-119 votes

Truthers continue to see what they want to see.

Let me give you an example, and then I will go off on my rant.

Regarding the passport: You guys only see what you want to see. Why don't you list every item that survived? Drivers licenses survived, entire arms and other limbs, clothes, etc. Tons of things survived, but you frame the argument like only the passport survived. They already had flight manifests. They knew who was on those flights. There was no reason at all to plant a passport. The fact of the matter is that tons of things survived, not just a passport, and planting a passport would have been useless. It only seems like it matters to you guys because you want it to matter. If it was a conspiracy, don't you think the real cover up would have been about how they faked the flight manifest?

You people just continue to see what you want to see, regardless of how ridiculous it is. You take every bit of flimsy evidence and force it to support your conspiracy. Check that, I shouldn't even call it "evidence' because it isn't. It is a lack of evidence that you have. You invent questions about the incident and when you can't wrap your brain around reason and logic, you take every stupid thing any witness ever said and cling to it as if it were straight from God's mouth to your ears. You twist logic to fit your own narrative so you can feed your feable need to feel important on a national scale, like somehow the nation is reading your posts.

I remember when this sight was about liberty and free market capitalism. I remember when people here discussed topics related to the ideas Ron Paul was bringing up every day. You all have driven those fine people away with your own ignorant lack of critical thinking. I enjoyed those people. We shared information and learned together. I don't enjoy you people. You spread fallacy through verbosity. You post every tiny scrap of psuedo-evidence no matter how easily refutable, rendering the rest of us simply too tired to continue to address your never ending pile of fiction.

And worst of all, you continue to move the goal post, to the point that no amount of debunking will ever satisfy you because you will simply wait for the next bit of psuedo-evidence to come out, and if that evidence isn't readily available, you resort back to the old time honored defense of "All I know is that I don't believe the official story". And that only creates another fallacy you all love, the false dillema, where you try to shoot holes in the official story thinking that it somehow proves your story is true, only you don't even have a coherent story to back up. If I point out all the inconsistency in the Bible, does that somehow prove that Thor is real? You need evidence in support of your story, not lack of evidence in support of their's. You people don't have evidence. You don't have a story. What you do have unfortunately, and in abundance, is a never ending supply of fallacies.

As a middle school teacher, part of my curriculum is teaching fallacies, so when I claim you are using them in abundance, I'm not speaking generally. You are using them in abundance and it is killing your argument. The sad part, is that even if you all were right, your constant use of fallacy and lack of logical skills has driven away countless people who might have actually cared.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
SteveMT's picture

Your comparisons are incorrect.

If the lawyers were at every crime scene, then they would have a conflict of interest. They would either recluse themselves or be warned by the court they their ability to represent themselves under such circumstances will be minimized.

Your comment about the government...

...being involved in crime scene after crime scene was extremely bland, unsupported, and generalized, so I'm sorry that i didn't spend more time refining my comparison. Being "involved in crime scene after crime scene" is a bit of a bland concept, so I don't think my comparison needed to be any less bland. Would it help if I changed it to "policemen".

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).


There are few middle school teachers who know much about anything. I remember back when I was in Jr. high and few of my teachers know much of anything. I have found that most teachers go into that profession because they are not good at anything else. Secondly, would you take medical advice from your gardener? How about investment advice from your barber? Teachers don't know much of anything accept how to teach. Rational thinking people would compare the opinions of over 2000 professional engineers and architects (AE911 Truth)to those of a poorly educated middle school teacher and reject the latter.

This fallacy is called....

a hasty generalization. Basically, you reach a conclusion about middle school teachers based on insufficient evidence. Why don't you just come out and say that there are few black men who don't love basketball? That is the equivalent level argument to, "There are few middle school teachers who know much about anything."
Like I said in my article, if 9/11 was a conspiracy, people like yourself who debate mainly in fallacious form are doing more of a disservice to your cause than simply saying nothing at all.

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).


