Enough is enough...

[SDuderstadt]

since "no-planers" prove themselves impervious to reason (for example, the following link will take you to direct eyewitness testimony of those who witnessed the planes involved in the 9/11 attacks)

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/United_Airlines_Flight_175_Crash_Evidence

it's time to acknowledge the "no-planes" total bullshit for what it is...total bullshit and essentially boycott any thread that posits it and let the "no-planers" demonstrate precisely how goofy their claims are. If you notice, the "no-planers" never confront the major (and thus irrefutable) evidence that blows their goofy claims out of the water, instead they nibble around the edges and maintain that such-and-such a video is "impossible" or that direct eyewitnesses were either brainwashed or coerced into saying they saw plenes they simply could not have seen.

Nevermind that the "no-planers" can't explain how the "perps" could have possibly identified everyone who shot video that day; nevermind that the "no-planers" can't explain why there isn't a single video that shows one of the towers exploding without a plane involved; nevermind that not one single person has ever come forward and testified to the effect that they had shot video that showed no plane that was magically altered later to include a plane that was not there that day...the "no-planers" work backwards from their conclusion and simply disregard every piece of evidence that contradicts their goofy bullshit, all the while demanding impossibly high standards of any evidence that supports the "official story", while refusing to apply those same standards to their own claims.

Trying to reason with them is impossible, because as soon as they get backed into a logical corner, they just invent some new fantastic claim that supposedly explains their previous illgogical claim. Push them hard enough and they will, of course, accuse you of "supporting Bushco" or something equally offensive. So the time has come to impose a total boycott of "no-planes" nonsense and let it die a quiet death, rather than parade their delusions around with them.

I hereby pledge to bite my tongue and let them demonstrate just how silly their goofy bullshit is. Anyone else care to join in?

[Flatulo]

1. I proposed this a few years ago. Count me in again.

It really is like arguing with a stick.

[SDuderstadt]

2. Thanks, Flatulo...

Anyone else? Remember...you can't fix crazy.

[LARED]

3. It's a tough choice

Given the bottom line value for me is the amusement value, with preventing new BS addicts as secondary, it's tough to figure out how best to maximize.

If you ignore them, the amusement value of the CT choir start low and then completely fizzes out as they run out of interesting things to say amongst themselves. The amount of exposure to potential BS addicts is also diminished. If you debate them the amusement value is higher but you also expose new people that may be unacceptable to BS addiction.


I need to consider the risks verves personal benefits in more depth before signing up.

[SDuderstadt]

4. Wait...aren't you the author of...

"Lared's Rule"? You're like our patron saint, dude.

[kerrywins]

5. Fake/Gov Setup Truthers Are The Ones Saying "no planes"

the best way to defeat the opposition is to lead it.

[SDuderstadt]

6. Good...tell that to Spooked and...

duphase, among others. Guys, you've been outed as government operatives by your own side.

Jesus, this is funny.

[SDuderstadt]

7. kicked for new recruits of the "no-planers deserve no respect" movement n/t

[SDuderstadt]

8. Kick....n/t

[Kalun D]

9. LOLZ!!

REAL truthers know that no-planes is patent disinfo originated and perpetrated by the very same people that brought us a Pentagon vid with NO-PLANES. LOLZ!!!

sure there's a few un-educated truthers that go down the wrong path but that's true with any movement.

"I hereby pledge to bite my tongue"

you're NOT EVEN capable, LOLZ!!!

[SDuderstadt]

10. Oh, I see...

the "no real truther" argument. Someone should tell the "no-planers".

[spooked911]

11. Methinks you doth protest too much

which is particularly funny/ironic since you and your compatriots still haven't explained the broken columns in the hole. Plus I have addressed those other issues you mention, you just care to ignore my arguments.

[SDuderstadt]

12. Because your "arguments" are goofy...

dude. Duh.

[spooked911]

25. oooooh, "goofy"

ZING!!!!!!!!!!

Wow, I am so ashamed now.

