Elementary 9/11 Challenge to Alexander Baron


From: Dan Noel [mailto:dan.noel@global-platonic-theater.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2012 19:19
To: Alexander Baron
Subject: 9/11, starting at the basics...
Importance: Low

Dear Alexander:

In the wake of the abundant nonsense you have peddled over 9/11, I publicly challenge you to refute the elementary 9/11 baby step.

Love,

Daniel Noël
Platonic analyst
1098 Glen Circle
Costa Mesa, CA 92627
USA


From: Dan Noel [mailto:dan.noel@global-platonic-theater.com]
Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2012 19:19
To: Alexander Baron
Subject: RE: 9/11, starting at the basics...
Importance: Low

You have not answered my 7-3 Email. The elementary 9/11 baby step stays unchallenged by you. Our readers are wondering whether this is due to a mere overlook, some mental limitation, or hypocrisy. Wouldn’t you care to enlighten them?

Love,

Dan


From: ALEXANDER BARON [mailto:a_baron@btinternet.com]
Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2012 23:13
To: Dan Noel
Subject: Re: 9/11, starting at the basics...

No, I just got a cheque for $50 from Obama; he has told me to blank 9/11 Truthers from now on while he draws up plans to turn America into a police state.

By the way, did you check out final article on it? It was a reply to a crank called Noel. No relation, I take it?


From: Dan Noel [mailto:dan.noel@global-platonic-theater.com]
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2012 14:16
To: 'ALEXANDER BARON'
Subject: RE: 9/11, starting at the basics...
Importance: Low

Kindly stay on topic. I have reviewed your rather abundant writings on 9/11 and found them to be irrelevant to the 9/11 baby step’s refutation. Since you do not seem to grasp my 7-3 challenge, here is a more explicit formulation:

Love,

Dan


From: ALEXANDER BARON
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2012 14:45
To: Dan Noel
Subject: Re: 9/11, starting at the basics...

There is nothing to refute, you are wrong.

The building burned for 7 hours, there are technical descriptions all over YouTube. If you check out unedited videos you will see that the penthouse began to break up because by that time the building was a hollow shell.

How much noise would a controlled explosion have made? How would it really have looked? You have not done your homework the same as these idiots who claim the Twin Towers couldn't have been brought down by the planes and the fires alone. The same as those dickheads who don't understand that a passport could have survived a plane crash where a human body can't therefore figure it must have been planted.

Go away and do some real  homework . I can recommend this series: 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jC3JgWkNNIQ

for the whole shebang to have been orchestrated and covered up would have been next to impossible. Again, check out the conditions that would have to have been met for this to be so.

You people are living in cloud cuckooland. I have been on the receiving end of real conspiracies - plural - and they are nothing like this. Rather they are grubby little affairs by sordid little men and women.

Futhermore, if the American government could pull of something like this, it wouldn't need to because you'd all be in concentration camps already.

Now go and find someone else to bother whose time isn't as precious as mine.


From: Dan Noel [mailto:dan.noel@global-platonic-theater.com]
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2012 16:01
To: 'ALEXANDER BARON'
Subject: RE: 9/11, starting at the basics...
Importance: Low

Your latest Email appears to be irrelevant to the elementary 9/11 baby step’s refutation. Kindly stay on topic, lest our readers infer that you are incapable of comprehensive reading at the middle school level.

What precise element in the 9/11 baby step is false? How do you propose to demonstrate it?

In the meantime, the 9/11 baby step stands unrefuted by you.

Love,

Dan


From: ALEXANDER BARON [mailto:a_baron@btinternet.com]
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2012 16:18
To: Dan Noel
Subject: Re: 9/11, starting at the basics...

The whole shebang, look, if you believe you have a refutation, take it to NIST, or Obama, or someone who cares.

All right?


From: Dan Noel [mailto:dan.noel@global-platonic-theater.com]
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2012 17:03
To: 'ALEXANDER BARON'
Subject: RE: 9/11, starting at the basics...
Importance: Low

Alas, no, it is not all right. This latest communication of yours appears to be, like the others, irrelevant to this thread’s topic, which is your ability—or lack thereof—to credibly refute the elementary 9/11 baby step.

