Does anyone here believe the 9/11 story?

[Pebble]

If you check back a few posts, you'll see it wasn't me who started this current discussion about the planes. Debunkers love to bring it up as a diversion away the smoking gun of Building 7.

If you agree that there is clear unequivocal evidence that the planes hit the first 2 towers, then we have enough common ground on which to discuss WC 7 as an independent item. As long as you maintain that there were no planes, then it is unclear that your grip on reality or the nature of evidence facilitates useful discussion.

[bryan]

Bryan quotes brianp as saying:
"And of course, anyone who hadn't seen the plane might assume the explosion was a bomb, but, I say again, we, the live viewers, saw the plane - hence it was there and it was real."

Then bryan says:
"But Paul has been to New York and he says: "Anybody with a clear view of those buildings would've seen the plane.""

Correct. But those without a clear view, or anyone who happened to look away for a second, would've only seen the explosion.

I see. So when you said: ""Anybody with a clear view of those buildings would've seen the plane.", you actually meant: "Anybody with a clear view of the plane would've seen the plane". Glad we got that one cleared up.

[bryan]

Bullshit - as early as October 2009 YOU wrote in this thread:

"All the evidence from 9/11 points to planes having been faked."

That's ancient history. Look up the word "current".

[PaulW99]

I see. So when you said: ""Anybody with a clear view of those buildings would've seen the plane.", you actually meant: "Anybody with a clear view of the plane would've seen the plane". Glad we got that one cleared up.

No, "anybody with a clear view of those buildings would've seen the plane" means "anybody with a clear view of those buildings would've seen the plane". It also means that anybody WITHOUT a clear view might not have seen the plane. That seems pretty obvious. What's the problem with that?

[brianp]

That's ancient history. Look up the word "current".

"Recent" and "Current" are very different things. The "current discussion" here is the thread "Does anyone here believe the 9//11 story" which began on 27th September 2009.

In any event, you have been maintaining your "no planes" fantasy since you joined the thread. It is such a basic issue with overwhelming and incontrovertible evidence indicating that planes flew into the towers, so you can't simply cast it to one side and move on to something else because, as Pebble wrote, "As long as you maintain that there were no planes, then it is unclear that your grip on reality or the nature of evidence facilitates useful discussion."

[bryan]

No, "anybody with a clear view of those buildings would've seen the plane" means "anybody with a clear view of those buildings would've seen the plane". It also means that anybody WITHOUT a clear view might not have seen the plane. That seems pretty obvious. What's the problem with that?

For a start, many people with a clear view of the buildings didn't see the plane. The standard debunker explanation is that they were on the north side of the WTC and even though they could see the buildings, they missed the plane approaching from the south. Come to think of it, most people have ears as well as eyes, so let's make another modification to your rule:

"Anyone with a clear view of the plane would've seen the plane, and anyone in the near vicinity not wearing ear-defenders would've heard the plane."

[bryan]

"Recent" and "Current" are very different things. The "current discussion" here is the thread "Does anyone here believe the 9//11 story" which began on 27th September 2009.

We're not currently discussing the lack of evidence that the hijackers boarded the planes, which was subject I brought up in my first post here. We've talked about various aspects of 9/11 throughout this thread and the only reason I'm talking about planes again now is because I thought there may have been a possibility Paul's question were genuine. I openly admit to being wrong when I thought that.

In any event, you have been maintaining your "no planes" fantasy since you joined the thread. It is such a basic issue with overwhelming and incontrovertible evidence indicating that planes flew into the towers, so you can't simply cast it to one side and move on to something else because, as Pebble wrote, "As long as you maintain that there were no planes, then it is unclear that your grip on reality or the nature of evidence facilitates useful discussion."

Pebble also wrote:

The only odd thing here is the stuck record, banging on and on about planes. . .

[brianp]

We're not currently discussing the lack of evidence that the hijackers boarded the planes, which was subject I brought up in my first post here. We've talked about various aspects of 9/11 throughout this thread and the only reason I'm talking about planes again now is because I thought there may have been a possibility Paul's question were genuine. I openly admit to being wrong when I thought that.

You really are a fuckwit. You are wrong on everything but that.

The pivotal point as far as I'm concerned is whether you are capable of coherent thought or are completely away with the fairies. If, as seems increasingly likely, the latter is true, then there is no point in continuing to humour you. And the "no planes" issue seems an ideal decider. You might legitimately have doubts about many aspects of 9/11, but not about this, the evidence is simply unanswerable. In fact the only thing more certain than the planes having hit the towers is that the towers collapsed - or do you think that we imagined that too?

So do you accept that the towers were struck by planes? Yes or No? If no - end of discussion as far as I'm concerned.

[Croydon Bob]

For a start, many people with a clear view of the buildings didn't see the plane.

