What's your theory about 9/11?

Hi RedIbis. I give you some points for at least posting in this thread, something other Truthers have thus far avoided.

As to your question above, the thing that's wrong with simply trying to poke holes in the "OCT" without offering any cogent alternative theory is that it's ultimately impotent. You see, I believe the OCT not because I'm a Bush loyalist (voted against him twice, more if they'd have let me) or think America can do no wrong. I believe it because by far, it's the theory that best fits all the available evidence. I've yet to see an alternative theory that can even stand on its own weight without collapsing into a mess of self-contradictions, never mind be able to explain the evidence. Thus right now, the OCT is the only theory that makes any sense. And I see nothing currently on the horizon that has even a remote chance to compete with it.

Now of course, as with any theory there's going to be some minor odds and ends that taken at face value may look a little odd or anomalous. Here's an example. Let's say you accept the theory that the moon is much closer to Earth than the stars, since it makes so much sense and the evidence for it is so strong. Yet I know of people who insist that they have seen stars within the dark portion of a sliver moon. Such a sight should be impossible under the current moon theory. Should we then toss it out, along with everything that we know, to accommodate the evidence presented by these eyewitnesses? Do we invent some bizarre and convoluted theory to incorporate this evidence? Or do we simply accept that these reports are flawed or misinterpreted -- perhaps the witesses misremembered, or mistook a slow moving satellite for a star.

It seems to me that the 9/11 CT movement consists entirely of equally specious bits and pieces, minor misconceptions and errors that add up to nothing. That these little anomalous bits exist speaks not at all to the viability of the OCT. However, the fact that however you choose to connect the dots, no other theory can even be articulated with a straight face, speaks volumes. Because until CTers have such a theory, one that can be examined and stands up to scrutiny better than the OCT does, then what Truthers are doing amounts to little more than barking at the moon.

I appreciate your thorough and civil response. For the sake of this discussion, and really nothing else, I would suggest that LIHOP is a theory which competes with the official story, and deserves equal investigative treatment.
 
I appreciate your thorough and civil response. For the sake of this discussion, and really nothing else, I would suggest that LIHOP is a theory which competes with the official story, and deserves equal investigative treatment.

What does "LIHOP" theory, whatever that is say about the literal tons of evidence and thousands of eyewitnesses that support the 4 jets causing all the death and destruction on 9/11 and the fat evidence trail that shows that 19 Islamist Arabs hijacked those planes?
 
I appreciate your thorough and civil response. For the sake of this discussion, and really nothing else, I would suggest that LIHOP is a theory which competes with the official story, and deserves equal investigative treatment.

If by compete you mean you have evidence supporting LIHOP then maybe you have a point. You don't so it doesn't.

Not even close.
 
With a purposeful grimace and a terrible sound he pulls WTC 7 down.
Go go Godzilla :)
godzilla_vs_megalon.jpg
 
The digging action of ants destabilized the foundations, and caused the buildings to sway into the paths of two innocent passing jetliners, thus resulting in a burst of hot fuel being poured into the ant tunnels; the ants, being thus aggrevated, quickly and sloppily evacuated, further weakening the foundations, causing total global collapse.

And they used thermate.
 
I appreciate your thorough and civil response. For the sake of this discussion, and really nothing else, I would suggest that LIHOP is a theory which competes with the official story, and deserves equal investigative treatment.

But red, you've never argued LIHOP. It's always been MIHOP. Are you changing your theory to LIHOP? If so, I suppose you'll be submitting the evidence that compelled you to start believing LIHOP pretty soon. A new thread would be AWESOME!

ETA: oh, wait. I see it now. The "For the sake of this discussion, and really nothing else...". that means of course even though it isn't even close to the theory that fits the evidence the best, you are still generally believe MIHOP.

Carry on.
 
Last edited:
But red, you've never argued LIHOP. It's always been MIHOP. Are you changing your theory to LIHOP? If so, I suppose you'll be submitting the evidence that compelled you to start believing LIHOP pretty soon. A new thread would be AWESOME!

You really are a fundamentalist with no real interest in civil discourse.
 
You really are a fundamentalist with no real interest in civil discourse.

