RE: There was a plane!

RE: There was a plane! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Rule -> RE: There was a plane! (8/10/2011 1:14:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MusicalBoredom And Rule, response #75 has what I secretly saw. Thank you. But you did not answer my questions. Ah, you meant your post 76. Well, that post in my eyes decreased your value as an eye- witness. This is what you said: I was standing on a ferry. I saw and heard a commercial plane. I saw it fly into one of the towers. As testimonies go, yours leaves much to be desired as all particulars are lacking. You have made no positive identification of the plane you saw beyond the very vague statement that it was a commercial plane. You have not given any particulars about your distance from this plane, about its apparent size as you perceived it. You have given no information about other people near you that corroborated what you allege to have seen, namely that said plane flew into the building. The towers had a width of about seventy meters. The alleged plane has a length of 55 meters. It flew at 600 mph, so the interaction with the building was about 0.02 seconds, which is about five time the human visual response time. You were listening and influenced by the radio: you expected a plane to fly into the tower. That must have influenced your perception of what happened in those 0.02 seconds. It is a well known fact that we humans fail to observe lots of events that happen and are around us. Our brains fill in the blanks in such a way that we are not aware that we did not observe those events. Here is what I think happened to you: You saw a plane approach the tower. You saw an explosion. The explosion was so prominent, drawing your attention, that you failed to notice that the inconspicuous plane passed the building and flew on. Your brain filled in the gap between the plane approaching the building and the explosion occurring: "Oh, my God! I saw a plane fly into that tower, just like the radio said happened to the other tower." I suspect that you fooled yourself in those 0.02 seconds. Stage magicians rely on the brains of their audience fooling themselves. This trick was very well done.

Rule -> RE: There was a plane! (8/10/2011 2:09:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras I'm talking about all the towers but particularly 7 which was the focus of your point. As Musical said, it wasn't a tidy collapse. Numerous buildings were severely damaged or completely destroyed so it is wrong to call this a controlled demolition as keeps being repeated on conspiracist sites. Yeah Tower 7 had a metal frame but it was carrying a seriously heavy load and if the structure was undermined then its certainly not a given the metal would keep it up. You should realize the collapse of a 110 story building would release immense energy. Anaxagoras, it is plain impossible for ordinary buildings to collapse as 1,2 and 7 did. quote: ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras Pull as a word has numerous meanings besides demolition. Other uses of "pull" include the context of an article from a magazine, pull a project etc. He did use "it" but he was talking to one of the senior fire chiefs about pulling his men out as in pulling the plug on the effort to check the environs of the building. That was the context of how he said it: quote: I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, you know, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse." To me it is obvious that LS gave the command to bring down 7. He made a Freudian slip when he was interviewed, revealing what truly happened. But never mind him. The report that was done (NIST?) about the structural failing of 7 was very revealing and is all the evidence one needs to conclude that 7 was brought down purposely. The only question left is this one: Why was it brought down? What purpose was being served by bringing down 7?

Rule -> RE: There was a plane! (8/10/2011 2:23:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 There was a 20 story gash in building 7 from debris from the tower that collapsed OUTSIDE of its foot print. That 20 story gash in building 7 was structurally insignificant.

rulemylife -> RE: There was a plane! (8/10/2011 2:52:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 There was a 20 story gash in building 7 from debris from the tower that collapsed OUTSIDE of its foot print. That 20 story gash in building 7 was structurally insignificant. You mean like the airplanes that hit the towers didn't cause any structurally significant damage? Oh wait.......I forgot......... there were no airplanes, they just landed safely in a place only you know about and can't disclose. And apparently the passengers and crew are now living in hiding.

Anaxagoras -> RE: There was a plane! (8/10/2011 11:57:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule quote: ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras I'm talking about all the towers but particularly 7 which was the focus of your point. As Musical said, it wasn't a tidy collapse. Numerous buildings were severely damaged or completely destroyed so it is wrong to call this a controlled demolition as keeps being repeated on conspiracist sites. Yeah Tower 7 had a metal frame but it was carrying a seriously heavy load and if the structure was undermined then its certainly not a given the metal would keep it up. You should realize the collapse of a 110 story building would release immense energy. Anaxagoras, it is plain impossible for ordinary buildings to collapse as 1,2 and 7 did. Sorry but you are not an expert on these issues. Neither am I but I have reviewed what the conspiracy theorists say and the responses from those attempting to debunk these dubious claims. The latter come out on top every time, e.g. the conspiracists keep saying they collapsed in a controlled demolition into their footprint time and time again but that simply isn't true. WTC 1 and 2 did so much damage to the other towers (and some surrounding buildings) that almost all of them were destroyed or damaged beyond repair. quote: quote: ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras Pull as a word has numerous meanings besides demolition. Other uses of "pull" include the context of an article from a magazine, pull a project etc. He did use "it" but he was talking to one of the senior fire chiefs about pulling his men out as in pulling the plug on the effort to check the environs of the building. That was the context of how he said it: quote: I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, you know, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse." To me it is obvious that LS gave the command to bring down 7. He made a Freudian slip when he was interviewed, revealing what truly happened. But never mind him. The report that was done (NIST?) about the structural failing of 7 was very revealing and is all the evidence one needs to conclude that 7 was brought down purposely. The only question left is this one: Why was it brought down? What purpose was being served by bringing down 7? No he didn't make a freudian slip because he was simply relating a conversation he had on the phone with a fire chief, and should be interpreted in that context. His conversation with that man wasn't quoted verbatim, just relating to it from memory. The NIST report did not state that Tower Seven was brought down purposely, in fact they said the opposite. When you said on a few occasions that you believed an explosive device the size of a fingernail brought down the building, it was clear no opposing view could ever convince you.

