A Critical Review of WTC 'No-Plane' Theories

[Qutb]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Again meanwhile, as certified MIHOPERs which we both claim to be,That leaves the "Einstein" alternative of having to wade thru tons of other stuff to PROVE BEYOND doubt US govnt MIHOP in 9/11. In other words dont start with the simple and obvious discrepancies. Lets go straight to the sophisticated stuff. <br><br>Cui Bono with the masses there ?<br><br>I try and simplify the Einstein approach with Brzezinskis ring, followed by the "Able danger" stuff by explaining the quite literal 'Post it' cover up. You have to keep it simple when dealing with a brainwashed population. Always remember that.<br><hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br>I don't claim to be a certified mihopper. I'm a certified sceptic and doubter. I have a lot more questions than answers about 9/11. And I disagree with the consensus in the "9/11 Truth movement", that all the evidence unambiguosly points towards an "inside job". I don't think the "simple and obvious discrepancies" are the discrepancies they're made out to be, so trying to "prove" that 9/11 was an inside job by pointing to those is at best a strategic mistake, at worst dishonest.<br><br>I don't share your contempt for the "brainwashed population" either. I'm sure you can convince the majority of those who stop by the Blackpool Conspiracy Centre that no 757 hit the Pentagon, but you'll never convince a significant portion of the population of it - because, most likely, it isn't true, and most people realize that. The same goes for controlled demolition. So, yes, you have to go straight to the "sophisticated stuff", if you want to convince the people you need to convince. <br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>10 dollars a gallon for that which we can easily substitute<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br>With what? <br><br>I'm not a peak-oiler, I distrust Cambpell, Ruppert, ASPO et al, and the oil company connections are worrying. But I don't think they exaggerate the importance of oil to the global economy, and I don't think a replacement is ready, neither for transportaton nor other uses. I also think that a peak in oil production is inevitable, but that doesn't mean the oil companies aren't going to use this as an excuse for price gouging and certain elites won't take advantage of it to promote their own agenda. I don't think you need "peak oil" to explain the current oil price. <p><!--EZCODE FONT START--><span style="color:black;font-family:century gothic;font-size:x-small;"><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>Qutb means "axis," "pole," "the center," which contains the periphery or is present in it. The qutb is a spiritual being, or function, which can reside in a human being or several human beings or a moment. It is the elusive mystery of how the divine gets delegated into the manifest world and obviously cannot be defined.</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--></span><!--EZCODE FONT END--><br><br></p><i></i>

[robertdreed]

If advocates of the "Flight 77 doppleganger" hypothesis like RI posters "slimmouse" and "michael meiring" are looking to maintain any semblance of a defensible position, they need to confront and address the specific points made in the article that I linked as reference for the refutation of their position.<br><br>If/when such advocates happen upon facts or logical inferences in the article that they find disputable, they need to note them and provide their arguments against them, point by point. Dismissive complaints about the absence of supporting evidence are no substitute for a failure to confront and address the considerable amount of evidence that WAS supplied in the article. <br><br>The no-planers also need to reserve any allegations about the motives of the author of the article for AFTER they've addressed the arguments, not before. If they find data that's been shown to be incorrect, they have grounds for questioning the reliability of the author. If they find obviously false data or misleading use of photographic evidence, they have plausible grounds for questioning the sincerity of the author. But they need to provide their grounds for suspicion first.<br><br>The validity of the article in question is not to be diverted into a discussion of its authors opinions on other topics, or into ad honinem personal attacks. Those who seek to divert the topic to those subjects are indulging in elementary logical fallacies. And anyone who finds no other way to defend their positions than evasions and repeated resort to logical fallacies is ass-out. If fact, if someone's repeated employment of logical fallacies in place of logical argument becomes so frequent that it becomes a noticeable pattern, it begins to appear as if logical fallacies comprise part of their tactical playbook, rather than simply unintentional lapses of intelligence. <br><br>Re-linking the article in question, for those who just got here- www.oilempire.us/pentagon.html#jokes <br><br>Carry on...<br><br> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 10/29/05 8:15 pm<br></i>

