The 9/11 Conspiracy Facts

[HeyLeroy]

For the thousandth time- there is nothing wrong with that, please go to post#419/#493 and show me where you disagree!!!

There is nothing wrong with not agreeing. But if you dont, then please go to the posts where my arguments have been crystalised, as has been asked many many many times, and go through them, and refute them! Its that easy.

Stating "i think you're wrong", or just putting up your own argument, does not address my points.

Still, can't you tell us what happens next, MjD? You're ever so coy!

This is his favoured tactic. I think he's realizing just how high is the bar here, and he's rethinking whether or not to come forth with his opinions on WTC7. I paraphrased his ideas earlier and I'll repost it again at the bottom.

Sorry, I thought those were in jest

Remember the advice I gave you on assuming on the other board?

Here's how I see your views on WTC7 amount to, correct me if I'm wrong:

knew that terrorists were going to hijack planes and fly them into the Twin Towers.

knew exactly where chunks of WTC1 were going to impact upon WTC7, and had

plant explosives throughout WTC7, in places where

knew the raging fires wouldn't spread.

, for reasons unknown (but we can assume wasn't guilt, as just did nothing to stop planes from smashing into buildings that could've potentially contained 50,000 innocent people) risked

or even

in the electric chair, and warned three fire-fighters of their nefarious plans, allowing them to... stay safe behind the collapse perimeter they'd set up, as the firefighters figured the building was gonna collapse anyways.

 

[Kage]

Please tell me what relevance this has to my point here? (dont make me tell you again what this point is...)

My questions are about something larger than your point in this debate. They are about how your incorrect claims about minutia are in fact pointless.

PNAC could even call for an attack identical to the one that happened on 9/11 and your argument would still be insufficient to prove anything. Motive, Means and Opportunity have to not only be present, but they also have to correlate. Just as I would not try to get away with killing my wife by blaming it on my mistress, the Bush Admin would not try to justify invading Iraq by blaming it on Saudi Arabia. Just as a business would not perform a hostile takeover of a company and then have the company fail because they did not spent $5000 on a patent, The Bush admin would not go through all the trouble of 9/11 and then not fake WMD. Your theory has no chance of being proven because of the questions I raised in my previous post. The goverment has to be simultaneously brilliant, cunning and all powerfull while also being stupid, inept and self-defeating for your theory to parse. Any theory that says the government was behind 9/11 has to answer my questions before it will have and chance at validity. Motive and Opportunity are in complete conflict with Means with what you suggest.

 

[mjd1982]

9/11 might have been both catastrophic and catalyzing, but not catalyzing in a way that would further the PNAC agenda. It was catalyzing in a way that gave the Bush administration much latitude to conduct a ground war against an ill-defined enemy. It did not give the military the authority to invest in new weapons programs and make other investments that would push us to global superpower forever status. That's a big difference. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are the worst nightmares of the people who drafted the PNAC document.

Again Curt, thank you. I think debating this is much better than saying how much you disagree.

You make the suggestion that 911 was not the sort of event that PNAC would have wanted, since it was not properly calibrated to catalyse the changes they were calling for. Please click on this link

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=84473&page=3

to find out how the changes that have been pursued via 911/WOT are significantly similar to what was advocated in RAD.

Note that the disconnect further underlines the notion that 911 was a catastrophic event used to catalyse the changes that PNAC had called for, just as is stated in that disputed paragraph.

M

 

[mjd1982]

My questions are about something larger than your point in this debate. They are about how your incorrect claims about minutia are in fact pointless.

PNAC could even call for an attack identical to the one that happened on 9/11 and your argument would still be insufficient to prove anything. Motive, Means and Opportunity have to not only be present, but they also have to correlate. Just as I would not try to get away with killing my wife by blaming it on my mistress, the Bush Admin would not try to justify invading Iraq by blaming it on Saudi Arabia. Just as a business would not perform a hostile takeover of a company and then have the company fail because they did not spent $5000 on a patent, The Bush admin would not go through all the trouble of 9/11 and then not fake WMD. Your theory has no chance of being proven because of the questions I raised in my previous post. The goverment has to be simultaneously brilliant, cunning and all powerfull while also being stupid, inept and self-defeating for your theory to parse. Any theory that says the government was behind 9/11 has to answer my questions before it will have and chance at validity. Motive and Opportunity are in complete conflict with Means with what you suggest.

