Popular Mechanics responds to Rosie the Ranter

ViewfromtheStars, I rarely lose it in these forums, but pootie is making it pretty impossible for rational discussion. That said, I find it uncommonly amusing that you sweep in and commit the exact acts that youi slap my wrist for. Comparing me to a avatar, stating you would believe Rosie over me. These are button pushers. I am not hear to sway anyone, just speak my peace.

There are 2 sides to the fence, and us that are 'hanging on' as you put it are contect to do that and point out what we think are descripincies in a story.

To me, someone who does not even read the 9/11 commision report and casts it off as government bs has no true idea what it was for or about.

To me, having to wade through laser beams and holographic image ideas about 9/11 are beyond conspiracy and border on delusional.

To me, I saw 2 planes hit the WTC. I visited ground zero and saw the devastation. There is no mystery to WTC 7. Filght 93 did not reach it's intended target because it was delayed over 45 minutes. Thank God or it would have hit the White House. Did the government control when to release that plane to have it shot down in a field? THink about it folks, that is a big coincidence that the WHite house was saved on 9/11 because of a delay on the runway.

I believe what I believe, and you are free to do the same, Just don't take cheap shots if you don't know the whole story with a post. THanks.

Originally posted by Wildbob77
If your mind is open check it out.

If your mind is closed, it won't matter what you see.

imply:

to involve or indicate by inference, association, or necessary consequence rather than by direct statement
www.m-w.com...

The CT people usually use facts like jet fuel burns at 800degrees F, not enought to weaken steel. The ignore the fact that once the contents of the building started burning the temp would have been much higher.

straw man:

A straw man argument is a logical fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. A straw-man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact a misleading fallacy, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.
en.wikipedia.org...

Good job turning the thread into a troll-fest

I've yet to see anyone anywhere state that fire cwouldn't weaken steel. However, I see the claim that jet fuel fires couldn't melt steel. I will state that this reasoning has certain logical fallacies in the case of the WTC.

But in any case, this has nothing to do with my arguments or request for your source.

See also:
Red Herring:

The phrase red herring has a number of specific metaphorical meanings, all sharing a general concept: something being a diversion or distraction from the original objective.
en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 2-4-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Originally posted by esdad71
Filght 93 did not reach it's intended target because it was delayed over 45 minutes. Thank God or it would have hit the White House.

Yes there is a MOUNTAIN of evidence to suggest this... How can you tell a plane is destined for the white house when goes down in PA? Because the TV TOLD YOU SO?

[edit on 2-4-2007 by Pootie]

Who's to say it wasn't destined for the Capitol Building??

Boy has this thread gone all to hell.

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Boy has this thread gone all to hell.

Sorry bro.

Originally posted by esdad71
... pootie is making it pretty impossible for rational discussion.

How? Because I don't agree with you or Whiterabbit? Because I think the "logic" that you both present is fundamentally flawed? Because I watch both of you post opinions as fact? Is it because I call both of you out for lack of citations?

I think "rational discussion" leaves vagueness, stereotyping, "team play", Us and them out. I believe that if you are gonna say something is TRUE and FACT that you will support that. In the case of Whiterabbit, he goes ON and ON and ON about someone posting about steel BUT NEVER PROVIDES THE LINK.. WTH? That is just USELESS...

Then above you state that the White House was FOR SURE going to be hit by flight 93 when there is NO WAY to know or VERIFY this...

I grow TIRED of people DEMANDING PROOF from "CTers" while they post that which has not been proven as fact with impunity.

Why don't you DEMAND PROOF from the government regarding YOUR BELIEFS outlined above?

It is really fricking cute how no official story believer (See, I can stereotype too) DEMANDS PROOF from the governemt... only from the "CTers". What a joke.

It is pretty common knowledge that it was to go to the White House. The flight was delayed on the ground for 45 minutes, which puta kink in the terrorists plans and news of the other attacks reached Flight 93. It is also the only reason that I believe we were able to shoot it down and protect DC.

I am not pulling this out of the air, it is in many 'books', not just misquoted and chopped statements on Internet sites. I implore you to put your pride aside and read the 9/11 commission report. It doesn't sway you but it does educate your.

Why are you so hostile?

[edit on 2-4-2007 by esdad71]

Originally posted by esdad71
It is pretty common knowledge that it was to go to the White House.

