How do truthers explain the phone calls?

[Mr. Skinny]

No I know what you are trying to do, all someone had to do is rely on their own experience with phones. You try to give them some hi-tech sounding explanation for what is heard in that tape. I believe that when I point out to people to rely on their own experience, they will believe the call is suspicious.

My experience with telephones goes back to circa 1957 when we had a "party line" with different ring patterns depending on which household the call was intended for.

I think I have a lot of experiece with phones. I've heard all sorts of echoing/bleed over from other lines, etc.

Please tell me of your extensive experience.

 

[Edx]

There's so much evidence against the official story and so little for it, that this one piece is far from needed.

I think this sentence kind of sums up the neverending logic loop you and others like you are in that propagates your delusion.

So - all claims individually whether they are true or false is unimportant. IE. theres plenty more claims if one is false, so as a whole they prove your case and because you have so many claims thats a lot to be wrong about and that idea you find unlikely therefore you conclude you must be correct.

For rational people they understand that after a certain amount of claims get shown to be false, absurd, a lie, a distortion, whatever you want to call it they are going to question where they got those claims originally and why they should trust the validity of the rest of those claims that came from the same source. (eg. Alex Jones, Loose Change, David Ray Griffin etc) I like the phrase Charlie Veitch used, which was to call it the "wall of absurdity", because that really is what it is like. The more irrational among truthers that apparently includes yourself is this apparent insistence that nothing is ever good enough, even if you could disprove 80 or 90% of their claims, even to their own satisfaction, they would still say that 10 or 20% left proves that their case is correct. Therefore it doesnt matter about debating the validity of any of your claims individually, because no one would be able to disprove all of them to your satisfaction, and critically, be able to do so all at the same time. Additionally since there is a neverending supply of new claims, you can therefore never reject your conclusions about 911.

I am fascinated not just by truthers but by mindsets like this. I like to think of myself as a rationalist and a skeptic. I have been taken in by false claims and poor thinking in the past, but I'm human and I have strove for honesty and integrity and so I learnt how I had been wrong and feel I am more intellectually aware because of it. When I am wrong about something, (especially when it was something big like 911 Conspiracy Theories), I feel a sence of shame and guilt. The idea that someone could have been misled into believing something that wasnt true because of what i said I find quite upsetting and tortuous. What I find constantly amazing is how people like truthers do not appear to feel this way about being wrong. If someone really has been shown to have lied about something or so incompetent you cant tell the difference, that has severely ruined the credibility of anything they have left to say about something, apparently not for everyone. They will invent all kinds of tortuous logic in order to imagine themselves not wrong in the first place, or that even if they are wrong the person who made the claim did not do it deliberatly and does not affect their competency. In short, they refuse to apply the same level of skepticism to their own claims as they do to the subjects they argue against.

This doesnt just include truthers, but includes people like Creationists which was my focus for many years before the internet made me aware of conspiracy theorists which I really wasn't prepared for and so I didnt have a basis to realise just how little they deserved any credibility. I learned the hard way, by soaking it all in thinking it was true taken at face value, before finally deciding I wanted to make damn sure they were correct before i went around really promoting it as if it was factual in the real world, to make sure I knew what the critcisms were in order to best respond to them. It turned out to have the opposite effect and none of them could stand up to scrutiny and they were more wrong than I ever thought they could be.

 

[BaaBaa]

Real 911 truth is not 'a cult.'

Nice kilt, Jock.

 

[tmd2_1]

My experience with telephones goes back to circa 1957 when we had a "party line" with different ring patterns depending on which household the call was intended for.

I think I have a lot of experiece with phones. I've heard all sorts of echoing/bleed over from other lines, etc.

Please tell me of your extensive experience.

The same as anyone else my age and I've never heard anything like that.

 

[tmd2_1]

I think this sentence kind of sums up the neverending logic loop you and others like you are in that propagates your delusion.

So - all claims individually whether they are true or false is unimportant. IE. theres plenty more claims if one is false, so as a whole they prove your case and because you have so many claims thats a lot to be wrong about and that idea you find unlikely therefore you conclude you must be correct.

