View Single Post
Old May 10th, 2009 #1408
DouglasReed
Don't call me Junior
 
DouglasReed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Boston
Posts: 293
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonoleth Stiltskin View Post
Yeah, and I answered them on point, hence if you argue that the Flight 93 plane crash was fake, because there was not enough visible debris in the impact zone, then all other plane crashes that follow the same e.m.o would be equally fake right?
So let's see if I understand how this works. Proof by analogy is allowed when it supports your side of the case, but not otherwise. So when steel frame buildings burn for hours and hours like raging infernos but still do not collapse, that's not important. However, giant planes can crash in empty fields and leave no visible evidence -- because hey, it happens all the time!

Groovy.

But of course you need those kinds of handicaps to even begin to make an argument that's going to sound somewhat plausible to not-very-curious people. Since every single aspect of 911 is a lie and an impossibility, you have to carefully explain how each impossibility was accomplished despite the odds, and how all these imposibilities happened one after the other on this impossible day.

For instance, cell phone calls simply cannot be made from airplanes. But you say:

Quote:
I never said they would function well, or even for any notable long period of time. ... the case is that it is highly possible a smidgin number of cell phone calls made it through for a few seconds ...
As with the argument over the WTC towers, how about I give you a little ground for free and see what you can make of it? Another handicap. So cell phone calls "can make it through for a few seconds" is your assertion. So now what do we do with Madeline Sweeney's cell phone call of 25 minutes to Michael Woodward?

http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/e...honecalls.html