If I have understood you correctly (tell me if not), you are stating that the Bush admin would have had to be dastardly clever to pull of 9/11, whereas they are totally stupid, given the Iraq no WMD thing?

This has been addressed; I dont think that this attack is particularly clever; i think it is as bungled and obvious an inside job as could be conceived. Please note that for the moment, all I am trying to do is give a framework to work within; if PNAC/a significant number of the Bush admin had deemed a new PH propitious to policy, then we have some useful parameters to go by. I will come onto this later.

Sorry if this does not address your point; do let me know if it doesnt.

 

[mjd1982]

One of the first traits that I noticed about conspiracy theorists was the contortions they would go through to insinuate wildly without making any actual claims. That way, if someone points out the absurdity of their position, they can rightly say, "I never said that!"

Correct, because the smart ones never say ANYTHING of substance. Not directly, anyway. That's why I consider them to be intellectual cowards.

Intellectual cowards? Hmm. Maybe you can explain why you will not answer the points I have put forward to you?

 

[stateofgrace]

If I have understood you correctly (tell me if not), you are stating that the Bush admin would have had to be dastardly clever to pull of 9/11, whereas they are totally stupid, given the Iraq no WMD thing?

This has been addressed; I dont think that this attack is particularly clever; i think it is as bungled and obvious an inside job as could be conceived. Please note that for the moment, all I am trying to do is give a framework to work within; if PNAC/a significant number of the Bush admin had deemed a new PH propitious to policy, then we have some useful parameters to go by. I will come onto this later.

Sorry if this does not address your point; do let me know if it doesnt.

You don't think the attack was particularly clever? Yes there is nothing clever about 19 guys boarding four planes and managing to slam three of them into buildings full of innocent people. Or are you finally going to gave us your spin on it. Maybe lay down the easy task of murdering 3000 of your own citizens and hoping that nobody notices?

Obviously an inside job? On you go then lets have the fully and so obvious story of 911 or just for now a summary of the main events. Please include in your summary of this obvious inside job.

1. Flight 11
2. Fligh175
3. Flight 77
4. Flight 93
5. WTC 1
6. WTC 2
7. WTC 7

Al Qaeda can also be included as can the thousands who , on your behave investigated it and you call mass murderers

I await your summary.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Intellectual cowards? Hmm. Maybe you can explain why you will not answer the points I have put forward to you?

Is this a real poster, or a poorly-designed web bot caught in an endless loop?

 

[mjd1982]

You don't think the attack was particularly clever? Yes there is nothing clever about 19 guys boarding four planes and managing to slam three of them into buildings full of innocent people. Or are you finally going to gave us your spin on it. Maybe lay down the easy task of murdering 3000 of your own citizens and hoping that nobody notices?

Obviously an inside job? On you go then lets have the fully and so obvious story of 911 or just for now a summary of the main events. Please include in your summary of this obvious inside job.

1. Flight 11
2. Fligh175
3. Flight 77
4. Flight 93
5. WTC 1
6. WTC 2
7. WTC 7

Al Qaeda can also be included as can the thousands who , on your behave investigated it and you call mass murderers

I await your summary.

Buddy, please listen to me.

My argument is proceeding point by point. I have implored the people in this thread to address this first point directly; 1 person did that in ~200 posts (astonishing), and now some more are starting to; we are now debating this.

Please join in. The relevant posts are #493 and #419.

Once we do this, we will go to the next point. And the next. Eventually all your questions will be answered.

It will be less useful for me to just state my opinions straight out, since they will be based on other elements. This is the first such element. Hence why we are debating it.

Please join in.

M

 

[mjd1982]

Is this a real poster, or a poorly-designed web bot caught in an endless loop?

Haha.. don't worry, just leave it. Let the grown ups debate this, your evasion will be noted,

 

[JonnyFive]

This has been addressed; I dont think that this attack is particularly clever; i think it is as bungled and obvious an inside job as could be conceived.

If this is the case, could you perhaps move to an area more focused on tangible evidence and less on "motive + means = inside job." I'm sorry if I'm reducing your argument to a glib little fake equation, but you've been stuck in this PNAC loop for, what, 15 pages of this thread?

Please note that for the moment, all I am trying to do is give a framework to work within; if PNAC/a significant number of the Bush admin had deemed a new PH propitious to policy, then we have some useful parameters to go by. I will come onto this later.