For rational people they understand that after a certain amount of claims get shown to be false, absurd, a lie, a distortion, whatever you want to call it they are going to question where they got those claims originally and why they should trust the validity of the rest of those claims that came from the same source. (eg. Alex Jones, Loose Change, David Ray Griffin etc) I like the phrase Charlie Veitch used, which was to call it the "wall of absurdity", because that really is what it is like. The more irrational among truthers that apparently includes yourself is this apparent insistence that nothing is ever good enough, even if you could disprove 80 or 90% of their claims to be false, even to their own satisfaction, they would still say that 10 or 20% left proves that their case is correct. Therefore it doesnt matter about debating the validity of any of your claims individually, because no one would be able to disprove all of them to your satisfaction, and critically, be able to do so all at the same time. Additionally since there is a neverending supply of new claims, you can therefore never reject your conclusions about 911.

I am fascinated not just by truthers but by mindsets like this. I like to think of myself as a rationalist and a skeptic. I have been taken in by false claims and poor thinking in the past, but I'm human and I have strove for honesty and integrity and so I learnt how I had been wrong and feel I am more intellectually aware because of it. When I am wrong about something, (especially when it was something big like 911 Conspiracy Theories), I feel a sence of shame and guilt. The idea that someone could have been misled into believing something that wasnt true because of what i said I find quite upsetting and tortuous. What I find constantly amazing is how people like truthers do not appear to feel this way about being wrong. If someone really has has been shown to have lied to be about something or so incompetent you cant tell the difference, that has severely ruined the credibility of anything they have left to say about something, apparently not for everyone. They will invent all kinds of tortuous logic in order to imagine themselves not wrong in the first place, or that even if they are wrong the person who made the claim did not do it deliberatly and does not affect their competency. In short, they refuse to apply the same level of skepticism to their own claims as they do to the subjects they argue against.

This doesnt just include truthers, but includes people like Creationists which was my focus for many years before the internet made me aware of conspiracy theorists which I really wasn't prepared for and so I didnt have a basis to realise just how little they deserved any credibility. I learned the hard way, by soaking it all in thinking it was true taken at face value, before finally deciding I wanted to make damn sure they were correct before i went around really promoting it as if it was factual, to make sure I knew what the critcisms were in order to best respond to them. It turned out to have the opposite effect and none of them could stand up to scrutiny and they were more wrong than I ever thought they could be.

You realize you could reverse what you said, and it would be more than true. The official story is more than absurd. As I've mentioned before in this thread I believe, Atta drives from Boston to Portland just to fly back to Boston. This puts the whole plan in great jeopardy potentially. You have the hijackers waiting until 93 was near Cleveland to start the hijacking. Both of these are completely absurd, and there's so much more. Yet you want to call a female's voice "echoing" in a male's voice, and voices at the end of the conversation, one appears to be saying "testing" that's all normal. Amazing it really is. As I said if that is Ceecee it wouldn't change my feelings towards that day in the slightest. Of course if it isn't it's game over. That's where the real problem is you no choice but to defend this, your dogma dictates it.

 

[Edx]

You realize you could reverse what you said, and it would be more than true.

No, the reverse could not be true but I knew you would react that way.

You have already stated that an individual claims validity simply does not matter to you, this is exactly the opposite of what I said. That is exactly the reason why it is pointless debating you. I have tried with specific issues such as the issue of landfill fires and reports of molten steel, but you either refuse to admit you were wrong with some arduous tortured logic and absurd scenario or you skip it entirely and move the goal posts but refuse to acknowledge you're doing that. You probably dont even notice you're doing it, but most crucially of all I really don't think you see why you shouldn't do it which is precisely the reason why you believe that individuals claims being true or false just does not matter. Without actually saying it you have managed to construct a worldview framed in what you believe is logic, but is in fact a illogcal circle that makes you never able to accept you are wrong no matter what.

You can sit there and pretend you can turn it all back on me as much as you want, but in my view individual claims do matter, the big picture is made up of lots of specific points and the credibility of those making those claims matters.