What is the ORIGINAL SOURCE of this "common knowledge"?

Originally posted by esdad71
I am not pulling this out of the air, it is in many 'books'...

Well... that makes a believer out of me. Good, specific and detailed.

you know what else is in MANY BOOKS? CONTROLLED DEMOLITION, but that does not make it fact or "common knowledge" right?

Originally posted by esdad71
...read the 9/11 commission report.

I have. Relevance?

[edit on 2-4-2007 by Pootie]

So tell me Pooite, in your own words, why is Rosie correct and what happened to WTC 7, since this is what this thread is about?

Originally posted by Pootie
How? Because I don't agree with you or Whiterabbit? Because I think the "logic" that you both present is fundamentally flawed? Because I watch both of you post opinions as fact? Is it because I call both of you out for lack of citations?

No. It's because you're incapable of doing any of the above without getting completely irate and resorting to personal attacks.

You should take a cue from bsray and Griff. They disagree with the debunkers, but they don't get hostile about it.

I come here to talk about 9/11. Not get insulted over and over.

Originally posted by esdad71
So tell me Pooite, in your own words, why is Rosie correct and what happened to WTC 7, since this is what this thread is about?

Right or partially-wrong she is out there asking questions and encouraging others to ask questions. Unlike Hurst/PMs Yellow hit piece against her which encourages everyone to "go back to sleep".

She may be obnoxious, fat, loud, rude or an orangutan for all I care, I just want the EVIDENCE RELEASED and A NEW INVESTIGATION. The only way to get that is if the masses start to ask questions and Rosie can help facilitate this with an audience demographic that no one here can really communicate to.

I do not believe that WTC 7 "naturally collapsed" for many reasons but that is not the point, what I WANT and the American people deserve is a new investigation OR ANSWERS with EVIDENCE to back them up. I mean, we did pay for that luxury right?

Originally posted by whiterabbit
o. It's because you're incapable of doing any of the above without getting completely irate and resorting to personal attacks.

Irate? Cute.

Originally posted by whiterabbit
You should take a cue from bsray and Griff.

They have their roles here, I have mine. I may be an engineer, but I have many lawyers in my family... Where do you get off telling me "how to debate"? I am here to be the "anti-you". the anti-debunker. They are here to research and post findings. My mind is made up on one thing: The Official Story is a lie. Other than that, I really don't give a rip anymore and am here simply to do what the "debunkers" do to posters like Griff and BSBray11... Call them out, run them in circles, misquote them, put words in their mouths, aggravate them with rapid fire posting, gang up on them and generally make it impossible for them to make a point and hopefully permanently drive them away... like you are constantly doing.

Fair?

Originally posted by whiterabbit
I come here to talk about 9/11. Not get insulted over and over.

No... you come here to "debunk". If you believe the Official Story™ so much it makes NO SENSE for you to ever post here.

[edit on 2-4-2007 by Pootie]

Originally posted by esdad71
I am not pulling this out of the air, it is in many 'books', not just misquoted and chopped statements on Internet sites. I implore you to put your pride aside and read the 9/11 commission report. It doesn't sway you but it does educate your.
[edit on 2-4-2007 by esdad71]

So now you're implying that I'm an irrational "CT'er", as if you know much about my background and knowledge base?

Had you followed the link I provided earlier, on the Osama's Sat. phone, you'd know that I've studied the 911 Report very closely. Apparently you didn't, so since the game has been to imply things upon others I'll consider implying that you didn't follow up on any of my links to avoid contradicting your view.

In any case, the 911 commission cites the 'confessions' of Binalshibh, the one who allegidly confirmed that the White House was the target. And KSM caused global warming. We're talking about a confession that isn't documented, came from years of torture in secret camps, and as far as we know he's been living in a luxury suite someplace along with Ali Mohammed, KSm and the rest of the Al Qaeda operatives that disappear after 'being captured'. We simpy don't know anything and we're taking the estblishments word for it every step of the way. Meanwhile the set up Moussaoui in a contempt trial, and he's still the only one who's been 'properly' charged in a court of law for the events of 9/11. From there you have a completely bogus 911 Commission and the FBI still hasnt added 9/11 to "Osama's" wanted sheet.