[slimmouse]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Have you only "seen" the arguments, or have you actually read them?<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> <br><br> Lets get a simple one out of the way first Rob.<br><br> Show me a pic of plane approaching or hitting the pentagon.<br><br> You cant ? Why not ? Spend all day on this making excuses, and after youve finished......show me a fucking pic. .........you cant ?<br><br> I dont need to ask a single question beyond that in my eyes, or in the eyes of any other "idiot" such as me lol.<br><br> I can ask another thousand questions, and of course you cant even answer the first to anyones satisfaction, for all the bluff, and distraction, and "Peak Oil" bullshit proof.<br><br> Well I never. <br><br> Show me a pic or talk to the wall mate. These are the kind of "dumbass" questions that are gonna bring the real murdering morons to justice. Forget the fancy talk and hypothesis. <p></p><i></i>

[robertdreed]

slimmouse....<br><br>on a board attached to a website that gets 30,000+ hits a day, I'm fairly well assured that I'm not "talking to the wall." <br><br>Speaking personally, I always try to remain aware of the high probability that the content of my posts will be read by more people than the other commentators with whom I'm having exchanges on the board. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 10/29/05 5:21 pm<br></i>

[slimmouse]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Speaking personally, I always try to remain aware of the probability that that the content of my posts will be read by more people than the other commentators with whom I'm having exchanges on the board.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> <br><br> Indeed they will. And dont I know it.<br><br> You should see what happens when I log off lol. My PC lights up like a fucking Christmas tree. Sign on name dissapears for half a sec or so ( after every logon when ive posted something - otherwise, no sign on name temporary dissapearance )<br><br> Call me Mr Dumbass, but ive gone beyond caring <!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :lol --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/laugh.gif ALT=":lol"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <br><br> You basically have 2 choices in this world. Love or fear.<br><br> PS. No pic of the pentagon plane yet Rob ? <p></p><i></i>

[robertdreed]

Happy Hallowe'en. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 10/29/05 5:58 pm<br></i>

[slimmouse]

<br> And the pic ?<!--EZCODE EMOTICON START 8o --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/nerd.gif ALT="8o"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <p></p><i></i>

[michael meiring]

Robert,<br><br>Are you hallucinating again? can you refer to your evidence which you try to smear me with, can you produce a post of mine where i say it wasant flight 77?<br><br>What i, along with many others ARE SAYING, and which you continully smoke screen is,<br><br>Show me the cctv footage or stills of the plane coming in.<br><br>Show me evidence of a single body part, or single body.<br><br>Show me some wreckage, ie luggage, seats or parts of seats strewn about after impact.<br><br>Show me the evidence from the black box you insist 'evaporated' into a gust of wind.<br><br>Where are the impact marks etc from the wings of the plane? you did not provide any of these?<br><br>I am not into theorising if it was a bird or a plane or a piece of shit that flew into the pentagon. I want to see evidence, not some version of fantasy by peak oil html jokes r us robinowitz.<br><br>I asked you for a link with photos of the wreckage, you responded with buildings full of foam and 4 wheels in very close proximity, laden with spittle from the fraudster rabinowitz? is that your best shot? <p></p><i></i>

[robertdreed]

"can you produce a post of mine where i say it wasant flight 77?"<br><br>"michael meiring", If you were of the mind that Flight 77 actually hit the Pentagon, presumably you wouldn't have expended the verbiage in multiple posts doggedly attempting to raise doubts about it. That's fairly self-explanatory- to me, at least. <br><br>If you can produce the exact statement or statements of mine that you view as "smearing" you, i.e., libelous, well, bring up the posts in question, and reproduce them unabridged with the specific statements that you find objectionable highlighted in bold letters. <br><br>Then we'll review them, and I'll formulate my response. <br><br><br><br> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 10/29/05 7:53 pm<br></i>

[rapt]

Dreed I would suggest you bow out now before you get totally emasculated. Believe me man, it is obvious to everyone here but you that you have nothing to support your arguments. <p></p><i></i>

[robertdreed]

"Show me the evidence from the black box you insist 'evaporated' into a gust of wind."<br><br>Well...show me where I ever said <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>that</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->.<br><br>And, in the interest of clarity: My name is Robert Duncan Reed. Junior. <br> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 10/29/05 8:38 pm<br></i>

[veritas]

the bell has rung<br>recess is over<br>if he gives you his milk money<br>will u go away? <p></p><i></i>

[veritas]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Act faster to deal with bad player attitude. We all have our moments I'm sure in certain situations, but theres no excuse for ignorance and disrespect in the card room. If you cant lose with dignity, don't tarnish the image of the game with childish antics. <hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.pokerpages.com/articles/interviews/slimmouse.htm">www.pokerpages.com/articl...mmouse.htm</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br> <p></p><i></i>