Look what you did in this post, you bring up yet another selection of claims. If someone were to prove even to your own satisfaction that you were wrong on all those points, would you admit your argument is in serious jeopardy? That your sources have lied or are so incompetent you cant tell the differerence and perhaps you were wrong about all this after all? Of course not, because as you told us just now "There's so much evidence against the official story and so little for it, that this one piece is far from needed.".

I deeply care when I'm wrong, you don't. Thats the difference.

 

[332nd]

The same as anyone else my age and I've never heard anything like that.

I'm 39 & I've heard it.

 

[tmd2_1]

No, the reverse could not be true but I knew you would react that way.

You have already stated that an individual claims validity simply does not matter to you, this is exactly the opposite of what I said. That is exactly the reason why it is pointless debating you. I have tried with specific issues such as the issue of landfill fires and reports of molten steel, but you either refuse to admit you were wrong with some arduous tortured logic and absurd scenario or you skip it entirely and move the goal posts but refuse to acknowledge you're doing that. You probably dont even notice you're doing it, but most crucially of all I really don't think you see why you shouldn't do it which is precisely the reason why you believe that individuals claims being true or false just does not matter. Without actually saying it you have managed to construct a worldview framed in what you believe is logic, but is in fact a illogcal circle that allows you to never be able to accept you are wrong no matter what.

You can sit there and pretend you can turn it all back on me as much as you want, but in my view individual claims do matter, the big picture is made up of lots of specific points and the credibility of those making those claims matters.

Look what you did in this post, you bring up yet another selection of claims. If someone were to prove even to your satisfaction that you were wrong on all those points, would you admit your argument is in serious jeopardy? That your sources have lied or are so incompetent you cant tell the differerence and perhaps you were wrong about all this after all? Of course not, because as you told us just now "There's so much evidence against the official story and so little for it, that this one piece is far from needed.".

I care when I'm wrong, you don't. Thats the difference.

This particular individual claim is of little importance. Let me tell you one that is, the FBI has no hard evidence against Bin Laden. You want to talk about hand waiving, you guys hand wave that away like it's nothing. Give examples, stating something or another the FBI said at one time, but it doesn't change the fact, the FBI said they have no hard evidence against OBL. Let that sink in. Really let it. You won't, but maybe you'll surprise me. Couldn't even get an indictment on the guy, who's the reason we've been at war for 10 years. You see these are not minor issues, exactly what was going on with the phone calls is. Because as I said they could be real, and the official story still false. Landfill fires hot enough to melt aluminum, and produce red hot steel, which we see at the WTC? Steel as documented in the FEMA report, let me know how many office fires have produced that?

 

[beachnut]

... the FBI has no hard evidence against Bin Laden. ... ?

Source that please. What is the exact quote.

UBL was wanted as a suspect on 911, and was wanted for world wide terrorist acts. Darn, he was wanted already, not need to add 911, he would gladly admit he helped, he is not 911 truth, he is not a liar.

Are you saying UBL did not help the terrorists who did 911? Prove it.

BTW, in my fire, when we cook marshmallows, the Al melts, and steel glows red hot. SO? Are you ignorant on all aspects of 911? What did you get right given 10 years. It is bad you can't figure out 911 given 10 years, when Flight 93 Passengers figured out 911 in minutes! Are you not as smart as Flt 93 Passengers? Are you unable to take action like Flt 93 Passengers? What is your excuse for failure?

All office fires can melt Al and make steel glow, red hot; you sure are free of experience and knowledge.

 

[TJM]

Let that sink in. Really let it.

Let this sink in. Really let it.

 

[tmd2_1]

Source that please. What is the exact quote.

UBL was wanted as a suspect on 911, and was wanted for world wide terrorist acts. Darn, he was wanted already, not need to add 911, he would gladly admit he helped, he is not 911 truth, he is not a liar.

Are you saying UBL did not help the terrorists who did 911? Prove it.

BTW, in my fire, when we cook marshmallows, the Al melts, and steel glows red hot. SO? Are you ignorant on all aspects of 911? What did you get right given 10 years. It is bad you can't figure out 911 given 10 years, when Flight 93 Passengers figured out 911 in minutes! Are you not as smart as Flt 93 Passengers? Are you unable to take action like Flt 93 Passengers? What is your excuse for failure?

