Merged 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

[RedIbis]

What 'Far more options' really means that all sorts of made-up stuff can be brought to the equation in order to fill logical holes in your story. You HAVE to claim patsies, deception, and cover up even if you have little or no evidence to support them. That's not a sign of a good narrative.

The 'OT' is less flexible because it's based on reality.

Now isn't that funny. You HAVE to claim, single column/global collapse, comprehensive incompetency, the near complete absence of physical evidence in PA and DC, and the sincerity of the most corrupt and secretive administration.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Now isn't that funny. You HAVE to claim, single column/global collapse,

As shown to be plausible by structural modelling.

comprehensive incompetency,

We're talking about the Bush administration, remember.

the near complete absence of physical evidence in PA and DC,

I think you mean "the abundance of physical evidence in PA and DC, all of which has been found to be consistent with the generally accepted narrative.

and the sincerity of the most corrupt and secretive administration.

And virtually everyone else outside Iran.

Dave

 

[GStan]

I explained why.

Not really. You mentioned a couple of things that would seem difficult only from the perspective of someone who is already married to the conclusion that there was, in fact a MIHOP.

Bias.

If determining what is and is not reality through examination and interpretation of all available evidence is biased, call me biased.

I was suggesting the exact opposite. From the AQ perspective, destroying all seven buildings by using two planes must have seemed a miracle of Allah.

If that is what you're suggesting, why even mention it? This has no bearing on your argument, unless of course you can talk to some AQ leaders and find out if they thought the total destruction was a "miracle from Allah".

And why would they think that anyway? Did they anticipate that the towers would fall in a completely controlled manner and not damage the other buildings?

Now you know how I feel.

I do. I was once in your shoes.

 

[GStan]

Now isn't that funny. You HAVE to claim, single column/global collapse, comprehensive incompetency, the near complete absence of physical evidence in PA and DC, and the sincerity of the most corrupt and secretive administration.

I think people here, despite vehemently disagreeing with you, would prefer to believe you are not willfully ignorant [or just a liar], me included

What a pity.

 

[T.A.M.]

How'd you get that?

you used the word complicit with respect to members of the USG. This means that they either (A) willingly took part in an illegal event (9/11), or (B) knew such an event was going to occur, and took no actions to stop it (LIHOP).

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

I find LIHOP to be a difficult proposition. If it were the case than WTC 7 collapses due to NIST's single column/global collapse theory. The terrorists thinking they were flying two planes into two buildings, instead manage to destroy all 7 buildings.

MIHOP allows for far more options for the perpetrators, including using patsies, deception, and cover up.

It's the OT that requires the greatest stretch.

So have you now gone further over the edge? Are you now telling me that you believe that elements of the USG helped ORCHESTRATE the 9/11 attacks (MIHOP)?

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

Now isn't that funny. You HAVE to claim, single column/global collapse, comprehensive incompetency, the near complete absence of physical evidence in PA and DC, and the sincerity of the most corrupt and secretive administration.

you mean the lack of evidence readily available to you and other investigooglers?

So because you are not allowed to directly examine the plane parts from Flight 93, or the DNA evidence from the same, you assume it is absent or fake? is that correct?

What evidence, that you feel should exist, have they denied finding?

The FBI says they found plane parts, they found the CVR and the FDR. They found body parts, with DNA samples.

What EVIDENCE is almost completely absent, as you have said above?????

TAM

 

[twinstead]

Christ on a stick how many times have we gone through this? If one wants, one can claim the massive amount of evidence that supports the official story is faked (and then provide evidence to support it of course), but claiming the evidence of the official story is absent? That's ludicrous.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

"Near complete absence of physical evidence in PA and DC" is a complete contradiction to truth. FDRs were recovered from both, and the CVR was recovered for UA93. Furthermore, body parts were recovered in both areas, as well as personal effects, as well as pieces of the jet itself. Which we have repeatedly pointed out to everyone trying to make this claim.

Furthermore, there is also electronic and other recorded evidence, such as the ATC radar data, the cell and airphone calls, the flight manifests (yes, the hijackers were listed; don't bring up the "names weren't there" fallacy by proffering the victims list), etc.

On top of that, there are eyewitnesses to Flight 73's impact, and witnesses to UA93 going down.

How much more evidence do you want? There's zero - repeat, zero - credible evidence of a government conspiracy, and everything that conspiracy peddlers bring up is far from credible. On top of that, not a shred of it is even direct (i.e. order from a military commander to "stand down", or an FBI memo noting that zero evidence was found at site X), all of it is forcibly related via misinterpretation, and all of it is refuted.