[SDuderstadt]

27. Dude...

among a multitude of examples of your goofy "arguments", when confronted with the direct eyewitnesses who saw a plane crash into the Pentagon/WTC and CONTEMPORANEOUSLY stating so, you tried to claim they either a) really saw it on TV and not in real-time or b) they really saw no plane but misremembered after seeing it on TV later or c) they saw the plane and were coerced/bribed/bamboozled into believing they saw a plane that wasn't there.

If you boil it down\ your overriding claim is they could not have seen a plane because "there was no plane". If you look up the logical fallacy known as "begging the question", I'm certain your picture is featured prominently as the poster boy for said logical fallacy.

Dude, please tell me what you would call this "argument" other than goofy. Again, I ask: is there ANY conspiracy theory so goofy even YOU won't enmbrace it, dude? I sincerely beg you to quit embarrassing the Democratic Party and liberalism, in general, and DU, in particular, with your goofy bullshit.

[Make7]

28. Well, he doesn't believe the C4 coated rebar reinforced concrete WTC core theory. n/t

[SDuderstadt]

29. Could just be a "disinfo" strategy...

actually, listening to the "truthers" babble on about who inside their inner circle is or is not a "disinfo agent" reminds me of reading "Spy vs Spy" in Mad magazine.

By the way, I wish the "truth movement" would focus on the very mysterous death of Soupy Sales. I understand he was about to spill the beans on the whole "9/11 inside job" thing when he was "silenced".

[spooked911]

37. you forgot (d)

there were paid actors to say they saw a plane hit the tower.

And as I have said, there was a flyby plane that most people saw that coincided with the tower exploding-- that coupled with the TV fakery and the actors, worked its mind-control magic.

So it is not that there was no plane, but rather there was one that people were tricked into thinking hit the tower.

This argument is the best explanation for the clearly fake videos with the impossible physics and I don't consider it "goofy".

[William Seger]

40. "clearly fake videos with the impossible physics"

But for some strange reason, exactly zero video experts and physicists agree with you.

[SDuderstadt]

41. Jesus, dude...

Simple question: how many witnesses saw what you're describing? Do you have even one? two?

More inportantly, how would it be remotely possible for the media to only interview "paid actors"? Do you think about this bullshit before you post it, or do you just blurt out the first thing that pops into your brain, without applying any critical thinking?

I dare you to take any list of the direct eyewitnesses and call them to confront them with your ludicrous accusation, dude. You'd be quite lucky if a number of them did not lose a colleague, friend or loved one on that day.

Please provide any proof you have that all of the people interviewed were "paid actors". You're not only becoming more of an embarrassment with each bizarre assertion, dude, you're becoming downright offensive to the victms and families.

[William Seger]

13. Jeez, you explained the columns in the hole, yourself

... then dismissed your own most plausible answer for strained reasons that are nearly incomprehensible. Your problem, Spooky -- like many other conspiracists -- is that you think that things you just don't understand are evidence of conspiracy. Perhaps they would be if they were truly not understandable without a conspiracy, but they aren't, and yet you try to protect your "evidence" by simply refusing to understand. Same tactic, over and over, just a growing list of things you refuse to understand. I don't think you realize what other people see in that.

[SDuderstadt]

14. Well said, WS...

too bad it's totally lost on someone like Spooked.

[spooked911]

24. which was the most plausible answer again?

I don't even remember you weighing in on that thread, but glad you were checking in, apparently.

[William Seger]

26. Well, ask yourself this question

For starters, how it that those katana sword guys can hack through a bamboo stalk and yet leave the top part hanging in the air long enough to swing back the other way and cut it, too?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CdfnYnNtsbs

Figure that out, then figure out which part of the plane left some hanging columns, then go back and re-examine your proposed list of explanations.

By the time I saw that thread, you had already answered your own question then immediately dismissed it as "improbable," so there wasn't even much entertainment value left.