All office fires can melt Al and make steel glow, red hot; you sure are free of experience and knowledge.

I don't to derail this thread, but here it is. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrnZd0H7o68

 

[Edx]

This particular individual claim is of little importance.

Of course it isn't, you dont care when you are wrong. I would deeply care that I had said something as if it were true and it turned out to be false, I would be angry that someone had misled me.

In various ways you have told us all over and over that even if we shown whatever one of claims we're arguing about to be false, it will make no difference to you.

Let me tell you one that is, the FBI has no hard evidence against Bin Laden.

Which is wrong and completely nonsensical (another absurd senario where the conspirators would admit the conspiracy and no one notices but truthers). Of course others have already argued against this claim as I recall, but lets say I were to prove to your satisfaction that it was not only false but an absurd suggestion. Would it matter to you that the FBI does not really believe that there was no hard evidence that linked Bin Laden to 911? Nope, it wouldn't even touch the sides, so what if the FBI is lying? Of course they'd be lying, right? I'd want to know who told me that and why they misrepresented the facts to me, you however will do what you've been doing since you got here, move swiftly onto another claim or move the goal posts without ever holding either yourself or anyone else accountable for the errors in the claims you are making. You seem to forget, I argued with you for many pages about landfill fires and molten steel, I saw how you backpeddled every time I showed your claims you stated as facts simply were not true. All errors were hand waved as unimportant, why? Because you think individual claims do not matter, thats why. It didnt matter how much I showed you were wrong, theres always another claim you can latch onto or some other interpretation even if its an absurdly illogical one (such as the truther favourite "genius/idiot" theory to explain the neverending bizzare behaviour of their conspirators)

Couldn't even get an indictment on the guy

You have already been told I am sure that the law was changed so that there was a good reason they did not get an indictment on Bin Laden. It was not that they wanted to and knew they couldnt, they didn't for a very good legal reason. Everyone seems to understand it except truthers. They would rather believe that the FBI openly admitted that they had no real evidence Bin Laden was involved and couldnt get an indictment, even though truthers claim they are in on a huge conspiracy to cover up that fact and were not able or didn't want to just add 911 to his wanted page.

Landfill fires hot enough to melt aluminum,

Amazing. As I have already shown you, most certanly yes. Even in normal fires it is common for it to produce molten metal, it is also common for people to report molten steel, it is even common for firefighters (experts in what melts in fires) to report (very likely incorrectly) molten steel in normal fires. I've shown you all that in some detail yet you ask me questions like this as if I never said anything. I would say this behaviour is intentional but it seems way too stupid to be that because it assumes you think I will just forget our earlier arguments, I can only assume you must have some cognitive ability to have blocked out everything we said to each other. Quite bizzare.

and produce red hot steel, which we see at the WTC?

Yes, exactly that. Steel glows red at a much lower temperature than it melts, typical fires do get that hot. I recall telling you that several times as well, yet you ask me like I haven't.

Im sorry tmd2, but as I said you stated that individual points dont matter to you. You dont care if you are shown to be wrong and have no issue with moving the goal posts while still going back to the same people that deceived you previously. Then later on you somehow forget all your earlier errors and keep prephasing your arguments that even if your claim is wrong it doesnt matter anyway. No one can debate someone that has stated that nothing will ever be able to change their minds, which you have so much as done, just not in those words.

 

[tmd2_1]

Of course it isn't, you dont care when you are wrong. I would deeply care that I had said something as if it were true and it turned out to be false, I would be angry that someone had misled me.

In various ways you have told us all over and over that even if we shown whatever one of claims we're arguing about to be false, it will make no difference to you.



