Any Conspiracy-Busters here?

[Flange Desire]

Hi love, and everyone who has since joined the debate. Isn't it interesting how cognitive dissonance can cause peoples sphincters to tighten?
...LOTS OF STUFF SNIPPED...

Tight as a fish's.

Just show your evidence, and many posters here will be more than happy to show you where you are mistaken.
It is a free educational service (provided thanks to the JREF - praise their rsouls).
Don't worry too much about the high emotions - that is just the normal frustration that any educator will feel occasionally when confronted with outstanding stupidity.
Try staying focussed on your claims - it may even help you if you just present one claim at a time - that way each claim can be shot to pieces individually.

 

[PixyMisa]

I think the concrete was mixed with explosives when the towers were built.

And I think you need to adjust the dosage.

In 1993, a truck bomb in the WTC garage blew a hole through four stories of that same concrete. You'd think if it was mixed with explosives, SOMEONE MIGHT HAVE NOTICED.

 

[Peter S.]

Wow, 4 pages and no one has mentioned the paranormal object that flew through the hole in the building!

 

[gtc]

Wow, 4 pages and no one has mentioned the paranormal object that flew through the hole in the building!

What have angels got to do with this thread?

 

[CurtC]

It was a paranormal hat. I saw the video myself.

 

[CurtC]

It was a B-25 Mitchell bomber which struck The Empire State Building. The max fuel load of the B-25 was 1241 gallons, and the crash DID produce a massive fire.

The planes which struck the World Trade Towers were Boeing 727s. The max fuel load of the 727 is 6707 gallons.

Not 727s - they were 767s, which can carry 24000 gallons of fuel, and when full weigh close to 400,000 pounds.

 

[love]

Wow, 4 pages and no one has mentioned the paranormal object that flew through the hole in the building!

Oh you are talking about one of the hijackers passports that was found totally intact, lying in the street.

 

[Year Zero]

Oh you are talking about one of the hijackers passports that was found totally intact, lying in the street.

Oh wow, another claim that we have already delt with several times on this SAME THREAD!! Yes, one of the hijacker's passports was found somewhere in the rubble. Also found from the flights were photographs and other personal affects belonging to other passengers. Go to 911Myths.com and read about that very claim.

Far more fragile things have actually survived the Colombia disaster as well, including a patch from a uniform, and the LIVE WORMS that were part of an experiment on board.

So yes, it is possible for a passport to survive that crash. Since they found one, we KNOW it is possible now.


I notice the CTs like rehashing old arguments, and as they are shot down they move to another one without admitting their lack of evidence.

 

[love]

So yes, it is possible for a passport to survive that crash. Since they found one, we KNOW it is possible now.

It's funny how some people need double blind controlled trials to convince them of something they did not previously know; and others merely have to see it on the news.

Hint: the government does not always tell the truth.

Evidence: the government has admitted lying in the past.

 

[Year Zero]

It's funny how some people need double blind controlled trials to convince them of something they did not previously know; and others merely have to see it on the news.

Hint: the government does not always tell the truth.

Evidence: the government has admitted lying in the past.

You are avoiding the point again, probably ready to bring up another issue that was addressed earlier right?

You brought up the passport because you believe this couldn't survive the crash. Anecdotal evidence shows that not only have small objects survived even WORSE crashes(WORMS survived the COLOMBIA disaster), but other objects, more fragile than a passport, also survived.

Now here's a question for YOU: Why would they need a passport to prove that they were on the plane? They have passenger manifests and ticket records that confirm them being on the plane. There are several people who don't appear on the final victim list because not enough of their remains were found; yet they appear on the original manifests.

 

[Year Zero]

It's funny how some people need double blind controlled trials to convince them of something they did not previously know; and others merely have to see it on the news.

Hint: the government does not always tell the truth.

Evidence: the government has admitted lying in the past.

Past government lying does not equal evidence that the government used remote-control planes to blow up its own building that it actually rigged with demolitions almost 30 years ago- demolitions that don't explode when a truck bomb is set off in the same building or that don't go off when a plane hits them.

MAGIC explosives!!!

 

[love]

Past government lying does not equal evidence that the government used remote-control planes to blow up its own building that it actually rigged with demolitions almost 30 years ago- demolitions that don't explode when a truck bomb is set off in the same building or that don't go off when a plane hits them.

MAGIC explosives!!!

So why post the non-sequitur?

 

[Year Zero]

So why post the non-sequitur?

Where's the non-sequitur? Nothing in that message is anywhere outside of topics that you have brought up and claims that you have made. If you don't like that, then stick to one claim at a time. But I notice most CTs prefer to bombard people with a myriad of claims without answering any questions about them.

I notice you didn't answer my other question as of this writing.

 

[love]

You are avoiding the point again, probably ready to bring up another issue that was addressed earlier right?