It is utterly silly to claim that there is a "near complete absence of physical evidence" at the Shanksville and Pentagon crash scenes. It has zero factual basis, and it is ignorant of reality. That statement is a fantasy. Demonstrably so.

 

[DavidJames]

It is utterly silly to claim that there is a "near complete absence of physical evidence" at the Shanksville and Pentagon crash scenes. It has zero factual basis, and it is ignorant of reality. That statement is a fantasy. Demonstrably so.

Not so silly when you realize Red refuses to believe most anything which comes from any sources other the CT sites. He will believe what he thinks he sees in pictures, despite the fact that he doesn't have the education or the practical experience in any related field to properly interpret what he's seeing.

Typical ignorance and arrogance attitude of CTists.

 

[johnny karate]

I find LIHOP to be a difficult proposition. If it were the case than WTC 7 collapses due to NIST's single column/global collapse theory. The terrorists thinking they were flying two planes into two buildings, instead manage to destroy all 7 buildings.

MIHOP allows for far more options for the perpetrators, including using patsies, deception, and cover up.

It's the OT that requires the greatest stretch.

How fortunate for the conspirators that we will never resolve these compelling mysteries since our next president has no interest in further investigating 9/11.

What's even more fortunate is that Truthers such as yourself are quite content with this turn of events.

For someone who so adamantly hates Bush and whatever elements of his administration who were complicit in the 9/11 attacks, you sure seem awful accommodating in allowing them to get away with it.

 

[RedIbis]

On top of that, there are eyewitnesses to Flight 73's impact, and witnesses to UA93 going down.

.

Was there a fifth plane?

 

[funk de fino]

Now isn't that funny. You HAVE to claim, single column/global collapse, comprehensive incompetency, the near complete absence of physical evidence in PA and DC, and the sincerity of the most corrupt and secretive administration.

You really should have stopped lying at your age.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Was there a fifth plane?

Non-sequitor. Again, people witnessed Flight 77's impact, and no, don't try to bring up all the old distortions about Flight 93. It's bad enough when first timers (or new socks of old posters) come around with the old stuff, but you've been here long enough to know what the arguments are.

 

[dtugg]

Red, is it safe to assume that you are too much of a coward to provide us the "thesis" that you have come up with after doing years of tremendous research?

 

[Slayhamlet]

Non-sequitor. Again, people witnessed Flight 77's impact, and no, don't try to bring up all the old distortions about Flight 93. It's bad enough when first timers (or new socks of old posters) come around with the old stuff, but you've been here long enough to know what the arguments are.

Red was snarking about a typo in your previous post. He tends to do these sorts of things when he can't actually address the argument.

 

[T.A.M.]

Was there a fifth plane?

Well if you want it thrown back at you (give your recent propensity for insults) then the above has to be one of your worst posts, and is frankly, beneath you.

Of all the things myself and others have brought up here as physical evidence for the flights you questioned, you choose to ignore it, or not address it, and instead pick out an obvious spelling error.

Now I know from time to time you like to make light, and from time to time you can be funny, but given your attitude in this thread, why? Why not address all the valid comments in this thread?

TAM

 

[RedIbis]

Well if you want it thrown back at you (give your recent propensity for insults) then the above has to be one of your worst posts, and is frankly, beneath you.

Of all the things myself and others have brought up here as physical evidence for the flights you questioned, you choose to ignore it, or not address it, and instead pick out an obvious spelling error.

Now I know from time to time you like to make light, and from time to time you can be funny, but given your attitude in this thread, why? Why not address all the valid comments in this thread?

TAM

What valid arguments? People are asking me to re state what I've been posting over the course of 3000+ posts. I've identified this as the "write the book" gambit.

 

[dtugg]

What valid arguments? People are asking me to re state what I've been posting over the course of 3000+ posts. I've identified this as the "write the book" gambit.

Like how you have no response after being called on your flat out lie of there being near complete lack of physical evidence at Shanksville and the Pentagon.

And if you are referring to me to asking to re-state your "thesis," you are lying again. You have never proposed anything near a thesis. The vast majority of you posts are only a few sentences or less long. Or maybe you expect people to construct said thesis out of your 3000+ posts for you, since you are apparently too lazy to do it yourself.

 

[johnny karate]

What valid arguments? People are asking me to re state what I've been posting over the course of 3000+ posts. I've identified this as the "write the book" gambit.

You need an entire book to express your thesis?

Any valid thesis should be able to be expressed rather succinctly. It's kind of the nature of how an intelligent, well-constructed thesis works.

Which I guess would explain your inability to express yours.