But at least I'll admit that I'm biased in not trusting their word, but you apparently gobble it up (unless it has to do with saving the airline industry alone).

Hostile?

I simply laid down the logical fallacy law and underscored the diversions that i was sucked into while trying to have a meaningful debate.

Originally posted by Pootie
Call them out, run them in circles, misquote them, put words in their mouths, aggravate them with rapid fire posting, gang up on them and generally make it impossible for them to make a point and hopefully permanently drive them away... like you are constantly doing.

I don't think it's a very good idea to be admitting that you're doing all that and trying to drive away posters.

I was addressing poot, and I make no assumptions until I debate with a person. I am tired of fringe laser beam theories. The possibility of explosives, OK, I hafe never stated that it is not a possbiility, just that it did not happen that way in my eyes. read the fine print.

Originally posted by Pootie

Originally posted by whiterabbit
o. It's because you're incapable of doing any of the above without getting completely irate and resorting to personal attacks.

Irate?

Cute.

Originally posted by whiterabbit
You should take a cue from bsray and Griff.

They have their roles here, I have mine. I may be an engineer, but I have many lawyers in my family... Where do you get off telling me "how to debate"? I am here to be the "anti-you". the anti-debunker. They are here to research and post findings. My mind is made up on one thing: The Official Story is a lie. Other than that, I really don't give a rip anymore and am here simply to do what the "debunkers" do to posters like Griff and BSBray11... Call them out, run them in circles, misquote them, put words in their mouths, aggravate them with rapid fire posting, gang up on them and generally make it impossible for them to make a point and hopefully permanently drive them away... like you are constantly doing.

Fair?

Originally posted by whiterabbit
I come here to talk about 9/11. Not get insulted over and over.

No... you come here to "debunk". If you believe the Official Story™ so much it makes NO SENSE for you to ever post here.

[edit on 2-4-2007 by Pootie]

Thank you Pootie I had the same problem Sunday night I felt I was been gang up on. I had enough, and left, I got the feeling there are people in here TRYING there best to run people out of here that dosnt belive the Goverment version of 911.
I have been resuching 911 for 3 years now and I am with you on this.
I have seen so much rage againce truth seakers in here. I was beging to belive there was a conspiracies toward Truth seakers, from posting thire findings to running them out of here.

Originally posted by whiterabbit
I don't think it's a very good idea to be admitting that you're doing all that and trying to drive away posters.

Why not? It happens in the opposite direction here all of the time. Stop trying to play moderator... you are not one for a reason. You have tried to whine enough to get them to boot me and I haven't even been "warned" yet... doesn't that tell you something? I am sure they will let me know if I break any rules here.

[edit on 3-4-2007 by Pootie]

Originally posted by Pootie
No... you come here to "debunk". If you believe the Official Story™ so much it makes NO SENSE for you to ever post here.

You can't use that argument since it works both ways. If you were so sure that the Official Story wasn't true, why even discuss it? This a discussion forum, not a Pet Theory forum. Members that don't want opposition or are unwilling to support their cause should stick to sending U2U to themselves.

We're veering off onto a tangent, so please stop discussing other members and stick with the topic. I'm not just referring to Pootie.

[edit on 3-4-2007 by dbates]

Originally posted by dbates
If you were so sure that the Official Story wasn't true, why even discuss it?

To find the truth.

If you believe in One of the Official Stories of 9/11™... CASE CLOSED. there is no point in posting here because YOU KNOW THE TRUTH and you know that the point of this forum was NOT originally meant to be Official Story vs. "Cters"... it was intended to discuss ALTERNATIVE THEORIES. I believe htat is why it is call the "9/11 CONSPIRACY" forum?

If you DO NOT believe in One of the Official Stories of 9/11™ then you may want to research, discuss and debate ALTERNATIVE THEORIES.

[edit on 3-4-2007 by Pootie]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Since when is Popular Mechanics a certified investigating agency? What certifications and qualifications do they to do anything dealing with 911 ?

I'm willing to go out on a limb and say that Popular Mechanics is a better source of information on this than Rosie O'Donald is. The only structural testing she's ever done is to sit down in a chair. Popular Mechanics has a solid reputation of being a good source of information. Not necessarially as a guide for engineers, but good enough for common folks to understand and grasp ideas.