BF2S Forums How to argue with a Conspiracy theorist.

javierwar wrote:

topal63 wrote:

javierwar wrote:

Reading sometimes helps to avoid looking like an idiot, ...

Well this idiot stands by his original claim & statement - no proof none, nada, zip, zero - period.

Alive and well - is now an Internet myth.
http://www.911myths.com/html/waleed_al- … alive.html

Waleed and Wail were both mistakenly reported to have been found alive and well, by the BBC later in 2001. They were initially reported in error by a Saudi newspaper editor as the sons of Ahmed Alshehri, a senior Saudi diplomat stationed in Bombay, India. On September 16, 2001, the diplomat Ahmed Alshehri denied that he was the father of the two hijackers. Wail claims he did attend Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in Daytona Beach, Florida - but was the victim of mistaken identity, since he used that training to secure his current position with a Moroccan airline company. Saudi Arabia has confirmed his story, and suggested he was the victim of identity theft.

Muhammad Ali Al-Shihri, the hijacker al-Shehri brothers' true father, was identified prior to September 17, 2001, and told Arab News that he hadn't heard from his sons in ten months prior to September 2001.[11] An ABC News story in March 2002 repeated this, and during a report entitled "A Saudi Apology" for Dateline NBC on Aug 25 2002, NBC's reporter John Hockenberry traveled to 'Asir, where he interviewed the third brother, Salah, who agreed that his two brothers were dead and claimed they had been "brainwashed".

Furthermore another article explains that the pilot who lives in Casablanca was named Walid al-Shri (not Waleed M. al-Shehri) and that much of the BBC information regarding "alive" hijackers was incorrect according to the same sources used by BBC.

javierwar wrote:

Furthermore he saw his name and photo on the list and lets assume that he knows how to spell his own name and knows how he looks like. So if the name and the photo on the list did not match his own then why would he have even cared?

Where is the interview, where is the video?

Come back to me with a video demonstrating that he is ALIVE & WELL; and not an Internet link to an Internet derived opinion (dated back to Sunday, 23 September, 2001). This would be one very big story, if true, but almost 6 years has passed since the original faulty BBC claim, yet no video, no interview - but of course it is not likely to happen.

What your credible source, has to say about its’ own original article:
BBC: clarification: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2 … ory_1.html

. . .”Under the FBI picture of Waleed al Shehri we have added the words "A man called Waleed Al Shehri..." to make it as clear as possible that there was confusion over the identity.” . . . "The confusion over names and identities we reported back in 2001 may have arisen because these were common Arabic and Islamic names." . . .

I don’t need to prove anything, let us assume he wasn’t then...

It is not inconceivable that the United States of America (the CIA / FBI), could have faulty intelligence and that would prove what then?

The CIA / FBI misidentified a person - it is not a conspiracy to simply make a mistake.

Last edited by topal63 (2007-03-05 16:34:06)

TigerXtrm wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

jonsimon wrote:

You realize this counts as noticing, right? Like, someone has noticed, and people noticed what sounded like explosions. So, ruling it out because someone 'would have noticed', doesn't work. Second, if it snapped, (which is completely plausible, there could have been a fault in the steel or some such) why is there melted steel on the end?

I would imagine thats where they were initially welded together.

I like the advertising on the site that is hosting that photo..lol
Obviously they are marketing to the gullible.
http://i2.tinypic.com/2q313lw.png

Since fucking when are H-beams welded together like that, with the end cut off at an angle. I don't work in the building industry but even I know that method would be the most stupid and unsollid construction ever. If you really think that when a steel beam is snapped in half it leaves a smooth cut like that, maybe its not the conspiracy theorists that are the nutters. That beam was cut, there is no denying that.

BUT, the play devils advocate: They might have had to cut some beams for cleaning the mess and transport. Though that would not explain why they are cut in this manner.

Allow me to explain some basic material science to you.  How materials deform is a subject of their ductility.  The more brittle (less ductile) a material is, the less it will plastically deform (permanently deform) before failing.  For materials like most polymers, they deform to extreme amounts before breaking.  Want proof?  Take a piece of plastic wrap and try to get it to break into two pieces.  On the other hand, for ceramics (not ductile at all) plastic deformation is so small that two pieces can be fit right back together after being broken.  Metals are a little different.  They depend on temperature and their alloying content.  Generally as one adds alloying materials to a metal the ductility decreases with an increase in strength (better explanation beyond the scope of this explanation).  For things like sky scrapers, I would surmise they use high strength steels, meaning that they would be brittle, but capable of holding a large load.  Now while the steel very near to the fire would be more ductile, and likely bend and break, it is likely that other steel that failed simply snapped under the excessive load.  For more information, read up on ductility of metals, stress/strain relationships, etc.  So in conclusion, I do deny that the beams were cut because I have a knowledge of how things fail. 
   That covers tension.  For compression failures it is generally found that metals fail at an angle.  This angle makes a very distinct line, however, and can appear almost as if the material had been cut at that angle.  I was hoping to find some pictures of compression tests, but apparently they only put them in textbooks and articles for sale; you'll just have to trust me.

Echo wrote:

The bbc doc didn't answer the question why some of the 19 hijackers turned up in some middle eastern county alive and well. The guy that called his mom from united 93 giving his full name. When was the last time you called you mom telling her your full name? Imo there's alot of questions unanswered and i doubt if we ll ever learn what happened on the 9th of november 6 years ago.

The 9th of November!?!?

Don't you mean the 11th of September? (Even if Americans do put the date the wrong way round)

PluggedValve wrote:

"Now while the steel very near to the fire would be more ductile, and likely bend and break, it is likely that other steel that failed simply snapped under the excessive load.  For more information, read up on ductility of metals, stress/strain relationships, etc.  So in conclusion, I do deny that the beams were cut because I have a knowledge of how things fail."  O RLY

In theory it makes sense that the beams snapped.  But then there is the molten steel found at the site, which DID NOT snap. It melted.  Why did the towers not fall over and instead fell in its own footprint like a controlled demolishen.  Why did the tower in Spain that burned for 24 hrs not snap or melt??  My guess would be that the WTC hired the best in the business to build the towers and spared no expense in making it.  Why did this world wonder(WTC) collapse after an hour and the building in Spain is still standing today. 

I agree that there is alot of info out there that can be misleading but the amount of circumstantial evidence that 9/11 was some sort of inside job is overwhelming.  The official story has many more holes than any of the conspiracies IMO.  I dont know which conspiracy is closest to the truth but i do know that the gov't story is BS.

only to those who only see what they want to.  I do not know of the Spain fire of which you speak.  But all of this "circumstantial evidence" you speak of in mostly half truths, items taken out of context, or pure fabrication by those who desperately WANT to believe that the goverment was behind it.