[spooked911]

38. are you really likening the plane to a sword and the tower to bamboo?

because, the funny thing is how after the sword cleanly slices through the bamboo, the bamboo then shreds the sword into small pieces.

That is one problem with that argument.

You also seem to be promoting the "garage door" model. Except that there is still the issue of how the columns could flip up out of the way of the plane, through several floor slabs, without slowing the plane down.

[William Seger]

39. You skipped a step

I suggested that first you try to figure out why that trick is possible. Why didn't the bamboo go flying across the room? It appears that you didn't do that yet. Instead of trying to understand the principles involved, you immediately started looking for reasons to discount the obvious similarity between that demonstration and a thin wing slicing through the columns. Those are sharp swords, of course, but there's another factor involved: what is it?

Try again.

[spooked911]

44. I understand the factors involved in the "trick"--

but still, there is no real comparison of the trick with the putative plane crash. It's simply ludicrous to compare the wing hitting a thick steel column with a sword going through a bamboo stalk.

Still-- I would like to hear the details of your 30,000 foot cell phone call.

[William Seger]

45. No, it is not "simply ludicrous"

Unexpected things happen at high speed, like being able to yank the table cloth out from under dishes and glasses if you do it fast enough. If you or I tried that bamboo trick, it isn't likely we could do it without a lot of practice because we wouldn't get the sword going fast enough. You can see in that video that some of the cuts did throw the cut pieces more than others, and that's because the sword wasn't moving as fast. You say you understand it, but the principle involved is that the sword is not in contact with the bamboo long enough to impart enough momentum to overcome much of the inertia. If you really understood it you should see why that principle also applies to a relatively thin wing slicing through the hollow columns at high speed. (Obviously, the fuselage and engines would be a different matter.) The plane was flying over 500 mph. Get out your calculator and figure out who long it would take the wing to pass through a 14" column (which only had 1/4" thick walls, btw, so they were very similar to bamboo stalks).

The call was a couple of years ago on a flight from Washington National (I gag when I see or hear it called R* National) to Milwaukee, so it would have roughly passed over the same rural areas that flights 77 and 93 passed over after the hijackings. This was with a Verizon CDMA phone -- the same technology as my phone in 2001 and today. As you ought to know by now, the fatal flaw in Dewdney's extremely unscientific experiment was that he didn't realize that cell transmitters in high-population urban areas have a much shorter range than those used in rural areas, because the cells need to be geographically smaller to accommodate the larger number of users in each cell.

I simply opened my phone approximately 10 times, just to see if I was getting a signal. I did have a signal on 3 of the attempts. On the 3rd signal, I hit the speed dial for my home phone. Nobody was home, but it has an answering machine. I didn't want any hassle from flight attendants, so I just held the phone open and out of sight for about a minute and then closed it. When I got home, I had about 10 seconds of noise recorded from that call. (I'd say the connection must have actually lasted about 20 seconds, including my wife's ridiculously long greeting.) Obviously, it's not very reliable to make calls at that altitude, but we don't have any way of knowing how many people on those flights attempted to make calls but were unsuccessful. All we know is that some did get through, and I will continue to laugh at those who say the calls must have been faked because they were impossible.

If you don't believe me, try the experiment yourself instead of just believing whatever supports your conspiracy delusions. And Dr. Grifter is a fraud for continuing to say they were impossible -- he must know better by now.

[spooked911]

46. Thanks.

As I said in the other thread, I have tried the cell phone thing several times and not gotten a signal. I know others who also have tried and failed. Making a call may indeed be possible, but even you show that it is a low frequency event. The thing about Burnett is not that it is impossible to make a call (just unlikely), but that the stories are so inconsistent and changing over time.

As far as the south tower hit, obviously extremely high speed results in wild collisions. I will note that the column walls at the south tower had a thickness of 13/16 inch on two sides, not 1/4 inch.

But more than that, the massive problem with the sword argument (again) is that if the wing cut through the column like a sword through bamboo, how on earth did the bamboo then destroy the wing before it exited the building?