Which is wrong and completely nonsensical (another absurd senario where the conspirators would admit the conspiracy and no one notices but truthers). Of course others have already argued against this claim as I recall, but of lets say I were to prove to your satisfaction that it was not only false but an absurd suggestion. Would it matter to you that the FBI does not really believe that there was no hard evidence that linked Bin Laden to 911? Nope, it wouldn't even touch the sides, so what if the FBI is lying? Of course they'd be lying, right? I'd want to know who told me that and why they misrepresented the facts to me, you however will do what you've been doing since you got here, move swiftly onto another claim or move the goal posts without ever holding either yourself or anyone else accountable for the errors in the claims you are making. You seem to forget, I argued with you for many pages about landfill fires and molten steel, I saw how you backpeddled every time I showed your claims you stated as facts simply were not true. All errors were hand waved as unimportant, why? Because you think individual claims do not matter, thats why. It didnt matter how much I showed you were wrong, theres always another claim you can latch onto or some other interpretation even if its an absurdly illogical one (such as the truther favourite "genius/idiot" theory to explain the neverending bizzare behaviour of their conspirators)



You have already been told I am sure that the law was changed so that there was a good reason they did not get an indictment on Bin Laden. It was not that they wanted to and knew they couldnt, they didn't for a very good legal reason. Everyone seems to understand it except truthers. They would rather believe that the FBI openly admitted that they had no real evidence Bin Laden was involved and couldnt get an indictment, even though truthers claim they are in on a huge conspiracy to cover up that fact and are not able or doesnt want to just add 911 to his wanted page.




Amazing. As I have already shown you, most certanly yes. Even in normal fires it is common for it to produce molten metal, it is also common for people to report molten steel, it is even common for firefighters (experts in what melts in fires) to report (very likely incorrectly) molten steel in normal fires. I've shown you all that in some detail yet you ask me questions like this as if I never said anything. I would say this behaviour is intentional but it seems way too stupid to be that because it assumes you think I will just forget our earlier arguments, I can only assume you must have some cognitive ability to have blocked out everything we said to each other. Quite bizzare.



Yes, exactly that. Steel glows red at a much lower temperature than it melts, typical fires do get that hot. I recall telling you that several times as well, yet you ask me like I haven't.

Im sorry tmd2, but as I said you stated that individual points dont matter to you. You dont care if you are shown to be wrong and have no issue with moving the goal posts while still going back to the same people that deceived you previously. Then later on you somehow forget all your earlier errors and keep prephasing your arguments that even if your claim is wrong it doesnt matter anyway. No one can debate someone that has stated that nothing will ever be able to change their minds, which you have so much as done, just not in those words.

The problem is I haven't been proven wrong on much of anything. You think that someone comes here and blabs on about echos, I'm wrong? Hardly. I'm simply saying whatever those calls were or were not they're minor in terms of the whole thing. As I said the no hard evidence is always just brushed aside. Red hot steel in a landfill fire? Maybe, seems like it would be tough. I noticed you don't want to talk about the metal mentioned in FEMA report? I wonder why that is? Let me know how many office fires have ever seen something like that.

 

[332nd]

The problem is I haven't been proven wrong on much of anything. You think that someone comes here and blabs on about echos, I'm wrong? Hardly. I'm simply saying whatever those calls were or were not they're minor in terms of the whole thing. As I said the no hard evidence is always just brushed aside. Red hot steel in a landfill fire? Maybe, seems like it would be tough. I noticed you don't want to talk about the metal mentioned in FEMA report? I wonder why that is? Let me know how many office fires have ever seen something like that.

You just ignored AJM's link didn't you? Keep protecting that dogma.

 

[sylvan8798]

Give examples, stating something or another the FBI said at one time, but it doesn't change the fact, the FBI said they have no hard evidence against OBL. Let that sink in. Really let it. You won't, but maybe you'll surprise me. Couldn't even get an indictment on the guy, who's the reason we've been at war for 10 years. You see these are not minor issues, exactly what was going on with the phone calls is. Because as I said they could be real, and the official story still false.

Because, of course, they could fake an entire attack complete with a huge FBI investigation, but they couldn't fabricate some evidence to indict Bin Laden with. Our government. Incompetent to a fault, except when and where it supports the truther cause not to be, whereupon they are the ultimate uber-super-power ninja dudes.

Do you have any idea, whatsoever, how stupid this sounds? Any at all?