You brought up the passport because you believe this couldn't survive the crash. Anecdotal evidence shows that not only have small objects survived even WORSE crashes(WORMS survived the COLOMBIA disaster), but other objects, more fragile than a passport, also survived.

You are right there. I don't believe, the passport flew out of the plane and landed on the street during the explosion. I guess that I am simply a skeptic at heart.

Now here's a question for YOU: Why would they need a passport to prove that they were on the plane? They have passenger manifests and ticket records that confirm them being on the plane. There are several people who don't appear on the final victim list because not enough of their remains were found; yet they appear on the original manifests.

And coincidentally there were several news reports of alleged hijackers being found alive. There I go again. It's my natural skepticism. I can't help it.

 

[Year Zero]

You are right there. I don't believe, the passport flew out of the plane and landed on the street during the explosion. I guess that I am simply a skeptic at heart.

Who said it landed on the street? How can you be skeptical- they FOUND a passport. This is not sketpicism, it is denial. They found a passport, ergo they found a passport.

And coincidentally there were several news reports of alleged hijackers being found alive. There I go again. It's my natural skepticism. I can't help it.

There you go again, running to another claim. And of course, it's another claim that's wrong: http://www.911myths.com/html/still_alive.html

 

[love]

Who said it landed on the street? How can you be skeptical- they FOUND a passport. This is not sketpicism, it is denial. They found a passport, ergo they found a passport.

No, that means they claim they found the passport in the street. Why should I believe that? Because they are not "woo"?

There you go again, running to another claim. And of course, it's another claim that's wrong: http://www.911myths.com/html/still_alive.html

Oh right, so you just believe anything this website tells you? So you believe there were no newspaper stories about hijackers being alive? Or do you simply not agree with my skeptical position.

A website link proves nothing. It's like me pointing you at a Edgar Cayce site and claiming that is proof of the paranormal.

You people are so arbitrary as to what you count as proof.

Why can't we attempt to establish objectively agreed facts, and see where the differences in our assumptions and deductions lie, rather than simply resorting to claim and counter-claim?

"I know XYZ is untrue because this site www.pqr.com debunks it."

If that's reason then I am unreasonable.

 

[Year Zero]

No, that means they claim they found the passport in the street. Why should I believe that? Because they are not "woo"?

Why should I believe that the WTC center was built with some kind of explosives for a distant hoax several decades later, a full decade after a massive shift in the geopolitical climate?

Once again, you keep questioning, but don't even present evidence of your hypothesis. That's why it's "woo".

Oh right, so you just believe anything this website tells you? So you believe there were no newspaper stories about hijackers being alive? Or do you simply not agree with my skeptical position.

First of all, stop calling yourself a skeptic. A skeptic is someone who doubts something until sufficient evidence is provided. You clearly believe in a hypothesis involving 30 year old concrete-mixed explosives without any evidence. How can I say "without any evidence"? Because you haven't presented any. Your doubt that a passport was found does not tell us anything about what brought the towers down.

Now to address your claim. Had you read the site, you would have found your questions answered. No, there were no newspaper reports that declared the hijackers had been found alive. There WERE reports that there were several cases of mistaken identity, due to the extremely common nature of Arab names. If you had gone to the site, you would have seen the newspaper reports cited, and the details in each case.

But you wouldn't want to do that would you? Quick, throw out another claim, I think we're almost at the end of the list.

 

[kookbreaker]

You are right there. I don't believe, the passport flew out of the plane and landed on the street during the explosion. I guess that I am simply a skeptic at heart.

Why do you have a hard time beleiving it?

Read post #29 and #36 in this thread and tell us why a single passport surviving is so hard to beleive?

What you are doing is not 'skepticism'.

 

[kookbreaker]

And coincidentally there were several news reports of alleged hijackers being found alive. There I go again. It's my natural skepticism. I can't help it.

There were also initial reports of bombs going off at the State Department Building on 9/11.

They too turned out to be false.

But I guess such reports were of little use to conspiracists and their wacky explosive concrete.

You calling yourself skeptical is laughable.

 

[Ed]

No, that means they claim they found the passport in the street. Why should I believe that? Because they are not "woo"?



Oh right, so you just believe anything this website tells you? So you believe there were no newspaper stories about hijackers being alive? Or do you simply not agree with my skeptical position.

A website link proves nothing. It's like me pointing you at a Edgar Cayce site and claiming that is proof of the paranormal.

You people are so arbitrary as to what you count as proof.

Why can't we attempt to establish objectively agreed facts, and see where the differences in our assumptions and deductions lie, rather than simply resorting to claim and counter-claim?

"I know XYZ is untrue because this site www.pqr.com debunks it."

If that's reason then I am unreasonable.

Why? It is a question that you seem to avoid at all costs.