How? Even if Bush and his cabinet were hooting for joy when the towers collapsed, glad of the chance to finally get down to some good ol' fashioned imperialism, it still doesn't prove a damn thing. It might make you suspicious, but unless they explicitly state they're going to, say, fake a terrorist attack, it really doesn't mean anything.

You seem caught up on getting everyone here to agree that PNAC was suspicious somehow. Even if you accomplish this, you haven't proven 9/11 was an inside job. At most, you'll get everyone marginally suspicious... in an eyebrow-raising kind of way. Please, please, please post something more substantial than that. Most of the Truthers we get here just come in and hammer on one stupid issue until they freak out and leave because no one agrees with them. Please be different. Look in your heart, mjd1982!

Also, "propitious" has several synonyms, including several (i.e. all of them) that are more commonly used in conversational writing. Might I suggest "fortuitous" and "favorable?" Perhaps even "fortunate" if you've feeling the need to alliterate.

 

[JonnyFive]

Once we do this, we will go to the next point. And the next. Eventually all your questions will be answered.

It will be less useful for me to just state my opinions straight out, since they will be based on other elements. This is the first such element. Hence why we are debating it.

Actually, that isn't how a debate generally works at all.

 

[stateofgrace]

Buddy, please listen to me.

My argument is proceeding point by point. I have implored the people in this thread to address this first point directly; 1 person did that in ~200 posts (astonishing), and now some more are starting to; we are now debating this.

Please join in. The relevant posts are #493 and #419.

Once we do this, we will go to the next point. And the next. Eventually all your questions will be answered.

It will be less useful for me to just state my opinions straight out, since they will be based on other elements. This is the first such element. Hence why we are debating it.

Please join in.

M

I am not your buddy, do not patronise me child. You have stated 911 was a blundered inside job, obviously. Answer my questions and provide your summary.

You have gone round in circles for long enough, stop wasting mine and everybody else time. Provide your evidence, give me your summary.

You are not debating; you are acting clever and failing miserably. You are dismissing everybody who destroys your arguments and wish to dictate how a debate should be run on a public forum again you are failing miserably.

I do not debate fools, I do not enter into brinkmanship with children who make statements and cannot back them up. Back up your statements or retract them.

 

[jab712]

My argument is proceeding point by point. I have implored the people in this thread to address this first point directly; 1 person did that in ~200 posts (astonishing), and now some more are starting to; we are now debating this.

Please join in. The relevant posts are #493 and #419.

Once we do this, we will go to the next point. And the next. Eventually all your questions will be answered.

It will be less useful for me to just state my opinions straight out, since they will be based on other elements. This is the first such element. Hence why we are debating it.

Seriously,

This isn't a debate. You just keep saying the same things over and over again. Either

1) you refuse to acknowledge why people disagree with your assertions - there are 16 pages and they have given you ample information as to why they disagree; or

2) you can't read.

Obviously you can read. But, I think you are refusing to acknowledge what the people are saying who disagree agree with you because they do disagree with you.

You know, maybe you would be better served to continue with the “what happened next” in efforts to prove that it WAS “propitious to policy.” Currently, no one agrees with you and the only people, who have conceded to your theory, have done so only for sake of argument and to move on to the “what happened next.”

In all seriousness, since the people on this board don’t agree with you based on what you have provided thus far, provide something else. Don’t keep going on the same way you have been. It just isn’t working. I am sorry, it is not. We can go 15 more pages like this, but if you don’t come up with something different to prove your point, it is all for not. You can tell people to reread your post 1000 more times and still not get the result you are looking for. You can even
YELL AT THEM TO READ YOUR POST AGAIN,
it doesn’t change the result.

With that, you have one of two options, 1) give up or 2) provide something else to prove your point. Specifically, “Because a new PH was propitious to policy, and 9/11 was the new PH they were looking for, they did this…” If you can show what happened next, maybe people would be more inclined to say “hmmm, maybe a new PH WAS propitious to policy.” They might not, but how you have gone about this for the last 16 pages is certainly not “propitious” to your argument.

Say your car was doing something strange. The problem is one of two things, but you aren’t sure which. You try the first thing and it doesn’t work, the strange thing is still happening. Would you keep doing the 1st thing over and over again, even though it wasn’t working, or would you move on to the second thing?