Who? How many? Or is that just another lie? Most of your "evidence" is just fantasy with no basis in reality.

The only person I know who was there, says that he did see the second plane hit, but didn't say anything about having heard it. there are many obvious reasons why someone might not have heard it including background noise of burning building, sirens, etc, and distraction leading to not remembering that you heard it.

There's a potentially interesting discussion to be had here, about why someone would not accept something that is so obviously true to most of us. Cross referenced perhaps with the UFOs that have been seen and filmed over Mexico City (but I don't believe in them).

[bryan]

The pivotal point as far as I'm concerned is whether you are capable of coherent thought or are completely away with the fairies. If, as seems increasingly likely, the latter is true, then there is no point in continuing to humour you. And the "no planes" issue seems an ideal decider. You might legitimately have doubts about many aspects of 9/11, but not about this, the evidence is simply unanswerable. In fact the only thing more certain than the planes having hit the towers is that the towers collapsed - or do you think that we imagined that too?

Don't you realise you're helping the no-planers? We're arguing that the main reason people believe planes flew into the towers is because they saw it faked on TV. Now you're saying you can be absolutely certain planes flew into the towers because you saw it live on TV. With oponents like you, we don't need supporters. Thanks.

[bryan]

But you seem to be arguing that the only possible other explanation than everything being as the NIST says is huge conspiracy and demolition.

You've put in more than a little effort to try and ridicule the *possibility* that the buildings weren't perfect.
That smacks much more of someone desperate for there to have been a conspiracy and prepared to ignore any possible alternative than someone actually looking for the truth of what might have happened..

Now I've shown that the "substandard building materials" alternative causes you more problems than it solves, would you like to feed any more items from your brainstorming session into the shredder?

To remind you:

1. Islamic terrorists hijacked planes, crashed them into the buidlings leading to a series of unanticipated events culminating in collapse.
2. Other terrorists hijacked the planes, but it was politically expedient to blame islamists.
3. Conspirators (govt/industry etc) crashed the planes.
4. Any of the above, plus building design faults, resulted in an unnecessary collapse.
5. Any of the above plus deliberate use of inferior quality materials by profiteering construction firms at critical load bearing points within the buildings
6. Any of the above plus inadequate maintenance of stress fractured load beading structures

[Pebble]

Don't you realise you're helping the no-planers?... With oponents like you, we don't need supporters. Thanks.

Rather oblique, but you have now answered my question. You cannot live with an evidence based reality.

The point is simple. Where the evidence is overwhelming, you deny the evidence. So why should anyone bother trying to explore the 'evidence' with you in respect of a different problem - you have already shown your contempt for evidence.

[PaulW99]

Pebble: ""As long as you maintain that there were no planes, then it is unclear that your grip on reality or the nature of evidence facilitates useful discussion."

Well said.

My question was and is genuine. Until this week I didn't even know that people even existed who claimed there were no planes on September 11th. I've done some searching on the web and it's amazing the amount of abuse poured on no-planers by 911 conspiracy believers in particular. If even those nutty people think you're gullible, surely it would give you cause to question your beliefs?

It is obvious to at least 99.9999% of the world that planes crashed into the WTC towers. I still don't understand what evidence you have to make you think it's not true.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, as they say.

[PaulW99]

bryan, you may have already read this and it may have already been posted on this forum, but I can't resist:

http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/review.html

Here is someone who believes in NWO, free energy, anti-gravity etc doing a step-by-step complete destruction of the no-plane theory. He calls no-planers "useful idiots", "crackpots", "intellectually debauched fools" and even suggests they could be paid agents of the powers-that-be. I think you should bombard him with increasingly angry emails stating your evidence.

[chaggle]

I posted this yesterday - maybe you didn't see it.

Originally Posted by bryan
Do you have a plausible explanation why the BBC would broadcast footage of a plane crashing into the South Tower, then four minutes later speculate that the first plane might have gone right through one tower and into the other, then one minute after that, play the same footage again speeded up and say the pictures had just come in? Does it not strike you as odd?

I know this question wasn't directed at me.

No. In the confusion surrounding the images being broadcast live I have no problem with any of this. Maybe the anchor wasn't watching the monitor at the time the second plane hit - it was only on screen for a second. It's all about confusion - people not knowing what's really going on. It doesn't surprise me one little bit that the coverage of this live disaster is somewhat chaotic. The pictures had "just come in" - four minutes previously! I listened to coverage of this on the radio throughout the day. Hours later there were wildly conflicting reports about what had happened. To get it dead right, live, would be just about impossible.

So that's my explanation for the shortcomings of the live coverage - what's yours? And please don't say that you don't have to give an explanation. You've already implied that you are "trying to make a point". What is it?