The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

[Xaihe]

To be fair, the 'pools of molten steel' was not based on photographs, but on eyewitness accounts.

Of course, given how people are sometimes inclined to avoid all evidence that goes against their beliefs, this idea that the molten steel is based on photos alone is still alive and well in certain circles.

Do you have any evidence for this claim that the molten steel claim was based on eyewitness accounts?
If so, I'll happily accept that and then laugh at the eyewitness accounts, since eyewitness accounts are hilariously unreliable. That's why, while they can be used to corroborate a story, they're not acceptable evidence for anything.

[proudfootz]

No one would ever use eyewitness testimony in a courtroom, for example.

[proudfootz]

Oh! Didn't you vet the memo?

One of these is not like the other.

Anyway, a gobshite like Trump wouldn't be able to keep his fat mouth shut if there was a conspiracy. Same goes for Roswell.

Therefore; conspiracy theories debunked.

Same applies here. It's over. Go home.

I suppose it just proves your theory that Trump was behind 9/11 is debunked.

Maybe you should go home?

No. It doesn't. The President is privy to information. Confidential stuff. Top security clearance. To say that this is being withheld from him is layering even more conspiracy on top of what's there.

Not that adding layers of increasingly implausible theories on top of already far-fetched ideas and multiplying entities isn't already what makes every conspiracy theory ever completely worthless.

What I'm saying Is, this whole thread was destroyed on the first page. And yet they persist.

Hilarious!

Not that adding layers of increasingly implausible theories on top of already far-fetched ideas isn't already what makes every anti-conspiracy theory ever completely worthless.

There's no reason any organization within the government should have to brief the president on everything they ever did.

[Animavore]

Oh! Didn't you vet the memo?



Same applies here. It's over. Go home.

I suppose it just proves your theory that Trump was behind 9/11 is debunked.

Maybe you should go home?

No. It doesn't. The President is privy to information. Confidential stuff. Top security clearance. To say that this is being withheld from him is layering even more conspiracy on top of what's there.

Not that adding layers of increasingly implausible theories on top of already far-fetched ideas and multiplying entities isn't already what makes every conspiracy theory ever completely worthless.

What I'm saying Is, this whole thread was destroyed on the first page. And yet they persist.

Hilarious!

Not that adding layers of increasingly implausible theories on top of already far-fetched ideas isn't already what makes every anti-conspiracy theory ever completely worthless.

There's no reason any organization within the government should have to brief the president on everything they ever did.

Did you really just pull a "I know you are but what am I?" on me?



You also seem to suggest there are organisations within the government working clandestinely without the knowledge of the commander-in-chief and his staff for their own or someone else's nefarious reasons and further multiplying implausible entities.

This thread was destroyed in post #2.

[GrahamH]

Yes, some folks even seem to believe these eyewitnesses saw photos of something instead of actually being on site.

Photos would be better than what we have but I don't think there is any material evidence of molten steel running in the debris.

[Animavore]

Was still able to 'like' post #2 after all these years and don't see it addressed at all in the first few pages. The thread ends there as far as I'm concerned. Such wasted time and energy in the 464 pages after it. I dunno, maybe this is a fun hobby for some.

[Animavore]

Good example. The molten steel argument above is addressed in the website quoted and linked in post #2.

http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm

It's all there.

This conspiracy stuff is a fun "what if " hobby, kinda like creative writing class, but don't pretend It's anything more.

[Xaihe]

No one would ever use eyewitness testimony in a courtroom, for example.

As a matter of fact, courtrooms are a terrible place to find scientific evidence or scientific knowledge.

Just ask all the people who were wrongly convicted based on bite mark evidence. 98% is now known to be wrongly convicted, but the method is still allowed in courtrooms, because courtrooms don't decide based on science, but on precedence.
So yeah, thanks for bringing up courtrooms.

[proudfootz]

I suppose it just proves your theory that Trump was behind 9/11 is debunked.

Maybe you should go home?

No. It doesn't. The President is privy to information. Confidential stuff. Top security clearance. To say that this is being withheld from him is layering even more conspiracy on top of what's there.

