9/11: Does no controlled demolition = not an inside job?

[david.watts]

1,000 words.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_3561952cd6645965dd.jpg[/qimg]

I see it finally! Thank you. If you had only posted it several weeks ago, I would have been long gone!

Ah, but now I have a new idea. I may start a new thread with your diagram but move the inner red circle to the right a little bit so that it is just outside the the blue circle.

What do you think?

 

[DGM]

I see it finally! Thank you. If you had only posted it several weeks ago, I would have been long gone!

Ah, but now I have a new idea. I may start a new thread with your diagram but move the inner red circle to the right a little bit so that it is just outside the the blue circle.

What do you think?

Why would you do this with no evidence to support the move?

 

[Mark F]

Why would you do this with no evidence to support the move?

Because it suits his personal brand of reality-distortion.

 

[Horatius]

I see it finally! Thank you. If you had only posted it several weeks ago, I would have been long gone!

Ah, but now I have a new idea. I may start a new thread with your diagram but move the inner red circle to the right a little bit so that it is just outside the the blue circle.

What do you think?

If I'm reading this correctly, that means you want to discuss the hypothesis that there may have been a CD, but that this hypothetical CD was not an inside job. Is that correct?

Because if so, this still won't be the "Gotcha!" you're looking for. The correct response to such a suggestion is that there's still no evidence for a CD, no matter who you want to blame it on.

You have to understand: We oppose the conclusion that there was a CD because there's no evidence for CD, not because we want to avoid concluding that there was an inside job.

 

[beachnut]

No controlled demolition = Not an inside job?

Thoughts?

Have you retracted all your lies on 911 yet?

http://www.opednews.com/Diary/9-11-How-many-virtual-pro-by-David-Watts-080324-705.html

No? Why can't you do physics?
Thoughts?

Oh, stand by for the Gish Gallop and moving the goal posts at the speed of a turtle (12 years and we have fantasy born of ignorance dancing into infinity faster than free-fall tripping into the pit of ignorance).

 

[Sceptic-PK]

http://www.opednews.com/Diary/9-11-How-many-virtual-pro-by-David-Watts-080324-705.html

Wow, hahahaha.

 

[ozeco41]

...Oh, stand by for the Gish Gallop and moving the goal posts at the speed of a turtle (12 years and we have fantasy born of ignorance dancing into infinity faster than free-fall tripping into the pit of ignorance).

 

[david.watts]

If I'm reading this correctly, that means you want to discuss the hypothesis that there may have been a CD, but that this hypothetical CD was not an inside job. Is that correct?

Because if so, this still won't be the "Gotcha!" you're looking for. The correct response to such a suggestion is that there's still no evidence for a CD, no matter who you want to blame it on.

You have to understand: We oppose the conclusion that there was a CD because there's no evidence for CD, not because we want to avoid concluding that there was an inside job.

Sorry. I have to keep reminding myself that my dry -- if you knew me you would understand that it is ever so dry -- humor does not translate very well into pixels on a computer screen. So no, I have absolutely no intension to ever start such a thread.
But then again, it might be interesting. Just joking. I must remember to use those happy little smiles more often. And of course, I must use the appropriate ones.

 

[Redwood]

Truthers have no point. Like Holocaust Deniers and Birthers, all they can do is JAQ off, raise a mountain of quibbles, and hope that this mountain of horse manure somehow compresses itself into a diamond.

 

[HotRodDeluxe]

Oh good! More puerile twoofer word-games.

 

[HotRodDeluxe]

http://www.opednews.com/Diary/9-11-How-many-virtual-pro-by-David-Watts-080324-705.html

1. Given the fact that there was not much airplane debris found at the Pentagon and the best explanation the Official Story can come up with is that most of the large 757 airliner vaporized; yet the Official Story claims they were able to identify each and every passenger and crew member through UNvaporized DNA -- NONE with an Arab sounding name; then this alone virtually proves the Official Story to be a lie.

LOL, who's telling porkies then?

