Let's call it a draw and start a new investigation. The extremely weak position of you debunkers is perfectly illustrated when you accuse us on the one hand of pretending to know exactly what happened on 9/11, but on the other hand you belittle us and demand from us to deliver an "alternative hypothesis" - which means you demand from us to speculate, because me and the vast majority of 9/11 Skeptics never claimed that we know what happened.
First things first: Thank you for the compliment, but
I'm not really a "Debunker". That would be a little like calling myself a Doctor because I earned a First Aid merit badge in the Boy Scouts. I have a long way to go before I earn the title "Debunker".
Secondly, do you really want to revisit the "New Investigation" möbius strip/argument? I think it would go a little something like this...
T: I won't be convinced one way or another until we have a new investigation into 9/11.
D: Fine, have a new investigation. Investigate to your heart's content. Just don't ask me to foot the bill.
T: No, the government has to be involved. There is information that only the government has access to.
D: But if you are right and the government was involved in the 9/11 attacks, how can you trust the information they give you?
T: Uh...
D: Or let's say they weren't involved, but after 10 years, you complete your investigation and to your shock and disappointment, you discover that it really was Al Qaeda's responsbility, do you really think the rest of the Truth Movement who weren't personally involved in the investigation will say "Huh! What do you know? Turns out we were wrong all these years!" or do you think they'll (or at least a significant subset of them) just assume the investigators were threatened or bribed or fooled into saying what you did and bay for your blood while simultaneously demanding a new(er) investigation?
T: ...
D: T, are you there? Talk to me, man.
T: I won't be convinced one way or another until we have a new investigation into 9/11.
T&D: annnnnnd scene!
This, by the way, is a little obvious point that apparently, despite pointing out that in a criminal investigation the investigator doesn't have to provide a different suspect to rule the first suspected person as culprit out, cannot be understood even by the resident rocket scientists.
Yes, but before all that the police have to have enough evidence to place a suspect into custody. The irony that the Randi Forum (unlike most forums that have areas dedicated to 9/11 conspiracies) literally
is peopled with
actual Rocket Scientists is probably lost on you.
JohnG btw is absolutely right to complain that he feels treated like someone who irrationally tries to smear legitimate criticism, but it's hard to be fair in a forum where members like Sword of Truth, Bobert and others desperately try to associate every 9/11 skeptic with nazi scum like von Brunn. Just saying.
Say what now?? Are you sure you aren't thinking of someone else?