MasterSlaveLA -> RE: There was a plane! (8/10/2011 12:22:46 PM)
[8D] [image]local://upfiles/687741/E9AA7ACDE797456B8B4016D0458BE662.jpg[/image]

Rule -> RE: There was a plane! (8/10/2011 12:33:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras Sorry but you are not an expert on these issues. I consider myself sufficiently expert. I do not care one whit about what anybody else thinks of my level of expertness. quote: ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras Neither am I but I have reviewed what the conspiracy theorists say and the responses from those attempting to debunk these dubious claims. I accept that you are no expert by your own confession. That disqualifies you to judge anything that you say that you have reviewed. Right? Yes, right. So now please go play in a sandbox or go bird-watching, and stop bothering people with your inconsequential, non-expert views. quote: ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras The latter come out on top every time, e.g. the conspiracists keep saying they collapsed in a controlled demolition into their footprint time and time again but that simply isn't true. WTC 1 and 2 did so much damage to the other towers (and some surrounding buildings) that almost all of them were destroyed or damaged beyond repair. It is for experts to determine what is true and what is not true. You have already confessed not to be an expert. And I am fairly certain that you cannot recognize a truth even if it bit you in your toe. That somebody is wrong does not mean that they are not right. It merely means that they cannot perceive the truth either. quote: ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras No he didn't make a freudian slip because he was simply relating a conversation he had on the phone with a fire chief, and should be interpreted in that context. His conversation with that man wasn't quoted verbatim, just relating to it from memory. The NIST report did not state that Tower Seven was brought down purposely, in fact they said the opposite. When you said on a few occasions that you believed an explosive device the size of a fingernail brought down the building, it was clear no opposing view could ever convince you. Well, to me it is rather clear from the above quote that you lack the imagination necessary to solve such riddles. Perhaps you ought to google 'catastrophe theory' in conjunction with either mathematics or physics?

kalikshama -> RE: There was a plane! (8/10/2011 12:47:47 PM)
Which psychological or socio political explanation fits our conspiracists? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory#Psychological_origins http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory A conspiracy theory is a fringe theory which explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by exceptionally powerful and cunning conspirators to achieve a malevolent end.[1][2][3] According to political scientist Michael Barkun, the appeal of conspiracism is threefold: First, conspiracy theories claim to explain what mainstream narratives cannot. They appear to make sense out of a world that is otherwise confusing. Second, they do so in an appealingly simple way, by dividing the world sharply between the forces of light and the forces of darkness. They trace all evil back to a single source, the conspirators and their agents. Third, conspiracy theories are often presented as special, secret knowledge unknown or unappreciated by others. For conspiracy theorists, the masses are a brainwashed herd, while the conspiracy theorists in the know can congratulate themselves on penetrating the plotters' deceptions.[3]

Rule -> RE: There was a plane! (8/10/2011 1:05:55 PM)
He merely demonstrates that scientists, himself in particular, often are as incompetent as non-scientists. I am loathe to call such an incompetent a scientist. He forgot 4: Conspiracy theorists are sometimes or often right, even when they are wrong.