 

[Redwood]

http://www.opednews.com/Diary/9-11-H...80324-705.html

March 24, 2008 at 17:54:15

9/11: How many virtual proofs does it take to turn on the 9/11 light bulb in people's minds?

By David Watts

David, given that you wrote this almost 6 years ago, why IYO has this and other truther efforts failed to ignite public interest? Could it be faulty arguments? Or is it "government shills" giving bogus counter-arguments and bamboozling the masses?

 

[Robrob]

Sorry. I have to keep reminding myself that my dry -- if you knew me you would understand that it is ever so dry -- humor does not translate very well into pixels on a computer screen. So no, I have absolutely no intension to ever start such a thread.
But then again, it might be interesting. Just joking. I must remember to use those happy little smiles more often. And of course, I must use the appropriate ones.

Well that and can you get around to correcting the lies you have posted on your blog?

 

[Dog Town]

Depends entirely which camp of twoof you fallfail into.

ftfy

 

[BStrong]

Have you retracted all your lies on 911 yet?

http://www.opednews.com/Diary/9-11-How-many-virtual-pro-by-David-Watts-080324-705.html

No? Why can't you do physics?
Thoughts?

Oh, stand by for the Gish Gallop and moving the goal posts at the speed of a turtle (12 years and we have fantasy born of ignorance dancing into infinity faster than free-fall tripping into the pit of ignorance).

Pretty clear evidence that the op has a pov he/she doesn't want to defend here, but wishes to promote.

 

[jaydeehess]

Pretty clear evidence that the op has a pov he/she doesn't want to defend here, but wishes to promote.

Difficult to say since he only asked us for OUR thoughts rather than propose any of his own. Nor has he managed to explain what the purpose of asking was.

I suspect its another of the , "well you have no definitives on this so everything is open and equal" memes.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

I cannot disagree. But the question still stands.

The essence of your question is just that simple. If you have sufficient evidence there's a million possible scenarios that you can deal with depending on what it supports. It's all fine if you want to speculate on a million "what-if's" but as far as dealing with the actual history of events, unless something radically new pops up the evidence currently points to good intelligence, lack of coordination in which to process and deal with the threat, a terrorist attack that got carried out successfully for the most part, etc. etc. etc...

That can ALWAYS change "IF" sufficient new evidence pops up... but that hasn't happened yet.

 

[Brainster]

There are certainly conspiracy theories that could still account for 9-11 inside job sans CD. Many Truthers are convinced that there were no passengers on board the planes. So you could posit that the passengers were gotten off somehow and either killed or bribed, and that what actually hit the towers were drones or missiles or even the actual planes themselves remotely controlled, and that the collapse of the buildings was completely unexpected or that NIST's models are correct and the government knew it before the collapses.

In short, there are almost an infinite variety of crazy theories you can come up with given enough pot and a paranoid worldview.

 

[Robrob]

Pretty clear evidence that the op has a pov he/she doesn't want to defend here, but wishes to promote.

Funny how the ones most likely to cry "shill" are the ones actually shilling.

 

[RepresentativePress]

Define an inside job. Is Let it Happen on Purpose an inside job?

I think another question to ask is what do people mean by "letting it happen."

I don't think there is evidence that the specific "it" was known (meaning the specific plan of hijacking 4 planes and attempting to crash them into targets)
but we do know that warnings of an attack were given. I would still like to see all the PDBs which haven't been released.

Kurt Eichenwald's op-ed contained disturbing information: http://representativepress.blogspot.com/2012/12/neoconservative-deviousness-put-us-at.html

I think this didn't get the coverage and discussion it deserved: "the neoconservative leaders who had recently assumed power at the Pentagon were warning the White House that the C.I.A. had been fooled; according to this theory, Bin Laden was merely pretending to be planning an attack to distract the administration from Saddam Hussein, whom the neoconservatives saw as a greater threat."

That's a big problem. As I have pointed out at my blog: You are not going to get these men to say, "Yeah, we sat back, ignored the warnings, so that when an attack happened we could use it as a pretext for our agenda to attack Iraq." BUT their excuses for why the President should ignore the warnings he was being given are so contrived and self-serving that it basically exposes what they were up to.