads in the section. Go figure.

And yes, I have convinced people, or at least, I showed them the evidence and they convinced themselves. You are far more stubborn, however. You're in too deep methinks. Even if you realized you were wrong, you'd never admit it.

Project much?

 

[Mr. Skinny]

Well, I've always found you civil and friendly and you've even made me laugh at what must be frustrating about my approach. Still, when asked a direct, specific question, rather than disingenuous hypotheticals, I have tried to answer as sincerely as possible. If you ask me vaguely, "what do you think happened?" The only honest answer is "I don't know." I don't know what happened in Shanksville, but the initial claim is still under enormous scrutiny with the obligation to provide evidence. If this obligation isn't met reasonably, just because no alternative theory is presented does not make it correct.

I agree with your picks for topics. I agree that the wheat has to be separated from the chaff, but you must notice that for every wacky space beam theory, there are literally hundreds of posts choosing to focus on such topics and avoiding some of the ones you've mentioned. With that, this sub-forum is absolutely flooded with rancor and worthless topics about Twoofers, and other such nonsense (although with some recent housecleaning I bet that will be cut down some).

If there's a thread or a debate devoted entirely to objective research and civil discussion, you'd probably not find me anywhere else. I imagine you'd appreciate that as well. There are a few, on both sides who would enjoy a mature, friendly environment to research what might be the most compelling and complicated historical event in history without it always descending into a childish pissing match.

RedIbis, I appreciate the thought you put into this answer. It lets me know that even though I can disagree with you, I'd still like to share a beer with you.

I also realize that you try to disassociate yourself with the space beam type truthers. I've never thought of you that way.

Speaking of beer, I've had a few tonight, and would prefer to answer you more in depth tomorrow.

 

[RedIbis]

RedIbis, I appreciate the thought you put into this answer. It lets me know that even though I can disagree with you, I'd still like to share a beer with you.

I also realize that you try to disassociate yourself with the space beam type truthers. I've never thought of you that way.

Speaking of beer, I've had a few tonight, and would prefer to answer you more in depth tomorrow.

Enjoy your evening. Tonight's screed was sponsored by Cigar City Brewery's Maduro Brown Ale.

 

[NoahFence]

Isn't it kinda standard procedure to reassemble a commercial aircraft to determine the cause of a crash?

LOL

 

[triforcharity]

That is ridiculous. I'm sure your mates will agree.

It's not ridiculous, and I do agree. Maybe you could ask the Charleston SC Fire Department how they feel about steel trusses in fires? Yeah, they lost 9 good men to a roof collapse due to fire.

Would you like to read up on it? It took 47 minutes to fail.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

All you're doing is making assumptions. You don't know what I've researched or who I've contacted. I wouldn't assume my comments in this forum represent the totality of my involvement with 9/11 research.

Your commentaries or "doubts" are based on common claims made by ae911truth (doubts about official collapse explanations), killtown (doubts about flight93 crashing at Shanksville), & CIT Loose Change (doubts about a the plane hitting the Pentagon), to name a few. I can make a number of safe assumptions based on your commentary; what I cannot "assume" is exactly whether or not your reasons for those doubts are the same as what the groups your doubts overlap with are. Because you never give details.

As for debate, feel free to present a legitimate debate topic, get it moderated and I'm all in.

Have you ever discussed why your "first time in history" with fires and steel framed buildings is relevant? Have you ever spoken as to what we should have expected to see if a plane the size of flight 93 crashed at Shankseville? Have you produced detailed documentation to prove that the insurance companies paying out the "made out like a bandit" Silverstein were frauded? No. I'm more than happy to have a discussion like this if it means you'd be willing to give more detail on what your claims are.


*Edit to clarify: CIT believes in the flyover theory which I see no indication of from you.

 

[sylvan8798]

Isn't it kinda standard procedure to reassemble a commercial aircraft to determine the cause of a crash?

Please explain what they would learn from reassembling a plane which was flown into the ground on purpose?

 

[sylvan8798]

That is ridiculous. I'm sure your mates will agree.

I agree that there is something ridiculous here, but it sure isn't beachnut's posts