…Hoping you will move on to “what happened next”

 

[mjd1982]

If this is the case, could you perhaps move to an area more focused on tangible evidence and less on "motive + means = inside job." I'm sorry if I'm reducing your argument to a glib little fake equation, but you've been stuck in this PNAC loop for, what, 15 pages of this thread?

Thanks for your reply.

I am not stating that mean+motive=inside job. You might wanna recalll what was one of the points at the start of this thread- I am aiming to show that there is suficient evidence of government complicity to warrant a new investigation into such.

Importantly, the reason why we have been stuck in 15 pages of little progress, is reflected in the fact that the sum of my argument has been crystalised in posts #416/419 and #493. I have literally begged people to answer this, as a means of generating some movement in the debate. For about 180 posts, only 1 person chose to do so. Either ad homs, restating of one's own position, or "I dont agree with you". I notice that, unless I am mistaken, you have not chosen to do so either. May I ask why?

How? Even if Bush and his cabinet were hooting for joy when the towers collapsed, glad of the chance to finally get down to some good ol' fashioned imperialism, it still doesn't prove a damn thing. It might make you suspicious, but unless they explicitly state they're going to, say, fake a terrorist attack, it really doesn't mean anything.

I know that. You are correct. This point is a starting point to the argument, a premise. Whether it can be established or not will ilustrate the direction we shall proceed. This will be decided via debate. Please join in.

You seem caught up on getting everyone here to agree that PNAC was suspicious somehow. Even if you accomplish this, you haven't proven 9/11 was an inside job. At most, you'll get everyone marginally suspicious... in an eyebrow-raising kind of way. Please, please, please post something more substantial than that. Most of the Truthers we get here just come in and hammer on one stupid issue until they freak out and leave because no one agrees with them. Please be different. Look in your heart, mjd1982!

I do not care if no one agrees- having argued the issue. What does irk me is when people don't agree, having avoided the issue, i.e. not having responded to the relevant points. It does astonish me that this should be so prevalent on this forum, supposedly a standard bearer for intellectual honesty. It is surely not that hard- the points have been outlined for all to see, more than once, exhortations have been numerous, and we can all bear witness to the response. It is little different to the SLC, which i find sad.

I ask you to break the mould (as is starting to happen), and address post #493. Then we can make some progress; at least those of us who want to.

Also, "propitious" has several synonyms, including several (i.e. all of them) that are more commonly used in conversational writing. Might I suggest "fortuitous" and "favorable?" Perhaps even "fortunate" if you've feeling the need to alliterate.

The reason why I use this word so repetitively, is because it fits the meaning perfectly. The words you have suggested don't, i'm afraid. I know its a bit idiosyncratic, but i did just come across it in Kissinger's memoirs; I believe Le Duc Tho deemed terms in a peace agreement "propitious" to Hanoi, so the term does have currency outside conversational writing.

 

[mjd1982]

Actually, that isn't how a debate generally works at all.

I would disagree with that. A debate should start by establishing premises. This is what is occurring here.

 

[lapman]

Thank you!!!

(snip)
Ok. So we have it. 9/11 was a catastrophic and catalysing event. PNAC state that the transformation will be slow absent a catastrophic and catalysing event. So please tell me how PNAC were not referring to that.

Hurricane Katrina was also a catastrophic and catalyzing event. So was the PNAC referring to that as well? 9/11 was not a military attack, nor was it specifically targeting the military. Yes, the Pentagon was attacked, but the purpose of the attack was to cause terror, not disable the military. The PNAC was referring to a foreign military force attacking our military.

And how does fighting multiple theatre wars; performing constabulary duties, restoring personnel strength, repositioning US forces (all of which are key requirements/aims according to the doc) have anything to do with technological advantage?

This has to do with the projection of power and nothing to do with the PH issue. The PH issue dealt directly with the technology issue. Along with what you stated above is this:

TRANSFORM U.S. ARMED FORCES. Finally, the Pentagon must begin now to exploit the socalled “revolution in military affairs,” sparked by the introduction of advanced technologies into military systems; this must be regarded as a separate and critical mission worthy of a share of force structure and defense budgets.

So the technological advantage is still a part of every aspect of the document.

Please read this link to find out the similarity between PNAC's vision and the WOT, although this is not hugely relevant.

Since the WOT was started after PNAC's document, why wouldn't some of their recommendations be a part of it?

