quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave W.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ergo123

And how would the terrorists know about the military exercises? Are they on the DOD email list?

---

quote:

---

Back when I had a few friends in the military, I knew every time they'd go on exercises, 'cause they told me so. If you think the terrorists weren't engaged in basic intelligence gathering for years before the attack, you're as naive as you claim we are.

---

quote:

---

That is the explanation as to why only a few plane parts were recovered at either scene.

---

quote:

---

And yet I see thousands of airplane parts in the photos of both crashes. What's the boiling point of aluminum, anyway...? Oh, wait, it's up to you to do your own homework from now on, so nevermind.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kil

---

quote:

---

ergo123:
In my experience, though, people like you who need an answer will latch on to one no matter how outrageous it is, just to have the answer. Then they go through all sorts of mental gymnastics to convince themselves they are open to other ideas--when really they want to stick to the one they originally believed.

---

quote:

---

You are absolutely clueless in your assessment of “people like me.” But I have an idea. Read this. While the subject matter is not appropriate to this thread, it should give you a window into how I think. If, after reading the linked essay, you still think the above quote fits me, that would be an indication that you are unable to absorb any evidence contrary to your preconceived beliefs in any meaningful way. In short, it would mean that you are projecting again…

---

quote:

---

ergo123:
…And if you don't have an emotional attachment to either theory you are not human. The fact that you are human yet don't acknowledge your emotional attachment to the official theory is evidence that you are unaware of that attachment--which, in turn means you are under emotional influence you are not even aware of...

---

quote:

---

The attachment I have to the official explanation is that I think its conclusions are correct. As I said earlier, it would be a big bummer if your favored theory were the correct one. But that would not stop me from changing my mind if I could be shown convincing evidence that supports it.

---

quote:

---

Again, I have no emotional investment in being correct about either theory in the sense that it would keep me from accepting the one that has the most support and makes the most sense to me. Why do I have to say this a second time?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by filthy

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ergo123

quote:

---

Originally posted by filthy




The links are perfectly relevant to the discussion. They nicely demonstrate what it would take to set the necessary charges for a blasting job of that magnitude.

---

...if it was being set up as a traditional CD...

quote:

---

I don't know what inspections were or were not carried out but at this point, that is not relevant. a controlled demolition could not be set up surreptitiously. It's simply too big a job involving too many people, and all too obvious. They'd have been busted before morning coffee break on the first day.

---

Hmmm... But maybe not if the security company was in on the job... Do you remember who ran the security company?

quote:

---

I read somewhere some time ago, (no link, sorry) that the bin Laden and his underlings expressed surprise that the buildings fell in entirety.

---

Which is a laugh in and of itself. I can just hear it... "Oh you infidels--you should all die! Er, but about the towers actually collapsing? My bad. I had only wanted to dent them! I'm serious. Please believe me. I want you all to die, but I didn't want to bring those beautiful towers down."

You can't seriously believe that was ben Laden! LOL HAHAHA

quote:

---

I ask again: if you were to set up an explosive demolition coordinated with a plane crash in such a building, how would you go about it? How would any of the myriad conspiracy theorists out there do it?

---

Answered elsewhere...

---

quote:

---

You have answered nothing at all. Why is that? Don't you know? As for the bin Laden thing, I don't know. Do you, and can you prove that it was not?

---

quote:

---

I repeat: The floors where the charges would have to be set would have to be virtually razed to get at and charge the support structure. Saying that the security units were possibly in on it is utterly ridiculous -- you've got to do better than that.

---

quote:

---

And the "traditional" method is the only one there is; the only game in town. Unless you can come up with a better one. Which you will not do simply because neither you or your fellow believers in woo-woo have one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ergo123

Oh. So the terrorists are on your friends' email list?

---

quote:

---

How do you know the photos you saw weren't altered with a program like Photoshop?

---

1) The government is all-powerful,
2) a miracle would explain how the government accomplished feat X,
3) therefore, the government performed a miracle.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ergo123

So you say. But you show absolutely no evidence that it cannot be done another way.

