[Hans Norling]

Originally Posted by DouglasReed

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!

No, you are obviously (purposely I bet) misconstructing what I've argued, i.e you're offering up your own straw-men and belittling it in the process.

Steel frame buildings that burn for hours, yet do not collapse, can or can not be important comparisons, it depends. Usually, the compaired buildings had notably steel reinforced concrete around the columns and so forth, the WTC's did not, that's an important difference.

Secondly, there were visible evidence in the Flight 93 crash, yet very little discernable ones at the impact crater which is not something that happens all the time, but it has happend before more than once. Therefor, Martin, you are either forced to retract that observation as invalid for purpose of denying there was a Flight 93 crash there and recognize that not all plane crashes are the same and leave a lot of large visible debris, or you are forced to consider the other formentioned crashes as faked/pipe dreams as well.

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.

See, you are so far into this cultish truthernoia that you have started issuing one absolute after the other; "every single aspect... lie and an impossibility". Even when you keep those eyes closed and repeat that mantra, it doesn't make it true.

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

It's a known fact, as you've been shown, that cell phone calls can be made from airplanes, it's highly problematic and very often doesn't function properly or even at all, but it has and does happen.

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?

See this is the kind of mixed baked truthernoia I'm talking about. It's commonly known, for anyone that has actually looked at the calls made from the airplanes, that Sweeney used the airphone, not a cell phone. She borrowed Sara Low's (flight attendant) card to use it.