In case you have not understood my 7-3 Email. I’ll rephrase it again, with more details still:

  1. This challenge’s subject is the 9/11 baby page.
  2. Do you believe that the 9/11 baby page is true? If so, simply state so and stop here. If not, execute the following steps.
  3. Clearly identify one element in the 9/11 baby page that you believe to be false.
  4. Provide an irrefutable demonstration that the above-identified element is false.

Feel free to let me know which steps you do not understand in the above process. I’ll try to clarify them further for you.

In the meantime, our readers shall conclude that you are incapable of refuting the elementary 9/11 baby step.

Love,

Dan


From: ALEXANDER BARON [mailto:a_baron@btinternet.com]
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2012 17:25
To: Dan Noel
Subject: Re: 9/11, starting at the basics...

Besides, the twin towers’ destruction did not inflict catastrophic structural damage on Building 7

WRONG

 

This is the first and only time in history that a steel-framed high-rise has been unintentionally brought down

NO LONGER TRUE

 

The video match between Building 7 and this controlled demolition is striking.

SUPERFICIALLY

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Beck_case

amazing resemblance but entirely different

 

NO MORE


From: Dan Noel [mailto:dan.noel@global-platonic-theater.com]
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2012 18:33
To: 'ALEXANDER BARON'
Subject: RE: 9/11, starting at the basics...
Importance: Low

  1. At last, you are starting to interest our readers, as you are giving them an idea of your intellectual abilities and are displaying some willingness to take the 9/11 baby step challenge. You seem to be performing steps 1 through 3 of my latest Email with little difficulty. Maybe all you needed was that short refresher course in simple logic. We are progressing.
  2. Because your latest Email still reflects quite some confusion, I’ll refine it and offer a few simple clues for your benefit.
  3. Are our readers to understand that you think that the statement that “the twin towers’ destruction did not inflict catastrophic structural damage on Building 7” would be false? If so, kindly provide an irrefutable demonstration thereof. Just follow step 4 of my latest Email. Carefully abide by the official findings on this important matter; otherwise your demonstration will be dismissed as a nutty conspiracy theory.
  4. Are our readers to understand that you think that the statement that “[the destruction of Building 7] is the first and only time in history that a steel-framed high-rise has been unintentionally brought down” would be false? If so, kindly provide an irrefutable demonstration thereof. Just follow step 4 of my latest Email.
  5. You extracted from the 9/11 baby page the statement that “the video match between Building 7 and this controlled demolition is striking.” You wrote some unclear—if not mutually contradictory—comments about it. Would you believe this statement to be false, per step 3 of my previous Email? If so, kindly provide an irrefutable demonstration thereof. Just follow step 4 of my latest Email. Be mindful that the 9/11 baby page introduces this statement as an inference.
  6. Your “no more” paragraph will leave our readers puzzled. Is this relevant to your ability—or rather lack thereof—to refute the elementary 9/11 baby page? If so, kindly explain how. If not, try harder to dump such distractions and to stay on topic.
  7. In the meantime, the elementary 9/11 baby page stands unrefuted by you.

Love,

Dan


From: ALEXANDER BARON [mailto:a_baron@btinternet.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2012 0:35
To: Dan Noel
Subject: Re: 9/11, starting at the basics...

Look, it is clear you have not listened to a word I've said and are simply chanting the same mantra over and over again.

Check this out

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-WQdmpdM_g

and pay special attention to what he says with regard to:

the pyramid analogy - imagine what would have happened if they had crashed into one of the pyramids

the way buildings are constructed today, with reference to the 1993 attack and fireproofing

the size of the planes and the effects of the fuel. Take out 2 or 3 floors around floor 100, the others crash down, and each floor below is subjected to a greater weight, it pancakes

read again what has been written about Building 7 - but not by idiots. There was NO controlled detonation.

Now please go away and don't bother me again.

If you are so inclined, keep writing your own idiocy and looking foolish. You will end up in the company of dickheads who think the world is controlled by shape-shifting lizards and believe the Mossad and the Mafia killed JFK instead of the lone nut Oswald.