Please tell me how this is baseless

The idea is the projection of power as the stabilizing force, not a regime change.

 

[JonnyFive]

I am not stating that mean+motive=inside job. You might wanna recalll what was one of the points at the start of this thread- I am aiming to show that there is suficient evidence of government complicity to warrant a new investigation into such.

Go ahead. You've made your point about the PNAC. Noted. What's next?

Importantly, the reason why we have been stuck in 15 pages of little progress, is reflected in the fact that the sum of my argument has been crystalised in posts #416/419 and #493. I have literally begged people to answer this, as a means of generating some movement in the debate. For about 180 posts, only 1 person chose to do so. Either ad homs, restating of one's own position, or "I dont agree with you". I notice that, unless I am mistaken, you have not chosen to do so either. May I ask why?

Because I could, quite frankly, care less about the PNAC and what you think about it.

If you're here to make a comphensive case, then I'd like to read it. If you're just going to waffle about one issue because no one has replied the way you want them to then just say so, so I can go to another thread.

I'm not even planning to debate you, I just want to know if you're planning to actually continue or not. It's been kind of boring on the CT board, and I was hoping maybe you would at least have something fresh to talk about. Come on, don't make me go over to stinky old "general skepticism and paranormal"... eeeewwwwww...

I ask you to break the mould (as is starting to happen), and address post #493. Then we can make some progress; at least those of us who want to.

Several people have addressed the issues you mentioned in that post. Because you didn't like the way they did so is beside the point. You have been doing this for sixteen pages of this thread. Do you have a point at which you'll just move on whether or not you're happy with how everyone addressed your first point?

It's not like we don't understand what you're trying to say. Why not tackle point #2 now?

The reason why I use this word so repetitively, is because it fits the meaning perfectly. The words you have suggested don't, i'm afraid. I know its a bit idiosyncratic, but i did just come across it in Kissinger's memoirs; I believe Le Duc Tho deemed terms in a peace agreement "propitious" to Hanoi, so the term does have currency outside conversational writing.

Auspicious and fortuitous are nicer, I think. Auspicious in particular. It's a nice word.

Considering they mean the exact same thing, and are used in the exact same context and all...

 

[mjd1982]

Seriously,

This isn't a debate. You just keep saying the same things over and over again. Either

1) you refuse to acknowledge why people disagree with your assertions - there are 16 pages and they have given you ample information as to why they disagree; or

2) you can't read.

Obviously you can read. But, I think you are refusing to acknowledge what the people are saying who disagree agree with you because they do disagree with you.

You know, maybe you would be better served to continue with the “what happened next” in efforts to prove that it WAS “propitious to policy.” Currently, no one agrees with you and the only people, who have conceded to your theory, have done so only for sake of argument and to move on to the “what happened next.”

In all seriousness, since the people on this board don’t agree with you based on what you have provided thus far, provide something else. Don’t keep going on the same way you have been. It just isn’t working. I am sorry, it is not. We can go 15 more pages like this, but if you don’t come up with something different to prove your point, it is all for not. You can tell people to reread your post 1000 more times and still not get the result you are looking for. You can even
YELL AT THEM TO READ YOUR POST AGAIN,
it doesn’t change the result.

With that, you have one of two options, 1) give up or 2) provide something else to prove your point. Specifically, “Because a new PH was propitious to policy, and 9/11 was the new PH they were looking for, they did this…” If you can show what happened next, maybe people would be more inclined to say “hmmm, maybe a new PH WAS propitious to policy.” They might not, but how you have gone about this for the last 16 pages is certainly not “propitious” to your argument.

Say your car was doing something strange. The problem is one of two things, but you aren’t sure which. You try the first thing and it doesn’t work, the strange thing is still happening. Would you keep doing the 1st thing over and over again, even though it wasn’t working, or would you move on to the second thing?

…Hoping you will move on to “what happened next”

I think the main problem with this, is that I am not asking people to "read" my posts again, I am asking them to respond to them, which is very different. Please go back to #416/419, and scroll through until now (if you want to understand my pov). You will see that, until just now, there is I think just 1 person who replied to that post. Just 1. And I replied to him. Everyone else just restated their opinions/made ad homs/ blew hot air. Needless to say, none of these constitutes a rebuttal, much less a destruction. I'll give you some examples- indeed, to show arbitrariness, I will proceed in tens (420- 500):

#420

Does this mean you had no smoking guns as in the OP teased?