"There are few middle school teachers who know much about anything."
Wow. All I can say is wow.
Well, actually I can say more.
Would you give any creditiblity on politics to an OBGYN? Would you believe an eye doctor could know anything about the Constitutinality of drone strikes? Or, lets flip that. Would you allow a man to do your eye surgery if you knew he did a 13 hour filabuster in the Senate on a completely unrelated topic? Would you allow a man to deliver your wife's baby if you knew he liked to study Austrian economics?
Your complete disrespect for individuals based on their profession is both illogical and childish and by your standard, this site which is dedicated to Ron Pauls ideas, is a joke because he should stick with delivering babies. There is no way he could know about economics or foreign policy. If this site was bout OBGYN stuff, maybe it would make more sense eh?

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).

Interesting how the

Interesting how the asymmetrical damage caused a perfectly symmetrical failure/collapse. Never mind that you can't 'weaken' the steel in an open-air fire. Do you have any more theories about previously unseen physics phenomenon? No, seriously, I think the steel columns got tired after holding up all that weight for 40 years and just collapsed from lack of a will to keep standing.

It is only interesting

because 12 years in a USA progressive school and 4 years in a college do not equip folks with the ability to calculate - how much lateral force is needed to produce visible lateral displacement within 6 seconds taking into account real inertia.

I know right. These guys will

I know right. These guys will believe anything. The people who designed the building were sooo stupid too!

Fireproofing all the steel columns when we KNOW FOR A FACT that fire does not weaken steel.


Fire does weaken steel but no fire caused by burning office equipment etc. can MELT steel and melted steel is clearly seen pouring our of one of the towers and weeks later, on-site workers saw pools of melted steel in the basements of all three towers that fell.

A casual civilian

can confuse steel yielded or sheared due to deformation and stress to the point of failure with melting. If concrete with steel re-bars pulvirized to the dust, expect things on micro level.



You are misrepresenting what

You are misrepresenting what he said you have created a straw man. He said an open-air fire; meaning as opposed to a blast furnace. However, an open air fire can weaken and even melt steal, however, Jet fuel doesn't burn at those temperatures, though.

Can burning kerosene ignite

Can burning kerosene ignite other substances that burn at higher temperatures?

Is an office space partitioned into rooms and further partitioned into floors really 'open air'?

Could the designers have anticipated that an office fire that spread could weaken the steel which is why they decided to fireproof it?

Office furniture in highrises

Office furniture in highrises is fire-retardant by law. Do you have any evidence of any material in any of the 3 buildings that would burn hotter than jet fuel (kerosene) because that would be interesting to know and the port authority may be interested in that as well. Yes, the interior of WTC would have been considered an open air fire as opposed to a forced air fire like what is required to melt steel. Jet fuel burns at about 350C in an open air fire but up to 950C in a forced air fire. If you watch the video again you will see that the smoke pouring out of the buildings just prior to the collapse is black. That is evidence of a cool fire that is not getting enough air. So if the jet fuel was burning at even 500C there is still a long way to go before any molten steel will occur and yet you can see molten steel in several places pouring out of the sides of the building BEFORE the collapse. And then there's WTC7 with 0 gallons of jet fuel....

Ok here's one... jet fuel is similar in properties to kerosene, right? Kerosene heaters at home depot are made of steel, right? How many homes burned to the ground last year because the kerosene melted the heater and then caught the house on fire?

Lets take it one at a time so

Lets take it one at a time so as not to obfuscate the discussion for any readers.

Do you believe that law is redundant?

Office furniture, including

Office furniture, including carpeting -if existing- could only add -at most- a couple hundred degrees to the temperature of the fire; that would still be about 1000 -or more- degrees too low to cause the steal to melt. Open-air would have been achieved due to the busted windows, allowing for air from the outside to flow into the building, through the halls, corridors, and rooms.

Actually, all of the steal was sprayed or wrapped with fire retardant material to prevent weakening in-case of fire; all high-rises are equipped with that fire retardant material, which is why other than the three buildings on 911, no other steal high-rise has ever fallen due to fire.

Unlike WTC 1 and 2 building 7 cannot be explained -by 911 anti-truthers- because no plane hit it; this leaves us with only fire to cause the collapse, and that is physically impossible. Building 7 didn't suffer enough damage to even obfuscate the reality of the situation.