Not that adding layers of increasingly implausible theories on top of already far-fetched ideas and multiplying entities isn't already what makes every conspiracy theory ever completely worthless.

What I'm saying Is, this whole thread was destroyed on the first page. And yet they persist.

Hilarious!

Not that adding layers of increasingly implausible theories on top of already far-fetched ideas isn't already what makes every anti-conspiracy theory ever completely worthless.

There's no reason any organization within the government should have to brief the president on everything they ever did.

Did you really just pull a "I know you are but what am I?" on me?



You also seem to suggest there are organisations within the government working clandestinely without the knowledge of the commander-in-chief and his staff for their own or someone else's nefarious reasons and further multiplying implausible entities.

I think you'd need to have some sort of substantiation for claims that our clandestine services have to ask permission for everything and everything they do - even stuff in the past - from the POTUS.

That is the laughable belief you seem to espouse.

Trump would be briefed all the ins and outs of 9/11 16 years ago, and the JFK murder more than 50 years ago?

This thread was destroyed in post #2.

If you say so.

[proudfootz]

No one would ever use eyewitness testimony in a courtroom, for example.

As a matter of fact, courtrooms are a terrible place to find scientific evidence or scientific knowledge.

Just ask all the people who were wrongly convicted based on bite mark evidence. 98% is now known to be wrongly convicted, but the method is still allowed in courtrooms, because courtrooms don't decide based on science, but on precedence.
So yeah, thanks for bringing up courtrooms.

No problem.

Glad you could be here to shit all over Jane Goodall and all her observations of animal behavior and other scientists in the field.

[Animavore]

No. It doesn't. The President is privy to information. Confidential stuff. Top security clearance. To say that this is being withheld from him is layering even more conspiracy on top of what's there.

Not that adding layers of increasingly implausible theories on top of already far-fetched ideas and multiplying entities isn't already what makes every conspiracy theory ever completely worthless.

What I'm saying Is, this whole thread was destroyed on the first page. And yet they persist.

Hilarious!

Not that adding layers of increasingly implausible theories on top of already far-fetched ideas isn't already what makes every anti-conspiracy theory ever completely worthless.

There's no reason any organization within the government should have to brief the president on everything they ever did.

Did you really just pull a "I know you are but what am I?" on me?



You also seem to suggest there are organisations within the government working clandestinely without the knowledge of the commander-in-chief and his staff for their own or someone else's nefarious reasons and further multiplying implausible entities.

I think you'd need to have some sort of substantiation for claims that our clandestine services have to ask permission for everything and everything they do - even stuff in the past - from the POTUS.

That is the laughable belief you seem to espouse.

Trump would be briefed all the ins and outs of 9/11 16 years ago, and the JFK murder more than 50 years ago?

This thread was destroyed in post #2.

If you say so.

Is this that creative writing game where you write a paragraph, then I continue the story in the next, and we pass it around from person to person and see what we end up with?

As long as you know it's only a game. Just a bit of fun. You're not supposed to take it seriously.

[proudfootz]

Hilarious!

Not that adding layers of increasingly implausible theories on top of already far-fetched ideas isn't already what makes every anti-conspiracy theory ever completely worthless.

There's no reason any organization within the government should have to brief the president on everything they ever did.

Did you really just pull a "I know you are but what am I?" on me?



You also seem to suggest there are organisations within the government working clandestinely without the knowledge of the commander-in-chief and his staff for their own or someone else's nefarious reasons and further multiplying implausible entities.

I think you'd need to have some sort of substantiation for claims that our clandestine services have to ask permission for everything and everything they do - even stuff in the past - from the POTUS.

That is the laughable belief you seem to espouse.

Trump would be briefed all the ins and outs of 9/11 16 years ago, and the JFK murder more than 50 years ago?

This thread was destroyed in post #2.

If you say so.

Is this that creative writing game where you write a paragraph, then I continue the story in the next, and we pass it around from person to person and see what we end up with?

As long as you know it's only a game. Just a bit of fun. You're not supposed to take it seriously.

It does seem you take all this as a game, up to a point.