Anaxagoras -> RE: There was a plane! (8/10/2011 1:38:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule quote: ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras Sorry but you are not an expert on these issues. I consider myself sufficiently expert. I do not care one whit about what anybody else thinks of my level of expertness. Well then you won't mind if I and others on here disagree with your assertions! [8D] quote: quote: ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras Neither am I but I have reviewed what the conspiracy theorists say and the responses from those attempting to debunk these dubious claims. I accept that you are no expert by your own confession. That disqualifies you to judge anything that you say that you have reviewed. Right? Yes, right. So now please go play in a sandbox or go bird-watching, and stop bothering people with your inconsequential, non-expert views. It isn't a confession, it is an honest admission for the sake of clarity. It is sufficient to look to expert knowledge for guidance. This is what the vast majority of people actually do all the time, including experts in other fields, such as judges. Very few people actually have sufficient expertise to make factual pronouncements based purely on their own technical knowledge of certain events like the collapse of the towers. People in these instances rely on expertise. I know you don't possess such expertise either so stop embarassing yourself by pretending to be a know-all. quote: quote: ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras The latter come out on top every time, e.g. the conspiracists keep saying they collapsed in a controlled demolition into their footprint time and time again but that simply isn't true. WTC 1 and 2 did so much damage to the other towers (and some surrounding buildings) that almost all of them were destroyed or damaged beyond repair. It is for experts to determine what is true and what is not true. You have already confessed not to be an expert. And I am fairly certain that you cannot recognize a truth even if it bit you in your toe. LOL Rule, truth doesn't have a tendency to bite people unless they are delusional. I have listened to the experts. Experts are the people who provide their expertise to assist others. Thats what experts do Rule! quote: That somebody is wrong does not mean that they are not right. It merely means that they cannot perceive the truth either. LOL Rule, if someone is wrong then it means they are not right. [:D] quote: quote: ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras No he didn't make a freudian slip because he was simply relating a conversation he had on the phone with a fire chief, and should be interpreted in that context. His conversation with that man wasn't quoted verbatim, just relating to it from memory. The NIST report did not state that Tower Seven was brought down purposely, in fact they said the opposite. When you said on a few occasions that you believed an explosive device the size of a fingernail brought down the building, it was clear no opposing view could ever convince you. Well, to me it is rather clear from the above quote that you lack the imagination necessary to solve such riddles. Perhaps you ought to google 'catastrophe theory' in conjunction with either mathematics or physics? Rule, I think everybody here knows you have a very active imagination. However, imagination is not a sufficient quality. You won't find the truth in your conspiratorial daydreams. I was waiting for Rule to make this personal, with all his talk of others being inexpert etc., it is indeed the most entertaining aspect of his posts! [:D]

lockedaway -> RE: There was a plane! (8/10/2011 1:58:06 PM)
I said I was done with this fucking thread but it is like Godfather 3 "Every time I try to get out they pull me back in." Ok...attached is a link. Go look at it. Look at the picture of Building 7 immediately after the Towers collapsed. There is a gash from about the 20th floor down to the lobby. It is NOT an even that could have even remotely caused that skyskraper to collapse. Remember, folks, when the Oklahoma City bombing happened, it carved a huge scoop out of the center of that building. AND THE BUILDING DID NOT COLLAPSE! The building stood with an ENORMOUS amount of it missing. The difference in damage to the two buildings is palpable and yet Building 7 collapsed all on its own 6.5 hours later? Bullshit! Ok...at least to me it is bullshit. Check this out: http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2006/230806wtccomplex.htm There are also plenty of pictures of Building 7 that you can look at as well.

SaintIntensity -> RE: There was a plane! (8/10/2011 1:58:11 PM)
Rule, the expert (ha!) geneticist/physicist/biologist/historian etc etc the "expert" who could not even handle BASIC logic ie the sad delusional loserrrrrrrr the COWARD who wont divulge his "conclusions" in case THEY get him (they could track and get him NOW ffs) ie a chickenshit know-nothing - come on, coward - spill the beans! Put up or shut the fuck up! tit!

Anaxagoras -> RE: There was a plane! (8/10/2011 2:08:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lockedaway I said I was done with this fucking thread but it is like Godfather 3 "Every time I try to get out they pull me back in." Ok...attached is a link. Go look at it. Look at the picture of Building 7 immediately after the Towers collapsed. There is a gash from about the 20th floor down to the lobby. It is NOT an even that could have even remotely caused that skyskraper to collapse. Remember, folks, when the Oklahoma City bombing happened, it carved a huge scoop out of the center of that building. AND THE BUILDING DID NOT COLLAPSE! The building stood with an ENORMOUS amount of it missing. The difference in damage to the two buildings is palpable and yet Building 7 collapsed all on its own 6.5 hours later? Bullshit! The structure of buildings differs a great deal so its not easy to make broad comparisons. People have even compared WTC 7 to steel frames like oil rigs which is bizarre as they are very different. The huge gash in WTC 7 was not the sole reason it collapsed. Have a read of the link I posted up to see if it helps address some of your questions. quote: Ok...at least to me it is bullshit. Check this out: http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2006/230806wtccomplex.htm There are also plenty of pictures of Building 7 that you can look at as well. I've seen plenty of stuff from Prison Planet, and infowars. I point to the thing I said to you previously, which is that the vast majority of this conspiracy stuff comes from far-right sources with a very real hate agenda. A quick glance through Infowars should back that up. On the 911 debunked site they address pretty much all of of Alex Jones' "claims".