 

[Edx]

The problem is I haven't been proven wrong on much of anything.

Well just off the top of my head from our argument.

You thought that reports of molten steel were not expected in normal fires.
That glowing red steel is not expected in normal fires.
That the heat from the WTC rubble was not expected and can't be explained.
That the heat from the WTC rubble that lasted for weeks was not expected and can't be explained.
That you thought the rubble would lack oxygen to fuel it.
That an expert in fire (such as a firefighter) would not report seeing molten steel in a normal fire.

So thats 6 things I recall from our argument that you were wrong about, and Im pretty hazy about it all.

You dont recall or care because being wrong just doesnt concern you. Well it really concerns me, I'd be quite embarrassed and be ashamed to have repeated all these claims as if they were facts.

As I said the no hard evidence is always just brushed aside.

I didnt brush it aside, Im telling you that your interpretation of that is absolutely nonsensical and absurd to the highest degree. That there is a very simple explanation, Bush saw 911 to be an act of war and changed the law, the FBI has said they could indict him but they didnt for a good reason - this is the reason, a legal reason. The FBI has never once claimed that Bin Laden was not involved in the 911 attacks but you require the FBI to selectively decide to casually admit they have no evidence to a random guy on the internet who runs an obscure website, that everyone knew they couldn't indict him but said nothing or made a fuss about it, they couldnt even change the wanted page to include 911 when truthers claim this makes them look guilty AND at the same time be involved in covering up the conspiracy in pretty much every area truthers refer to. This is why people dont take you seriously, because you take an absurd scenario involving thousands of people (and requiring the bad guys to be completely incompetent and totally stupid, yet accomplish the coverup so perfectly only a fringe bunch of conspiracy theorists notice) over a simple and reasonable explanation every single time. Not only that, you then deny anyone even gave you an explanation atl all!

Red hot steel in a landfill fire? Maybe, seems like it would be tough.

Since steel will glow red in daylight at only about 525oC I don't see why it would be tough.

I noticed you don't want to talk about the metal mentioned in FEMA report?

Because, as I said, you do not care if anything you say is wrong. You have for all intents and purposes said that no matter what you will not change your mind, so you can demand i prove you wrong but you've already stated even if its proven wrong to your own satisfaction it won't change your opinion.

Also, since you ignored our own argument earlier im sure others have already tried to explain it to you and you're just acting like no ones said anything again.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

... You try to give them some hi-tech sounding explanation for what is heard in that tape.

What I did was give links to pages with actual example sound files of the specfic sorts of distortion I was referring to.

You're very bad at critical thinking and evaluation of evidence. There's zero that's suspicious of the call, and I demonstrated that with nothing more than a self-support website with example recordings.

People, this claim is vanquished. His entire argument is essentially "Nuh uhhhh". That's a fail.

 

[beachnut]

This particular individual claim is of little importance. Let me tell you one that is, the FBI has no hard evidence against Bin Laden. You want to talk about hand waiving, you guys hand wave that away like it's nothing. Give examples, stating something or another the FBI said at one time, but it doesn't change the fact, the FBI said they have no hard evidence against OBL. Let that sink in. Really let it. You won't, but maybe you'll surprise me. ... ?

Are you a 911 truth believer?
Are you a 911 Truth Follower?
Are you unable to comprehend reality?

You sure act like 911 truth, uniformed, no signs of research, no logical claims, no rational claims, no evidence. Let that sink in.

The FBI said...

"There's no mystery here," said FBI spokesman Rex Tomb. "They could add 9/11 on there, but they have not because they don't need to at this point. . . . There is a logic to it."

Are you a liar tmd2? You sure do spread a lot of false information. Do you do this on purpose? Let that sink in.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/27/AR2006082700687.html From Monday, August 28, 2006 , you were debunked over 5 years ago! Let that sink in.

"The indictments currently listed on the posters allow them to be arrested and brought to justice," the FBI says in a note accompanying the terrorist list on its Web site. "Future indictments may be handed down as various investigations proceed in connection to other terrorist incidents, for example, the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001."