Think of this: Anti-truthers claim that the culmination of the plane impact, the jet fuel burning, and the office furniture burning is what caused towers 1 and 2 to collapse on themselves. The only thing effecting building 7 would be some damage from debris and the office furniture being on fire. If the fire in towers 1 and 2 needed the jet fuel to reach -unreachable- temperatures, plus the office furniture, then how can a building be effected in the same manner while not have the jet fuel? The only way would be if the office furniture could burn at over 2800 plus degrees(that is an approximate temperature to cause steal to become malleable -or severely weakened) while not even taking into account the fire retardant material on the steal infrastructure; I'm sorry but this is not happening.

I think you don't understand

I think you don't understand the concept of temperature very well. Furniture burning would not 'add' a couple of hundred degrees, it would burn at a couple of 100 degrees higher temperature. This distinction is important.

Thus, even without the jet fuel, once the fires started, assuming the offices to be containing similar material, similar temperatures would be expected.

Secondly, HUGE chunks fell of as the WTCs 1 & 2 collapsed and caused SIGNIFICANT damage to building 7 as mentioned in NIST's report. Also, the failure of water sprays allowed the fires to burn unabated.

A point that I want you to concede is that engineers considered the risk of weakened steel from fire within the building so they used insulation on the steel columns. Will you concede that point?

The distinction that a fire

The distinction that a fire increases in temperature by a couple hundred degrees is exactly what adding a couple hundred degrees does; so, your distinction isn't really a distinction it is a rephrasing of my statement. I will say this another way; the furniture would increase the temperature of the fire by a couple hundred degrees. Is that clearer? If we 'add' -I know you don't like that word so bare with me- 1800 degrees -the temperature of the jet fuel alone- and -let say- 300 degrees -an average of what the office furniture would burn at- the average overall temperature of the fire inside the towers would have been around 2100 degrees. This is still over 1000 degrees less then the melting point of steal, and it would need many hours at this constant temperature for the steal to have become structurally unsound -and that is without the fire retardant material on the steal.

Sorry, you may try parsing my words, however, the overall point is that the temperature would have never gotten high enough to do what would have needed to have been done, for your hypothesis to be correct.

Also, a fire burning at a couple hundred degrees will not bring down a building, which has a steal infrastructure that has fire retardant material to protect the steal from fires.

HUGE chunks fell of as the WTCs 1 & 2 collapsed and caused SIGNIFICANT damage to building 7

While building 7 did sustain damage from the twin towers collapsing, most -if not all- of the damage was sustained on the exterior walls of that one corner; which doesn't explain why the core collapsed first, as seen in the video of the collapse.

A point that I want you to concede is that engineers considered the risk of weakened steel from fire within the building so they used insulation on the steel columns. Will you concede that point?

What the hell are you talking about? I'm the one who just told you that they used fire retarding material on the steal infrastructure, in my post which you responded to. I don't need to cede the point that they used fire retarding material, since: (1) I mentioned it first, and (2) you are the one who is suggesting that the building collapsed due to fire. You would have to figure out how a fire of just office furniture burned hot enough to severely weaken steal (approx 2500+ degrees) while the steal was wrapped in fire retarding material, which means the fire would have to be even hotter.

I made the distinction to

I made the distinction to point out that building 7 fires would be burning at around the same temperature as buildings 1 & 2.

How long was 7 on fire?

At what temperature does steel lose 50% of its strength?

At what temperature does it start to deform?

Why were the steel columns fireproofed by the designers if there is nothing to fear from a fire?

I made the distinction to

I made the distinction to point out that building 7 fires would be burning at around the same temperature as buildings 1 & 2.

The fires of building 7 wouldn't have been burning even close to the jet fuel fires of towers 1 or 2; so your point is false. A fire fuelled with jet fuel, carpet, and office supplies will burn hotter than a fire fuelled with only office supplies.

How long was 7 on fire?

I stated that building 7 burned for about 7 or 8 hours; however, for Building 7 to have collapsed due to a fire being fuelled with only office supplies and office furniture it would have needed to burn at least one day(24 hours), though, in reality it would probably need longer if it would even be able to bring the building down.

At what temperature does steel lose 50% of its strength?

between 1800 and 2000 degrees.

At what temperature does it start to deform?

At around 2400 degrees.

Why were the steel columns fireproofed by the designers if there is nothing to fear from a fire?