lockedaway -> RE: There was a plane! (8/10/2011 2:27:04 PM)
Ok...I read it. I do not believe the single point of failure "theory" that they posited. I have never heard of a building being able to come down in its entirety because of one central column. The OKC building is a perfect case in point. You say they are constructed differently and that may be true. However, buildings have foundations that have to have structure integrity individually. That is why you still see a large amount of the OKC building still standing. In the like you cited, the writer still claims that the fires were intense. Find me ONE steel building that has ever collapsed due to a fire. Look...there were steel skeletons standing after either Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Fire brought down Building 7? Fire AND a gash in the front of the building that leaves many windows in the front and all of the visible windows on the side still intact?? I reviewed your link. I just don't find it persuasive. One of the most un-persuasive things about it is the actual picture of Building 7 after the tower collapse. If the building had collapsed in its center leaving a U shape that surrounded the gash, perhaps I could get my head around it better. Here is more stuff and this is a fairly interesting read as well: http://www.wtc7.net/pullit.html Like I said, I have no answers, only questions. To the naked eye, Building 7 may have been totaled after the event and would have required demolition. Fine. But it certainly did not look damaged enough to collapse on its own.

mnottertail -> RE: There was a plane! (8/10/2011 2:36:14 PM)
google verniage. game over.

Rule -> RE: There was a plane! (8/10/2011 2:44:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras Well then you won't mind if I and others on here disagree with your assertions! [8D] Indeed, I do not mind. But your lack of faith does will sadden me. It is good that you lot of ordinary people are blissfully unaware of your plight, but it would be better if you were not unaware. quote: ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras It isn't a confession, it is an honest admission for the sake of clarity. It is sufficient to look to expert knowledge for guidance. This is what the vast majority of people actually do all the time, including experts in other fields, such as judges. I am not the vast majority of people. quote: ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras Very few people actually have sufficient expertise to make factual pronouncements based purely on their own technical knowledge of certain events like the collapse of the towers. People in these instances rely on expertise. I know you don't possess such expertise either so stop embarassing yourself by pretending to be a know-all. Yeah, yeah, and the vast majority of people actually do need someone else to light the light, put fire into the hearth and to wipe their nose, not so? A boyscout who hasn't left high school yet can tell you that a couple of kitchen fires cannot bring down such buildings. Please stop parroting your experts and go to one of them boyscout associations and rent there a brain. What are you? A tape-recorder? If you lack wits, then consult somebody who has plenty of wits. quote: ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras I have listened to the experts. Experts are the people who provide their expertise to assist others. Thats what experts do Rule! So that is your excuse for not thinking yourself? You are gullible, an easy mark. quote: ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras LOL Rule, if someone is wrong then it means they are not right. [:D] Once people thought that nerves were pneumatic tubes that made the muscles swell up and deflated them. Wrong? Yes and no. Yes they were wrong: nerves are not pneumatic tubes. But also: Yes, they were right: electrical signals conveyed by the nerves do make muscles contract. Your failure to realize that people who are wrong may nevertheless be right, is telling. You lack the ability to perceive truth. quote: ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras Rule, I think everybody here knows you have a very active imagination. However, imagination is not a sufficient quality. You won't find the truth in your conspiratorial daydreams. It is rather that you lack the ability to perceive truth as you know it not.

rulemylife -> RE: There was a plane! (8/10/2011 2:51:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule He merely demonstrates that scientists, himself in particular, often are as incompetent as non-scientists. I am loathe to call such an incompetent a scientist. He forgot 4: Conspiracy theorists are sometimes or often right, even when they are wrong. Well, that's interesting. Someone can be right when they are wrong. How does that work?

mnottertail -> RE: There was a plane! (8/10/2011 2:52:21 PM)
Foreskins, smoke, and mirrors.

rulemylife -> RE: There was a plane! (8/10/2011 3:00:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lockedaway I said I was done with this fucking thread but it is like Godfather 3 "Every time I try to get out they pull me back in." Ok...attached is a link. Go look at it. Look at the picture of Building 7 immediately after the Towers collapsed. There is a gash from about the 20th floor down to the lobby. It is NOT an even that could have even remotely caused that skyskraper to collapse. Remember, folks, when the Oklahoma City bombing happened, it carved a huge scoop out of the center of that building. AND THE BUILDING DID NOT COLLAPSE! The building stood with an ENORMOUS amount of it missing. The difference in damage to the two buildings is palpable and yet Building 7 collapsed all on its own 6.5 hours later? Bullshit! Ok...at least to me it is bullshit. Check this out: http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2006/230806wtccomplex.htm There are also plenty of pictures of Building 7 that you can look at as well. Oh good, a Prison Planet link. That should solve the matter. I mean if you can't trust Alex Jones then who can you trust?

mnottertail -> RE: There was a plane! (8/10/2011 3:02:50 PM)
people who claim to be lawyers?

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875