What is your next not researched delusional claim?

tmd2, you have been debunked before you post. You are good at spreading false information, are you spreading lies on purpose? Try doing research before you repeat failed junk you google, and post mindlessly. You have failed to post anything of value on 911. Is this your A-game, your best? Let that sink in.

 

[Craig4]

Where's the proof for the official story? You know proof that would require evidence something the FBI says they have no hard evidence against OBL

Hmm... let's see. We have the video admission of Bin Laden. We have the martyrdom videos of some of the hi-jackers. We have the hi jackers bordering the plane. We have the phone calls of people on the plane. So yes, there's plenty of evidence for what actually happened.

Find a missile yet? How about explosive residue? No? Get a new hobby. This topic deserves better than you.

 

[tmd2_1]

Well just off the top of my head from our argument.

You thought that reports of molten steel were not expected in normal fires.
That glowing red steel is not expected in normal fires.
That the heat from the WTC rubble was not expected and can't be explained.
That the heat from the WTC rubble that lasted for weeks was not expected and can't be explained.
That you thought the rubble would lack oxygen to fuel it.
That an expert in fire (such as a firefighter) would not report seeing molten steel in a normal fire.

So thats 6 things I recall from our argument that you were wrong about, and Im pretty hazy about it all.

You dont recall or care because being wrong just doesnt concern you. Well it really concerns me, I'd be quite embarrassed and be ashamed to have repeated all these claims as if they were facts.


I didnt brush it aside, Im telling you that your interpretation of that is absolutely nonsensical and absurd to the highest degree. That there is a very simple explanation, Bush saw 911 to be an act of war and changed the law, the FBI has said they could indict him but they didnt for a good reason - this is the reason, a legal reason. The FBI has never once claimed that Bin Laden was not involved in the 911 attacks but you require the FBI to selectively decide to casually admit they have no evidence to a random guy on the internet who runs an obscure website, that everyone knew they couldn't indict him but said nothing or made a fuss about it, they couldnt even change the wanted page to include 911 when truthers claim this makes them look guilty AND at the same time be involved in covering up the conspiracy in pretty much every area truthers refer to. This is why people dont take you seriously, because you take an absurd scenario involving thousands of people (and requiring the bad guys to be completely incompetent and totally stupid, yet accomplish the coverup so perfectly only a fringe bunch of conspiracy theorists notice) over a simple and reasonable explanation every single time. Not only that, you then deny anyone even gave you an explanation atl all!




Since steel will glow red in daylight at only about 525oC I don't see why it would be tough.



Because, as I said, you do not care if anything you say is wrong. You have for all intents and purposes said that no matter what you will not change your mind, so you can demand i prove you wrong but you've already stated even if its proven wrong to your own satisfaction it won't change your opinion.

Also, since you ignored our own argument earlier im sure others have already tried to explain it to you and you're just acting like no ones said anything again.

You see there's a difference between you saying I'm wrong and me actually being wrong. I recall with the reports of molten steel, you had a lot that simply said molten metal, not steel. In regards to landfill fires I recall asking how many had millions of gallons of water dumped on it. Also with landfill fires, this is the absolute hottest temperature I could find for one "Maximum temperature exceeded 960oF (516oC) at the core of the hot spot, nearly four meters below the pile surface." http://etd.fcla.edu/CF/CFE0002589/Moqbel_Shadi_Y_200905_PhD.pdf Not saying others didn't exceed it, but I looked for hours and I couldn't find any. Remember aluminum melts at about 1200 F http://www.aluminum.org/Content/NavigationMenu/TheIndustry/IngotBillet/default.htm and jet fuel would have long burned out by than. Also here is another good report on it, it seems 170F is a cutoff point of sorts, http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/statistics/fa-225.pdf

You see I selectevtily take the FBI saying they have no hard evidence just as that...they don't. I don't think the whole FBI is involved in the coverup far from, otherwise the indictment would be easy to get. A very small group (relatively) would have done 9/11 they control enough to make things difficult but far from everything, if they did they would not have needed 9/11.

No no one who supports the official story has come up with an explanation for the steel in the FEMA report, at least one that has been backed by experiment.