Does anyone here believe the 9/11 story?

[Pebble]

On what basis do you regard this as less plaubible that an inside job with no planes? Remembering that this inside job requires diverting planes and murdering the american (and other) citizens on board and destroying/hiding the aircrafts, then creating CGI images of plane crashes and uploading them to mutliple networks and individuals phones/CAM recorders - simply to keep the story vaguely credible!

Another appeal to emotion. It makes no difference what nationality the people on board were.

You are just weird. How do you subselect the one comment you did from this, quote it out of context and come up with this drivel, rather than answering a perfectly legitimate question.

If you think the suggestion that those on the plane were murdered is too emotional, what is your suggestion? Perhaps they are being royally treated having been secretly relocated, and their families are in on the game pretending they died?

[tolman]

The gold star goes to Richard Gage for waking his peers up and encouraging them to think for themselves.

Don't be too disappointed though. You do deserve a medal as the world champion at avoiding questions by waffling till the cows come home.

Since the deserving behaviour on my part involved answering your question about my possible response to some future hypothetical opinion from a journals, not merely in depth and detail, but also confounding your previously expressed low expectations of scientists/engineers, I'm not sure why you said that.
Unless you're just trying to look silly.

I'm still looking for where I said I'd unthinkingly take the opinion of a trade journal as the last word on an issue, without looking at the background to their reasoning or looking to see what any dissenting voices might say.

Maybe you could provide a link?

[Matt]

Sorry, I didn't realise debunkers have a monopoly on appealing to emotion.

So you admit your first argument wasn't relevant then. Your not challenging the evidence presented that there were planes.. That's good because you'd just look silly claiming that there weren't planes whick of your fellow truthers was it that called no-planers the turd in the punchbowl.

With regard to your offensive allegation, If it was the 19 hijackers being lucky enough to exploit poor surveillance then by trying to shift the blame elsewhere you're the accessory after the fact. However I'll remind you once more that I find LIHOP and MIHOP theories to be plausible. There was at the very least massive incompetence and that the campaign against CIA and government stonewalling is hampered by the presence of truthers so giddy with their own gullibility as to go along will controlled demolition or no plane theories in direct opposition to the available evidence. As I see it if it was a plausible inside job then you're still an accessory after the fact acting as a witless smokescreen to defend not just mass murder but warmongering and genocide. Neither option paints you in a good light.

You may like to claim that there's a third option. That you're actually right. If you had the wit to understand that this is a proven logical impossibility that would mean you were deliberately lying in the knowlege that those accused of incompetence and possible complicity can laugh off the accusations pointing to lunatic claims such as your own. I recommend the Rimmer defence.

[bryan]

Are you actually saying that you think the NIST has been perfectly happy to conspire in the cover-up of wholesale slaughter of innocent civilians, but that you could trust them never to stoop so low as to brush findings of substandard construction under the carpet?
Even just in the case of WTC7, where any [possible] construction failings didn't lead to mass deaths?

You seem to have a remarkably high degree of trust in people you think are accessories to mass murder.

Suppose WTC7 wouldn't have collapsed but for the "deliberate use of inferior quality materials by profiteering construction firms at critical load bearing points", and this was brushed under the carpet by NIST, whose model shows a building constructed in accordance with all the industry standards collapse primarily due to fire.

How is it that 99.994% of the world's structural engineers and their respected journals don't realise that the building in NIST's model shouldn't collapse? Why doesn't Matt, who has read and understood JE Gordon's Structures, notice that NIST's model is wrong? Are they in on it? Are they thick and suggestible? Do I get a gold star for being the only one here who knew the NIST report is a pack of lies?

[PaulW99]

49 pages of this so far! Sorry if I haven't read all of it yet. But this stood out (from page 6):
Bryan:
This is a fair representation of the alternative theory, although I don't believe that any planes were destroyed. Another small point is that the hypnosis was performed on TV viewers all around the world, which includes the vast majority of 'eye witnesses' in New York. The relatively few people watching from the street were fooled by simple a conjuring trick.

If this conjuring trick is simple, could you please explain how it works?
Relatively few people? There were thousands of people watching from various angles and distances.

[bryan]

If you think the suggestion that those on the plane were murdered is too emotional, what is your suggestion? Perhaps they are being royally treated having been secretly relocated, and their families are in on the game pretending they died?

Describing them as "American citizens" gives the impression you're arguing "the government wouldn't do it to their own people".

[bryan]

Since the deserving behaviour on my part involved answering your question about my possible response to some future hypothetical opinion from a journals, not merely in depth and detail, but also confounding your previously expressed low expectations of scientists/engineers, I'm not sure why you said that.
Unless you're just trying to look silly.

I'm still looking for where I said I'd unthinkingly take the opinion of a trade journal as the last word on an issue, without looking at the background to their reasoning or looking to see what any dissenting voices might say.

Maybe you could provide a link?

You indicated that trade journals were a source you'd take seriously. You've also argued all through this thread that qualified experts are the only people who should be taken seriously. Now you're saying that if you don't agree with their interpretation you'll just make your own mind up.