I suspected you were just talk and now you prove it. No smoking gun will be clarified and you are off on some PNAC hunt which has not a darn thing to do with 9/11. Cause and effect seem to be a messed up system, in the fictional world of 9/11 truth. What do you think?

#430

I really hope that PNAC has nothing to do with this

#440

Just popping in to see if this thread moving any faster than the malcolm thread. That one is pushing up daisies...

This one... seems to betwitching and sputtering on the ground, gasping dramatically, but I have hopes.

#450

Hey MJD! Take note of the sentence from the PNAC - "Thus, this report advocates a two-stage process of change - transition and transformation - over the coming decades."

Transition, and transformation. That whole "Pearl Harbour" paragraph extolls the virtues of slow and managed change, and seems, to these eyes at least, to NOT want a new Pearl Harbour. It interferes with the entire scope of the project as laid out in that section of the document!

#460

I'm sorry I spoke too soon. Do you have a list of the ignored/ unsatisfactorily. This would be important to put this issue to bed.

#470

Ah yes, explaining every little trivial point of interest was absolutely critical to the 9/11 Report...

Odd that mjd1982 thinks that is a critical question

#480

This same quote could have been made after the civil war.

#490

Quite right. World War Two is the only "Total War" in history. The definition of a "Total War" is that every aspect of society is directed towards the war effort. In a Total War scenario "budget" and "funds" are actually irrelevant. The only limitation on what you can do is your raw materials and manpower.

If we look at the area of Fighter Aircraft, the US alone developed and put into production 10 different fighters between 1939 and 1945.

In contrast, the US has only developed and put into production 6 Fighter Aircraft in the last 35 years, with a 7th, the F-35 Lightning II, set to enter service in 2011, which will mean only 7 aircraft in the fighter role in 40 years.

-Gumboot

ETA. Actually scratch that, I included the Harrier which A) Was not developed by the USA and B) is not used by the USA as a fighter. So it's only 6 aircraft in 41 years (maiden flight of F-14 1970 to F-35 becoming operational 2011). The Six aircraft are the F-14, F-15, F-16, F-18, F-22, and F-35.

#500

Can you agree that 9/11 has had no technological effect on the military?

**********

Clearly, i could go on. I think it is a pretty astonishing phenomenon. I have made an argument; if people want to dispute it, should they not address it? And more to the point, if they don't, they why don't they?

 

[JonnyFive]

I would disagree with that. A debate should start by establishing premises. This is what is occurring here.

In this case, it fortunately doesn't matter whether you agree or not. A debate, by defintion, is a contest of opposing viewpoints. Agreement is not required at all, nor is "establishing premises." You say your thing, everyone comments, and says their thing. Back and forth until everyone gets sick of it and leaves, or one side relents, or time runs out.

I hope you're not arguing that your interpretation of the PNAC is a "premise" we need to establish. If so, you're actually admitting that you won't continue until we agree with you. That would be quite ballsy of you, but I hope it's not what you mean, mjd.

 

[mjd1982]

Go ahead. You've made your point about the PNAC. Noted. What's next?

Because I could, quite frankly, care less about the PNAC and what you think about it.

Well then you have no interest being here in this debate, since PNAC is an important part of it. You should probably go elsewhere.

If you're here to make a comphensive case, then I'd like to read it.

I am in the process of doing so. This is the 1st point.

If you're just going to waffle about one issue because no one has replied the way you want them to then just say so, so I can go to another thread.

Excuse me? The way i want them to? I want people to reply to my point- is this too much to ask? Please, tell me, is this too much? If it is too much for you, then yes, please leave, you will waste your time here. I have no interest in debating at people.

Several people have addressed the issues you mentioned in that post. Because you didn't like the way they did so is beside the point. You have been doing this for sixteen pages of this thread. Do you have a point at which you'll just move on whether or not you're happy with how everyone addressed your first point?

It's not like we don't understand what you're trying to say. Why not tackle point #2 now?

Excuse me. Please learn the difference between restating one's opinion and addressing someone else's issue. E.g. If I were to say "The TT's were not imploded evidenced by the fact that no CD expert thinks they were, you stating "Yeh but they free fell" would not be addressing my point. And we would go round and round and round. Please show me where someone has addressed my point, directly, and I havent responded.