From: Dan Noel [mailto:dan.noel@global-platonic-theater.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2012 0:35
To: 'ALEXANDER BARON'
Subject: RE: 9/11, starting at the basics...
Importance: Low

  1. You have not followed up on any of the clear and pragmatic pieces of encouragement, warning and advice I offered you in my latest Email. Our readers shall conclude that you are dropping whatever ideas you may have had of proving one element in the 9/11 baby page to be false.
  2. After exhibiting what looked like a sparkle of objectivity in your “July 16, 2012 17:25” Email, you seem to have degraded back to your habit of wasting our readers’ time with concepts that are foreign to this thread’s topic, which is, to repeat, your challenge to credibly refute the elementary 9/11 baby page. Your latest Email appears to be almost entirely off-topic. Nevertheless, I’ll try to extract some meaningful pieces of information from it and factually and honorably answer them.
  3. Your affirmation that “it is clear you have not listened to a word I've said and are simply chanting the same mantra over and over again” is interesting. Thinking of it, the contention that one of us is a rationalist bent on using observation and reason and progressing from simple to complex concepts, while the other is a charlatan bent on peddling fantastic nonsensical theories with no pretense of justifying them except by some “look, I feel better thinking so, therefore it is so” paranoid egotism, has some merit. Our readers shall evaluate who is playing which role.
  4. Per your request, I checked out your latest reference: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-WQdmpdM_g. I found nothing in it that would prove any element in the 9/11 baby page to be false. Did I miss anything?
  5. Your implied contention that I would have bothered you and your unclear admonition for me to go away are irrelevant to this thread’s topic, which is your ability—increasingly turning into a visible inability—to credibly refute the elementary 9/11 baby step.

Love,

Dan


From: ALEXANDER BARON [mailto:a_baron@btinternet.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2012 4:33
To: Dan Noel
Subject: Re: 9/11, starting at the basics...

Besides, the twin towers’ destruction did not inflict catastrophic structural damage on Building 7

wrong

This is the first and only time in history that a steel-framed high-rise has been unintentionally brought down.

some might dispute the interjection of the word unintentionally, in any case, this is no longer true

The destruction itself took only a few seconds

wrong - it took 7 hours

You will reasonably agree that the exercise you just went through raises a highly intriguing epistemological conundrum:

only in uninformed or deluded minds, like yours

If you are really interested in impossible happenings, check out the testimony of Litwinska.

Bye


From:ALEXANDER BARON [mailto:a_baron@btinternet.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2012 4:40
To: Dan Noel
Subject: Re: 9/11, starting at the basics...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kSq663m0G8

a very short video with a short, simple explanation, which begs the question did these truther idiots do any research at all?

This is my final e-mail on this subject. Go and find someone else to annoy with your nonsense.


From: Dan Noel [mailto:dan.noel@global-platonic-theater.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2012 0:25
To: 'ALEXANDER BARON'
Subject: RE: 9/11, starting at the basics...
Importance: Low

  1. You sent two different replies to the same Email over a few minutes that have little commonality apart from their irrelevance to this thread’s topic, which it bears repeating is your—completely unsuccessful so far—attempt to credibly refute the elementary 9/11 baby page. Our readers shall ponder this additional clue on your mental habits.
  2. Your “July 18, 2012 4:33” Email does not remotely look like an attempt to credibly refute the elementary 9/11 baby page. It merely offers a few quotes from it and shows no sign of their intelligent falsification, shattering the hope our readers may have entertained that your “July 16, 2012 17:25” Email was the harbinger of a meaningful intellectual effort. Kindly understand that your egotistic “whatever I happen to believe is necessarily true” dialectical approach assuredly saves you much brain power, but is convincing only in very special settings, such as bullying on a middle school playground. You may never be able to credibly refute the elementary 9/11 baby page if you do not make a concerted effort to study the advice in my “July 16, 2012 17:03” Email and in my “July 16, 2012 18:33” Email, or if you do not get elsewhere a training on the basic use of observation and reason.
  3. Your “July 18, 2012 4:40” Email links to a video which, following what seems to be a pattern of yours, does not appear to remotely deal with this thread’s topic, which is your ability—or rather your de facto inability—to credibly refute the elementary 9/11 baby page.
  4. Our readers shall take your affirmation that you wish to stop this thread as a tacit confirmation that you are incapable of credibly refuting the elementary 9/11 baby page and shall use this finding to evaluate your credibility on more involved matters.
  5. Fortunately for you, the elementary 9/11 baby page is not going away. If you ever find the credibly demonstrable error in it, let me know.