You expressed the idea that if Trump didn't tweet about something, it was 'proof' it didn't happen.'

I laughed at the absurdity of your silly, nonsensical idea.

Then you got all defensive.

[Animavore]

Did you really just pull a "I know you are but what am I?" on me?



You also seem to suggest there are organisations within the government working clandestinely without the knowledge of the commander-in-chief and his staff for their own or someone else's nefarious reasons and further multiplying implausible entities.

I think you'd need to have some sort of substantiation for claims that our clandestine services have to ask permission for everything and everything they do - even stuff in the past - from the POTUS.

That is the laughable belief you seem to espouse.

Trump would be briefed all the ins and outs of 9/11 16 years ago, and the JFK murder more than 50 years ago?

This thread was destroyed in post #2.

If you say so.

Is this that creative writing game where you write a paragraph, then I continue the story in the next, and we pass it around from person to person and see what we end up with?

As long as you know it's only a game. Just a bit of fun. You're not supposed to take it seriously.

It does seem you take all this as a game, up to a point.

You expressed the idea that if Trump didn't tweet about something, it was 'proof' it didn't happen.'

I laughed at the absurdity of your silly, nonsensical idea.

Then you got all defensive.

You're the one getting defensive. Conspiracy theories are just a hobby. There was no need to try counter my comment about Trump like it's a discussion on a real life topic. It's just a bit of fun to me. Don't try tell me it's me taking it seriously when you've written tons of posts on this. It's just like a game of Dungeons and Dragons or some other pen and paper RPG.

[proudfootz]

Yes, to you it may be a game.

And yet, I bet you've got more posts here than I have.

So if 'tons of posts' means anything, it looks like you're more invested than I am.

[Animavore]

I don't have loads of posts trying to discuss the finer details of a fantasy role-playing game hobby. Almost none.

Arguing over 9/11 or JFK is like arguing if The Hulk can beat Superman. Most people don't take such what if scenarios seriously. But some people get to into it and get heated over such silly arguments. They have to be 'right' in a topic of the imagination of which the rules can be twisted to suit the argument.

That's conspiracy theorists in a nutshell. Arguing that over a crappy, badly written Dan Brown novel like it's a history book.

[proudfootz]

I don't have loads of posts trying to discuss the finer details of a fantasy role-playing game hobby. Almost none.

Arguing over 9/11 or JFK is like arguing if The Hulk can beat Superman. Most people don't take such what if scenarios seriously. But some people get to into it and get heated over such silly arguments. They have to be 'right' in a topic of the imagination of which the rules can be twisted to suit the argument.

That's conspiracy theorists in a nutshell. Arguing that over a crappy, badly written Dan Brown novel like it's a history book.

I'm told this thread (and other incarnations) have going on for years.

So you're saying all the fine folks who've been contributing to this thread are no better than comic book fans?

You have contempt for Weaver and other would-be 'debunkers'? Because they have a need to be 'right'?

Like you do?

Really funny to see you throwing all your friends under the bus just to pretend you had a point!

[Animavore]

I don't have loads of posts trying to discuss the finer details of a fantasy role-playing game hobby. Almost none.

Arguing over 9/11 or JFK is like arguing if The Hulk can beat Superman. Most people don't take such what if scenarios seriously. But some people get to into it and get heated over such silly arguments. They have to be 'right' in a topic of the imagination of which the rules can be twisted to suit the argument.

That's conspiracy theorists in a nutshell. Arguing that over a crappy, badly written Dan Brown novel like it's a history book.

I'm told this thread (and other incarnations) have going on for years.

So you're saying all the fine folks who've been contributing to this thread are no better than comic book fans?

You have contempt for Weaver and other would-be 'debunkers'? Because they have a need to be 'right'?

Like you do?

Really funny to see you throwing all your friends under the bus just to pretend you had a point!

Wow! You really think the ones laying facts are part of the let's pretend game conspiracy theorists are? Do you believe I was referring to them when I was talking about conspiracy theorists arguing with each other?

Those guys are grown adults. They're the ones saying, guys, it's not real.