---

quote:

---

ergo123
My guess is that you said it a second time to convince yourself...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kil
Also, interestingly, even with your advanced degree in psychology, every time you have been backed to the wall or are short on directions to turn, you attack by saying that your opponent has some kind of emotional problem. You did it to Dave, and now to me. Hmmmmm… Interesting pattern.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave W.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ergo123

Oh. So the terrorists are on your friends' email list?

---

Now you're just being obtuse. I assume you're doing so in order to waste even more time, so that hopefully we'll all forget that you promised to provide some actual evidence.

quote:

---

How do you know the photos you saw weren't altered with a program like Photoshop?

---

Wonderful. I predicted this exact question. The underlying assumption in the question is that the government has the power to get Photoshopped images into independent news stories at will. And once you give the government God-like powers, you really are just making creationist arguments:

1) The government is all-powerful,
2) a miracle would explain how the government accomplished feat X,
3) therefore, the government performed a miracle.

It's a pathetic "explanation" which, because it can explain anything, explains nothing. How do you know that the CIA didn't pour molten steel into the wreckage of the Twin Towers after they came down on their own? How do you know that all of the other "evidence" you claim to be able to present for controlled demolition wasn't itself planted?

Not to mention the fact that if the government intended to cover-up the Pentagon disaster by Photoshopping all the available images, wouldn't they Photoshop them so that they all looked like an airplane had hit the building? Then they wouldn't have to say (as you assert) that the plane "vaporized." Any "real" photos that leaked (due to being taken by random private citizens) could then be dismissed by the government as being Photoshopped. You're instead giving the government powers beyond belief, but then you're saying that they're a bunch of incompetent buffoons as well. The two are incompatible.

Of course, in your dreaming, the government isn't God but instead some deific boogeyman. I know the current administration is evil, but it's evil in a wholly human way. Giving it powers it does not possess isn't the way to go about bringing its demise, nor is it a good way of searching for the truth.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave W.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ergo123

So you say. But you show absolutely no evidence that it cannot be done another way.

---

You've shown no evidence that it can be done another way.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kil

quote:

---

ergo123
My guess is that you said it a second time to convince yourself...

---

Well, obviously you didn't read the link I posted. Oh well. At least you are consistent… I bet you have never uttered the words “I was wrong…”

Also, interestingly, even with your advanced degree in psychology, every time you have been backed to the wall or are short on directions to turn, you attack by saying that your opponent has some kind of emotional problem. You did it to Dave, and now to me. Hmmmmm… Interesting pattern.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kil

quote:

---

ergo123
My guess is that you said it a second time to convince yourself...

---

Well, obviously you didn't read the link I posted.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ergo123

(you guys should seriously consider changing the name of this fotum to Semantic Friends Network--you get so hung up on particular words you can't see the wood for the trees)

---

quote:

---

LOL. Just read my other posts. And can you prove it was ben Laden who said what you claim?

---

quote:

---

So you say. But you show absolutely no evidence that it must be done that way.

---

quote:

---

So you say. But you show absolutely no evidence that it cannot be done another way.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by filthy

quote:

---

LOL. Just read my other posts. And can you prove it was ben Laden who said what you claim?

---

I made no claim; merely mentioned it as something I'd read. And I've read your other posts; they are merely more of the same blather.

quote:

---

So you say. But you show absolutely no evidence that it must be done that way.

---

Didn't open and read the links I gave you, did you?

quote:

---

So you say. But you show absolutely no evidence that it cannot be done another way.

---

Didn't open the links I gave you, did you? I'd ask, "what other way?" but I know that all I'd get would be more confused fantasia and verbal gymnastics. You don't know and don't care to learn about anything that might upset your already precarious position on the matter.

No, you didn't open any links, and I doubt that you will. Kind'a shows a certain intellectual dishonesty, that.

This going around in the same circle is getting almost as boring as a Republican sex scandal. But, what the hell...., liven up my day by telling me about how you would have set those non-existent charges. Tell me about how you would have gotten a sufficient quantity of explosives into the building.

Unless you can come up with an alternate method and means, and demonstrate the probability, you have jack-shit for a theory.

---