Yoo--hoo-hoo!
I wanna be like you-oo-oo
I wanna talk like you
Walk like you, too-oo-oo
You'll see it's true-oo-oo
Someone like me-ee-ee
Can learn to be
Like someone like me
 
You really are a fundamentalist with no real interest in civil discourse.
I am being totally serious with this. Could you possibly post your theory here? Seriously? Not an acronym, but an actually theory about what happened, if it's different from the 'official story' in some meaningful way. Thanks!
 
I appreciate your thorough and civil response. For the sake of this discussion, and really nothing else, I would suggest that LIHOP is a theory which competes with the official story, and deserves equal investigative treatment.

OK, good, this is a start. But if we're talking LIHOP, doesn't that mean that you accept that the actual events that occured on 9/11 -- planes hitting buildings and so on -- happened as described in the OCT? Thus there is no point in examining any of the physical evidence, since in both theories (OCT or LIHOP) it would be precisely the same? If so, I think we could immediately dispense with a great deal of the craziness and (frankly) stupidity which has plagued the 9/11 CT from the outset: CDs, Pentagon flyovers, nanothermite, space beam weapons, the lot.

The focus can then be on evidence that LIHOP actually happened. Is this a fair assessment in your opinion?
 
If so, I think we could immediately dispense with a great deal of the craziness and (frankly) stupidity which has plagued the 9/11 CT from the outset: CDs, Pentagon flyovers, nanothermite, space beam weapons, the lot.

We could also assume that nobody could have been involved who wasn't in a direct position to prevent the attacks, including, for example, Silverstein; we could therefore dismiss any discussion of his statements after the attacks as irrelevant. Would that also be reasonable? And if not, why not?

Dave
 
I am being totally serious with this. Could you possibly post your theory here? Seriously? Not an acronym, but an actually theory about what happened, if it's different from the 'official story' in some meaningful way. Thanks!

My comment wasn't directed at you. It's not my theory, but I think Stellafane has the right tack as far as just having a reasonable conversation about possible theories. In the interest of time, I'll probably stick to the most specific and sincere questions. Any attempt at getting me to summarize, arguably the most complex single day in American history and what I think "really happened" isn't going to elicit much of a response from me.
 
Last edited:
Any attempt at getting me to summarize, arguably the most complex single day in American history and what I think "really happened" isn't going to elicit much of a response from me.

Yes we know. You have no theory. Because producing a coherent inside jobby job theory that fits the evidence is impossible. You know very well that you would look like a fool (well, more than usual) if you even tried.
 
My comment wasn't directed at you. It's not my theory, but I think Stellafane has the right tack as far as just having a reasonable conversation about possible theories. In the interest of time, I'll probably stick to the most specific and sincere questions. Any attempt at getting me to summarize, arguably the most complex single day in American history and what I think "really happened" isn't going to elicit much of a response from me.
Surprise surprise. Red is playing hide my beliefs again which more than likely means he has none and is only posting to satisfy some weird neurological disorder.
 
OK, good, this is a start. But if we're talking LIHOP, doesn't that mean that you accept that the actual events that occured on 9/11 -- planes hitting buildings and so on -- happened as described in the OCT? Thus there is no point in examining any of the physical evidence, since in both theories (OCT or LIHOP) it would be precisely the same? If so, I think we could immediately dispense with a great deal of the craziness and (frankly) stupidity which has plagued the 9/11 CT from the outset: CDs, Pentagon flyovers, nanothermite, space beam weapons, the lot.

The focus can then be on evidence that LIHOP actually happened. Is this a fair assessment in your opinion?

I've never contested that real planes hit the towers. I think you're confusing the need for physical evidence to support collapse theories with proving that planes hit the buildings.

A productive discussion can ensue if various theories aren't simply lumped together. In this thread I've only suggested that IMO, LIHOP is as plausible as the official story.
 

It looks like I had a lot to say:

So Red I am still confused.

If you were a betting man, and you were about to know the entire, real truth, about the events of 9/11, would you bet on,

(A)LIHOP
(B)MIHOP
(C)Criminal Negligence

or

(D)Incompetence

TAM

This is a fair question, and I know it will be nothing but chum for the bottom feeders, but I would answer (B) with about 95% certainty. There is always doubt, and I don't pretend to know the whole story about anything.

My point in this thread is that (A) is criminal, in fact (E) CYA is criminal, as well.

Agreed?

Bolded for Pardalis' edification.
 
"I would answer (B) with about 95% certainty"

Seems pretty straight forward to me. Was there a secret meaning I missed?
 

Back
Top Bottom