I was referring to when conspiracy theorists argue contradictory points with one another by making up shit. Like when I argued stuff about Trump I couldn't possibly know and you tried retort with something you couldn't possibly know. Assertion vs assertion. Only I knew I was talking shit, having a laugh. You thought you were making an argument.

[Xaihe]

No one would ever use eyewitness testimony in a courtroom, for example.

As a matter of fact, courtrooms are a terrible place to find scientific evidence or scientific knowledge.

Just ask all the people who were wrongly convicted based on bite mark evidence. 98% is now known to be wrongly convicted, but the method is still allowed in courtrooms, because courtrooms don't decide based on science, but on precedence.
So yeah, thanks for bringing up courtrooms.

No problem.

Glad you could be here to shit all over Jane Goodall and all her observations of animal behavior and other scientists in the field.

Somehow I doubt that scientists like Jane Goodall appreciate you equating scientific observations with eyewitness testimonies.

[proudfootz]

I don't have loads of posts trying to discuss the finer details of a fantasy role-playing game hobby. Almost none.

Arguing over 9/11 or JFK is like arguing if The Hulk can beat Superman. Most people don't take such what if scenarios seriously. But some people get to into it and get heated over such silly arguments. They have to be 'right' in a topic of the imagination of which the rules can be twisted to suit the argument.

That's conspiracy theorists in a nutshell. Arguing that over a crappy, badly written Dan Brown novel like it's a history book.

I'm told this thread (and other incarnations) have going on for years.

So you're saying all the fine folks who've been contributing to this thread are no better than comic book fans?

You have contempt for Weaver and other would-be 'debunkers'? Because they have a need to be 'right'?

Like you do?

Really funny to see you throwing all your friends under the bus just to pretend you had a point!

Wow! You really think the ones laying facts are part of the let's pretend game conspiracy theorists are? Do you believe I was referring to them when I was talking about conspiracy theorists arguing with each other?

Those guys are grown adults. They're the ones saying, guys, it's not real.

I was referring to when conspiracy theorists argue contradictory points with one another by making up shit. Like when I argued stuff about Trump I couldn't possibly know and you tried retort with something you couldn't possibly know. Assertion vs assertion. Only I knew I was talking shit, having a laugh. You thought you were making an argument.

So you made shit up and when you got called on it you have a snit fit.

But you have to pretend like you don't care all that much.

Tough spot to be in for you.

[Animavore]

I don't have loads of posts trying to discuss the finer details of a fantasy role-playing game hobby. Almost none.

Arguing over 9/11 or JFK is like arguing if The Hulk can beat Superman. Most people don't take such what if scenarios seriously. But some people get to into it and get heated over such silly arguments. They have to be 'right' in a topic of the imagination of which the rules can be twisted to suit the argument.

That's conspiracy theorists in a nutshell. Arguing that over a crappy, badly written Dan Brown novel like it's a history book.

I'm told this thread (and other incarnations) have going on for years.

So you're saying all the fine folks who've been contributing to this thread are no better than comic book fans?

You have contempt for Weaver and other would-be 'debunkers'? Because they have a need to be 'right'?

Like you do?

Really funny to see you throwing all your friends under the bus just to pretend you had a point!

Wow! You really think the ones laying facts are part of the let's pretend game conspiracy theorists are? Do you believe I was referring to them when I was talking about conspiracy theorists arguing with each other?

Those guys are grown adults. They're the ones saying, guys, it's not real.

I was referring to when conspiracy theorists argue contradictory points with one another by making up shit. Like when I argued stuff about Trump I couldn't possibly know and you tried retort with something you couldn't possibly know. Assertion vs assertion. Only I knew I was talking shit, having a laugh. You thought you were making an argument.

So you made shit up and when you got called on it you have a snit fit.

But you have to pretend like you don't care all that much.

Tough spot to be in for you.

I didn't simply get "called out". You tried to suggest that clandestine agencies, which I made up, don't have to tell the President anything. It was like responding to me saying Superman would simply crush Batman by saying not if Batman had his kryptonite pants on - exempt meaning it; like it was real.