[procopia]

15. Boxcutter theory=goofy bullshit n/t

[SDuderstadt]

16. Knives with 4" blades were not prohibited on...

9/11, despite your attempts to deny it. Are you claiming they could not have commandeered the plane with them?

[Kesha]

17. To be precise...

there`s even no evidence for boxcutters.

[Bolo Boffin]

18. Hmmmm

[Kesha]

19. A real Hmmmm

This is from flight 93, in remarkable condition.

No one on this flight ever mentioned boxcutters, only Barbara on flight 77. 0 seconds connected, according to FBI in 2006.

[SDuderstadt]

20. That's why I referred to 4" knives...

dude. I don't care whether they were boxcutters or not. It's kinda hard to be precise when ALL THE FUCKING DIRECT WITNESSES ARE DEAD, dude.

Geez "truthers" are annoying.

[Kesha]

21. Dude = Kumpel, as you should know...

Kumpel,

if there is no live testimony, there is no evidence.

And there is none. No testimony about box cutters on 93, no proven testimony on 77, either.
According to FBI.

Why are so sure?

[SDuderstadt]

22. Dude...

Please show me where I said they were "boxcutters". Take your time.

[SDuderstadt]

32. Why should I know that dude=kumpel?

I have told you repeatedly that I am a third-generation American and I have never spoken German in my life. Please do us all a favor and quit interspersing German words with English. I have a hard enough time trying to figure out what the fuck you're saying when you speak English, dude.

More importantly, do you honestly believe "if there is no live testimony, there is no evidence"? Really? Perhaps I should have been more specific and said all the "direct eyewitnesses are dead" rather than all the 'direct witnesses" are dead. Anyone who received a phone call from a passenger is a direct witness, dude. And to head off where I think you'll go with this, that isn't hearsay, either. It would only be hearsay of the witness heard from a third party what the passenger said. More importantly, do you honestly deny that physical evidence is evidence and a prosecutor can win a conviction based upon that alone? As a matter of fact, the physical evidence is far often more reliable than a direct eyewitness, dude.

So, what you've proven here is that you know even less about the law than you know about what happened on 9/11. Oh, and that, like most "truthers", you're really annoying.

[Kesha]

42. Funny... just thought the same about your English

Dude...

[Bolo Boffin]

23. What do you think you've accomplished with this argument?

A boxcutter recovered from the wreckage of United 93, and a phone conversation from Flight 77 saying boxcutters were being used by the terrorists.

And by pointing out one was on one flight and the other from another, what is it you think you've demonstrated?

[procopia]

30. To whom did this belong? nt

[Bolo Boffin]

31. It was part of the wreckage of United 93.

Who do you think?

[procopia]

33. Who do you want me to think?

What is the proof it belonged to anyone in particular?

[Bolo Boffin]

34. Well

Unless you can show that a boxcutter plant dropped seeds in that field, the clear implication is that it came from United 93.

[procopia]

35. "It came from United 93"

That doesn't tell me who it belonged to.

[SDuderstadt]

36. Jesus, Procopia....

it's not like the hijackers are around to prosecute. There were multiple reports of people being stabbed or having their throats slashed. It's also reasonable to assume that it was brought on by someone intending to do great harm, but that doesn't prove it belonged to one of the hijackers. However, as I said before, there is no one left to prosecute directly for the crime. As Bolo already demonstrated, I think we can rule out that it just happened to be at the crash site. I don't find it at all suspicious that one did not survive the crashes at the WTC or the Pentagon, so that leaves the most likely conclusion that it belonged to one of the hijackers, given the evidence that people were stabbed, it was mentioned by one of the passengers on another flight and the fact that this knife was found at the UA 93 crash site.

I often wonder what you're trying to prove with all the bullshit you put up. Are you a "no-planer"?

[Kesha]

43. That`s right... it`s his typical Osama-CT logic.

Boxcutters were allowed in 2001, could have belonged to anyone on board.

[f11killerbeing]

47. Yeah

agreed