[bryan]

So you admit your first argument wasn't relevant then. Your not challenging the evidence presented that there were planes.

You didn't present any evidence. The fact that some people went missing is not evidence that planes flew into the towers.

[Admin]

Describing them as "American citizens" gives the impression you're arguing "the government wouldn't do it to their own people".

Why do you believe that that American government would do it to their own people?

[bryan]

49 pages of this so far! Sorry if I haven't read all of it yet. But this stood out (from page 6):
Bryan:
This is a fair representation of the alternative theory, although I don't believe that any planes were destroyed. Another small point is that the hypnosis was performed on TV viewers all around the world, which includes the vast majority of 'eye witnesses' in New York. The relatively few people watching from the street were fooled by simple a conjuring trick.

If this conjuring trick is simple, could you please explain how it works?
Relatively few people? There were thousands of people watching from various angles and distances.

Best to carry on reading the early part of the thread, Paul. I start off talking about the non-existant hijackers, then the demolitions, then the fake planes. I dropped out at page 28, then I came back recently to correct some misrepresentations of the thread made by the Croydon Liar and it developed into a discussion about logic and the fallacies used by the debunkers.

[bryan]

Why do you believe that that American government would do it to their own people?

I don't believe it was the American government who did it, although I'm sure they wouldn't be bothered about a few of their own people dying. How many American citizens have died in Iraq and Afghanistan? And still they send more and more lambs to the slaughter!

[Pebble]

Describing them as "American citizens" gives the impression you're arguing "the government wouldn't do it to their own people".

Still side stepping the main point. Is that your only response when the weakness of your argument is exposed?

[PaulW99]

Okay, thanks Bryan, I'll keep reading.

But tell me: is there a bit where you explain the conjuring trick, or alternatively withdraw the claim that there were no planes?

[tolman]

You indicated that trade journals were a source you'd take seriously.

A quick search shows me suggesting I would probably take them seriously if they reported news of a high proportion of qualified people asking for a new investigation.
Because such a report is hardly the last word on the facts of an issue - it's a news report which only suggests the start of something, not the end of everything.
It's also something likely to be fairly swiftly contradicted if it's wrong.

Please provide a link to where I said I'd unquestioningly believe what one or more journal articles claimed to be an explanation, without even looking at what they'd based their reasoning on.

Just repeating a statement intended to mislead (such as trying to imply I'd claimed I'd uncritically accept *anything* in a journal) isn't going to work.
Everyone can see what you're doing, and they won't fall for it.

You've also argued all through this thread that qualified experts are the only people who should be taken seriously. Now you're saying that if you don't agree with their interpretation you'll just make your own mind up.

You do rather give the impression that you don't see any possibilities between :
a) The NIST report is perfect.
and
b) It's all a huge murderous government conspiracy.

It seems entirely reasonable of me to point out that even if every suitably qualified person in the world agreed that the NIST report was flawed, that wouldn't prove a murderous government demolition conspiracy, it would simply mean that in the first instance we were back at square one with regard to explanations.
It doesn't require someone to be an subject-matter-expert to point that out, since it's basic logic.

Also, it's fairly clearly not the case that the only possibilities are a) and b), and one doesn't need to be a subject-matter-expert to see that either.

If most/all of the world's experts had looked at all the possibilities and concluded that the only possible explanation was demolition, that would be a different matter.

I'm not sure I have argued anywhere that qualified experts are the only people who should be taken seriously in a discussion.
That doesn't seem like the kind of thing I would argue, since I frequently talk about technical things where some people are specialists and some aren't, with me appearing on both sides of that divide in different subject areas. Since there are many more things I'm interested in than expert in, I'm usually on the nonspecialist side.

However, I have stated my opinion, to which I hold, that people who don't appear to understand the first thing about a given technical issue probably shouldn't try and talk about it, let alone make categorical pronouncements.

There can be all kinds of room for interested amateurs and people out of their areas of expertise, as long as they know what they do and don't know, and don't try to cover up ignorance with excessive confidence.

I think you'll find that in all kinds of technical areas, there are many people who aren't experts, but who know and understand rather more than you do, and who could engage on at least some level with a technical discussion without embarrassing themselves.

The world really isn't as black and white as you seem to try to portray it as.
However much you shout 'Black!', it won't stop other people looking and seeing the grey that is actually there.

[bryan]

Suppose WTC7 wouldn't have collapsed but for the "deliberate use of inferior quality materials by profiteering construction firms at critical load bearing points", and this was brushed under the carpet by NIST, whose model shows a building constructed in accordance with all the industry standards collapse primarily due to fire.

How is it that 99.994% of the world's structural engineers and their respected journals don't realise that the building in NIST's model shouldn't collapse? Why doesn't Matt, who has read and understood JE Gordon's Structures, notice that NIST's model is wrong? Are they in on it? Are they thick and suggestible? Do I get a gold star for being the only one here who knew the NIST report is a pack of lies?

Where's my medal? Is it in the post yet?