Due to the fact that planes did fly into the Empire State Building, all Skyscrapers were forced to make preparation for Being hit by planes which also included the fires derived from the jet fuel. Also, they took precautions, due to the fact that in a skyscraper if something goes wrong, then the people on the upper levels will have to traverse down the building using only the steps. So using fire retardant material on the steal infrastructure was a precaution -to possibly give the occupants time to get down the steps.

At what temperature does carpet, and paper burn at?

To be fair..

...the original comment was a straw man to begin with. Not that attacking it with another straw man is the best way to go, but it's obvious that someone would attack with a low blow when it was a retaliation for a low blow.

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).

Is it only?

Is it only the atheist that doubt there may be a problem with the so-called official story?

Snake charmer (snakepit22) you are an atheist 'believin' type of person, correct?

Yes, because we have

Yes, because we have extensive experience into refuting flawed logic and bullshit =)

Yes I'm an atheist.

I am perfectly okay with the fact that there are issues with the official story, however that no more proves a conspiracy than issues with the Bible automatically proving Islam to be true. Because I like analogies, here's another: The prosecution in the OJ trial made many errors, and at times, called witnesses who straight up lied, however that doesn't change the fact that OJ did it. To assume 9/11 was an inside job just because the "prosecutors" made mistakes, or because they can't quite answer how everything happened, would be like blaming Mark Furman for the murder of Nicole Simpson. There is not evidence to suggest Mr. Fuhrman had anything to do with the murder, just that he was a crumby witness for the prosecution.

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).

I think what you are

I think what you are missing is the impossibility of the official explanation of the observed occurrences on 911 and the lack of candor on the part of those promoting the official narrative.

How could a paper passport survive but not the cockpit voice recorder or the flight data recorder which were designed to survive such events and had never been unrecovered in any previous terrestrial commercial plane crashes?

Why won't the government release the various surveillance videos from around the Pentagon?

Why didn't the 911 Commission interview witnesses whose testimony contradicted the official story?

Why did the US military stand-down and not intercept the planes?

Why wasn't a criminal investigation performed as would be the case in any other mass murder?

Perhaps more damning than the overwhelming evidence that controlled demolition was used to bring down the towers (credible eye witnesses, liquid steel, video of squibs detonating, byproducts of thermate found throughout the debris, etc.) is the extreme efforts on the part of our own government to ignore and hide evidence. If someone has nothing to hide, why would they try to hide evidence?

I really don't understand...

how people who claim to be rational, can ignore the physical impossibilities of the official story of 9/11.

Is it rational to believe that 10% of a structure can fall through the other 90% of itself, crushing everything in its path, traveling at near free fall speed through the path of greatest resistance?

If I were holding a wooden block in each hand at equal heights, but one block held over a tower of blocks, and the other block held over nothing, would it be rational to believe they would both hit the ground at the same time?

Is it rational to believe that the block suspended over other blocks would face the same resistance as the block suspended over nothing?

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com

"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

Try measuring an earthquake without a seismograph.

You are repeating the conpiracy talking points without having actually done the science yourself. You can't know exactly how fast it was falling because the only instruments we have recording the fall were video cameras and their vision was obscured by the dust and debris. There were no physicists present who had planted equiptment in the towers to help measure exactly how they fell, and how fast each floor collapsed. The actual collapseing was taking place in the cloud of dust which nobody could accurately measure. Furthermore, no physicists could have known exactly how quickly they should expect the towers to fall or how possible it would be for the top 10% to collapse each additional floor underneath because nobody has done that experiment before. To be able to say that you know exactly how they should have fallen is to assume that someone has done this "experiment" before on extremely similar structures. Nothing like this has happened before and there weren't proper instruments in place to measure how it actually happened this time. Watching video obscured by the dust cloud is hardly scientifically valid measurment. It would be like trying to measure an earthquake without a seismograph, so you just make assumptions based on the video of buildings shaking.

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).

only an idiot says that 3

only an idiot says that 3 buildings will come down with only 2 planes hitting 2 of them.

Only uninformed

would expect burned and damaged by debris WTC7 fell sideway when its inner columns did not have their own foundations by design.

WHAT? Are you questioning a middle school teacher??!!?


Christians should not be warmongers! http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance87.html