Are you trying to tell us there are no “stories” - I repeat; none whatsoever - that “the press” are told to back off from?
You’re very trusting, aren’t you.
Hey, you’re a “Truther”. You care more about the questions than you do the answers, because as long as you refuse to listen to the answers you can pretend that your imagination is reality.
Are you trying to tell us that there are no credible press outlets that would refuse being told to back off anything?
Cite, please. Give us an example where the press, as a whole, was ordered to cover up mass murder, and they complied?
Er, not to defend or support The Grand Inquisitor in any way, but where exactly would you find a cite for such a thing?
This sort of thing is why it’s easier to just rely on the laws of physics and other completely objective evidence. Humans may theoretically lie and cover things up, but physical reality has a remarkably good record with regard to honesty.
You’re moving the goalposts, ivan. That isn’t very honest of you.
What I actually said was if there was solid, documented evidence, that no reputable organization in the country would not run a story like this (not “none whatsoever”). Additionally, I said there’s no overarching cabal who feeds and pulls stories from the thousands of newsrooms around the country.
Of course “the press” are told to back off of stories – by the government, by companies, by individuals. That doesn’t mean they do it. And in this case, I’m not trying to tell you, I AM telling you: They wouldn’t.
Are you trying to tell us that there are stories that otherwise would be bombshells that the press – all of them – didn’t cover because the government said “pwetty pwease?”
Actually, that’s exactly what you did say.
I have no contempt for logic. I do have contempt for your lack of it.
Total strawman there, which is your usual method.
I think that the plane was a legitimate military target. I think it would have been legal and ethical to shoot it down. And it would be a legal secret, if it had happened. Therefore, they would have kept it a secret.
But, *you *are saying that nobody would keep such a legal secret.
For it to be a secret, everybody involved would have to keep it a secret, not just one person. But this line of inquiry is moot, because it has already been explained why a missile couldn’t have shot it down-the pattern of wreckage doesn’t support that theory. Do you accept that explanation as to why the plane wasn’t shot down by a missile?
As Bush had given the order to shoot it down, it is really silly to then keep it a secret.
No, as **begbert2 **mentions, physical evidence triumphs over humans theoretically lying. The evidence that the plane was intact until impact with the ground (unless truthers say that the missile hit the impact zone, just to make sure no one survived :p) can not be easily rebutted.
To clarify, though I think it’s pretty clear already: obviously, the military didn’t end up actually shooting down any flights that day. I’m just saying they were willing to, if necessary.
I do not give a damn about any conspiracy theories and I haven’t said anything about conspiracies. I DON’T GIVE A DAMN WHO DID IT! It is just a physics problem to me.
And what does VERY LARGE mean in physics? The plane was less than 200 tons. The building was more than 400,000 tons. That is less than one half of one tenth of one percent. Doesn’t seem VERY LARGE to me. It is large compared to most other planes but not the building. You can compute the weight of a concrete floor slab from the dimensions and density of the concrete, 600 tons. So one floor slab was triple the weight of the plane and there were 84 in each tower. The other types of floors weighed even more.
The CORE COLUMNS were in the center of the building. How could they PEEL AWAY?
You cannot see what happens to them.
psik
Given the alternative, e.g. the plane crashing into the White House, I can’t imagine anyone having an issue with that order.
Or the world, for that matter. As if a gag order on Al Jazeera would prevent them from running a story that paints the US government in the worst possible light.
Aw, you came back! I’m proud of your bravery.
Nobody ever claimed that the big heavy planes hit the WTC towers and knocked them over from the force of the blow. I admire the fact you’re brave enough to argue against such a transparently moronic strawman.
And nobody ever said the core columns peeled away, of course. The peel peeled away. You know, the outsidey bit called the outer wall and columns?
And now that you’re back, please address the fact that in your worthless model the outer walls were solid cylinders made of a material a thousand times stronger than steel (accounting for scale).
I’ve already told you once. You either missed it or failed to comprehend it so let me repeat.
I am not claiming that the plane was shot down. I don’t think it was. I’m in no way whatsoever advocating such a position.
What I’m doing is commenting on the very poor logic that you display.
Is that clear enough for you?
It is clear to me that you are wrong. It is not necessary for someone to misunderstand you for them to think you wrong-sometimes they understand you perfectly and still think you are wrong.
You’re picturing this completely wrong.
Do not look at the building as one object.
You need to look at each section of the building as its own entity. In other words the column groupings and beams attached to those column groupings (the groupings comprise column splice to column splice).
In that context, the plane IS large. The structure is only as strong as its weakest point. Flying a plane into a building and tearing away large structural sections is a very good way to cause a catastrophic failure.
For you to be looking at the building as a monolithic structure suggests that you do not understand physics.
He said that there were some things that the military could not keep secret. That’s a different thing from saying “the military can’t keep secrets,” because the latter implies they can’t keep any.
This sort of nitpicking of the specific versus the general reminds me of the time Randi said something about digging for water…
You are sooo going to hell for that!
Just to add what has been stated multiple times in this thread - in fact, the whole point of the thread based on the original video in the OP! The core remained standing for several seconds after the towers began to fall. The cores weren’t destroyed floor by floor as psikeyhackr keeps trying to imply. The cores collapsed after all the falling debris damaged them further down so severely that the core collapsed as well.