A Critical Review of WTC 'No-Plane' Theories

[Qutb]

So Robinowitz is a "fraudster", while David Icke, Henry Makow, Dave Von Kleist and the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion are all bona fide? <!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :lol --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/laugh.gif ALT=":lol"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <p></p><i></i>

[robertdreed]

...it's over. <br><br>Mossad?<br><br>Just a question... <p></p><i></i>

[robertdreed]

we're on to you. <p></p><i></i>

[robertdreed]

I might as well inform the listening audience that as of November 1, I'll no longer be on whatever ISP you can currently find with that whozit search you can do on me.<br><br>I'm moving. I expect my next ISP will be located in McLean, Virginia. <p></p><i></i>

[robertdreed]

"I notice there is an absence of a link to go with this claim..." <p></p><i></i>

[michael meiring]

Qutb<br><br>Once again you excel in the smear, i have never said icke and the like are for real? so why do you imply as such? perhaps you missed all the articles on robinowitz? or perhaps you have short term memory lapse?<br><br>Do you belive what rabinowitz says is true? did you read all the email articles rabinowitz and his ILK sent to webmasters?<br><br>Care to produce what you claim, that i say icke, makow and the rest are all bona fide? produce it and i will send you $500,000.<br><br>unless you prefer shillings? <p></p><i></i>

[Qutb]

michael meiring, sorry, maybe I'm confusing you with someone else. I missed the Rabinowitz thread, by the way. I don't read oilempire regularly, and I haven't followed Rabinowitz's writings all that closely, but he seems a lot more credible and intelligent than many others involved in "alternative journalism" relating to 9/11 (such as Von Kleist, Szymanski, Bollyn, Hufscmidt, John Gray, the "Loose Change" people, the "pysics911" people, Karl Schwarz, "letsroll911", webfairy, etc etc). Less of a fraudster, too.<br><br>On edit: I removed one name from the list of fraudsters and con-men, as he didn't belong there, and replaced him with one who surely does. <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>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=qutb>Qutb</A> at: 10/29/05 1:57 pm<br></i>

[robertdreed]

52 <p></p><i></i>

[slimmouse]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Less of a fraudster, too.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> <br><br> Well with the greatest respect QUTB, the greatest fraudsters of all are the Peak Oilers.<br><br> Selling an energy shortage myth is almost as scandalous as selling the organised religion myth.<br><br> Im not for one moment suggesting that they know how big a whopper theyre actually selling, but selling one they most certainly are. Flawed useless/ sloppy appraisal over peak oil.<br><br> Hard for me to rule against that kind of thinking from these kind of people with the 9/11 physical evidence too. All this from a confirmed Ickester I confess. But I can deal with any of that too now. Give it your best shot. <br><br> Again meanwhile, as certified MIHOPERs which we <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>both</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> 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><br> Meanwhile, Cui Bono as we in England pay almost 10 dollars a gallon for that which we can easily substitute ? Unless of course we choose to ignore that appraisal, by ignoring the energy cartels' Body count ? As an intellectual kind of guy, surely even you cant do that ???? <p></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- <!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.oilempire.us/pentagon.html#jokes">www.oilempire.us/pentagon.html#jokes</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 10/29/05 4:27 pm<br></i>

[slimmouse]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>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 my refutation of their position<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br> No We dont Robert.<br><br> We need to ask some obvious questions which all but the idiotic arent asking.<br><br> 1) Namely, where are the pics of a plane ?<br><br> 2)How does a nosecone penetrate 6 x 18" of SRC, when a nosecone of a 757 crumbles upon impact with a starling ? Im not big on the Straw in a palmtree explanation.<br><br> 3)Where are the impact points of the wings of the said 757 ?<br><br> 4 )How does the guy perform the stunt involved ?<br><br> You havent answered any of these questions yet. Neither have "they"<br><br> <br>WE dont need to defend any position. WE didnt begin a genocidal war based upon an inability to answer such simple questions. Im not interested in discussing where the plane went, until these PROVEN liars are prepared to answer my questions first.<br><br> And hey. Until YOU or THEY can even answer question one to my satisfaction, Fuck Them, and fuck anyone who cant answer the above question, not to mention the others with even a semblance of logic.<br><br> Savais ? <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=slimmouse@rigorousintuition>slimmouse</A> at: 10/29/05 3:17 pm<br></i>

[robertdreed]

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>Incidentally, ALL of the questions you just raised were taken up by the article in question. Maybe you should read it again. If you find statements with which you disagree, by all means make reference to them and offer a 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 3:36 pm<br></i>

[slimmouse]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Incidentally, ALL of the questions you just raised were taken up by the article in question. Maybe you should read it again<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br> Ive seen EVERY SINGLE debunking argument going. NONE of them satisfy me about a single question Ive raised.<br><br> <br><br> Show me a link to a pic of a <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>plane hitting the pentagon</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> Rob.<br><br> You cant ? Remember what I said about point one ?<br><br> Nuff said.<br><br> Whats your take on ' Peak Oil' Robert ?<br><br><br><br> <p></p><i></i>

[robertdreed]

"Ive seen EVERY SINGLE debunking argument going. NONE of them satisfy me about a single question Ive raised."<br><br>If that's so, why don't you take up my challenge to excerpt the arguments found in the article that I linked, and respond to their words with a detailed refutation of their points? <br><br>Have you only "seen" the arguments, or have you actually read them? <br><br> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 10/29/05 4:15 pm<br></i>

[rapt]

Thanks to you slim for staying on this; give no quarter I say. But then I do stay silent sometimes as the arguing gets so tedious.<br><br>My point: This topic and several others relate closely to an observation made several times since Libby's indictment; that he must have some huge and serious crimes to cover up in order to "take the fall" for the WH.<br><br>Now most of us have a pretty good idea what some of those crimes are, or probably are. They include the whole 9/11 thing, the invasion, and a number of others that go as far back as 11/63. Just ask d'beach.<br><br>Now that we have an incorruptible prosecuter there is a chance that at least some of this will come to light - public exposure. The sandcastle has gotten so big and unstable now that pulling one chink will cause total collapse. I hope.<br><br>It is important to consider too that after a certain point in time this cabal will be unstoppable, although the faces we see around Washington are just the chosen front, and some or all of them can be sacrificed in a pinch if necessary. The bosses are still out of sight. The behavior I have noticed for the past year indicates that there is a desperation to reach that point of no return, which justifies dangerous moves. The cover is very close to being blown, but after that point it won't matter.<br><br>So every little bit of info and investigation is extremely important. Even in the last few days I have noticed quite a few conversions from "No it can't be; they couldn't do that" to "Jeez I guess they did."<br><br>The castle is indeed beginning to collapse, but don't forget that these guys are desperate and have NO ethics. And all they have to do now is reach that point. I will not try and speculate on what that point represents in reality, but I am convinced that it is there. <p></p><i></i>