Love,

Dan


From: ALEXANDER BARON [mailto:a_baron@btinternet.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2012 0:34
To: Dan Noel
Subject: Re: 9/11, starting at the basics...

You are obviously totally incapable of understanding anything; your baby page is baby talk. It's rubbish. You don't know what you are talking about. No amount of evidence, reason or rational argument will convince you. Sadly, you are not one of a kind.

Enough.


From: Dan Noel [mailto:dan.noel@global-platonic-theater.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2012 1:13
To: 'ALEXANDER BARON'
Subject: RE: 9/11, starting at the basics...
Importance: Low

  1. Our readers will note that contrary to your earlier Email you still found something to add to this thread. It appears to be of the same vintage as your previous communications, heavy, harsh, rude, demeaning, but unconvincing, as it is irrelevant to your challenge to credibly refute the elementary 9/11 baby page.
  2. Our readers shall find your statement that “no amount of evidence, reason or rational argument will convince [me]” interesting. They shall note that your latest Email would carry more weight had it contained even a tiny bit of “evidence, reason or rational argument,” especially if it happened to be, for a change, germane to your challenge. They may interpret it as your implicit confession that “no amount of evidence, reason or rational argument will” credibly refute the elementary 9/11 baby page, which would seal their previous conclusion on this subject.
  3. Fortunately for you, the elementary 9/11 baby page is not going away. If you ever find the credibly demonstrable error in it, let me know.

From: ALEXANDER BARON [mailto:a_baron@btinternet.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2012 13:03
To: Dan Noel
Subject: Re: 9/11, starting at the basics...

The biggest error is posting it. I spent much of today reading Griffin's book; he is the prince of fools. You appear to he his understudy.


From: Dan Noel [mailto:dan.noel@global-platonic-theater.com]
Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2012 22:22
To: 'ALEXANDER BARON'
Subject: RE: 9/11, starting at the basics...
Importance: Low

Our readers will recognize your trademark difficulty to stay on topic and accordingly confirm your failure to credibly demonstrate that one element in the elementary 9/11 baby page would be false.

Love,

Dan


From:ALEXANDER BARON [mailto:a_baron@btinternet.com]
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2012 0:22
To: Dan Noel
Subject: Re: 9/11, starting at the basics...

Been there, done that. Goodbye.


From: Dan Noel [mailto:dan.noel@global-platonic-theater.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2012 11:17
To: 'ALEXANDER BARON'
Subject: RE: 9/11, starting at the basics...
Importance: Low

Our readers will wonder how your latest Email could be relevant to your failure to credibly demonstrate that one element in the elementary 9/11 baby page would be false.

Love,

Dan


From: Dan Noel [mailto:dan.noel@global-platonic-theater.com]
Sent: Friday, August 24, 2012 18:06
To: 'ALEXANDER BARON'
Subject: RE: 9/11, starting at the basics...
Importance: Low

You evidently keep spewing stupidity about 9/11 from your bully pulpit, yet show no sign of comprehending the elementary 9/11 baby page. Our readers may wonder what is wrong with you.

Love,


From: ALEXANDER BARON [mailto:a_baron@btinternet.com]
Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2012 1:09
To: Dan Noel
Subject: Re: 9/11, starting at the basics...

The only one who is stupid is you; the Grand Conspiracy that can kill 3,000 people including 343 firefighters and the wife of the Attorney General of the United States can't even kill one convicted terrorist.

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/320102

Now please get back on your unicorn and fly off back to Tolkien-land with Harry Potter and Alice.


From: Dan Noel [mailto:dan.noel@global-platonic-theater.com]
Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2012 23:45
To: 'ALEXANDER BARON'
Subject: RE: 9/11, starting at the basics...
Importance: Low

This latest communication of yours is, in its entirety, irrelevant to this thread’s topic, isn’t it? The elementary 9/11 baby step stands unrefuted by you.

Dan