Hustler woo

[Pardalis]

I was trying to think of more reputable outlets. Sad to say, I can't think of too many!

But then, that depends on your definition of "reputable."

Oh my, not another anti-government one...

 

[jhunter1163]

I haven't seen anything from the Twoofers, and I mean ANYTHING, that doesn't have a compelling or at least plausible alternate explanation. But maybe SCG will surprise me.

 

[Alt+F4]

And every single alternate theory fully debunked?

I've yet to see an alternative theory. All I've seen is bad evidence, shoddy reporting, embarrassingly awful science, and outright lies from the CTers.

If you do have an alternative theory I'm sure we would all love to hear it.

BTW, welcome!

 

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Subpoena power given to whom, and who are the projected recipients of these subpoenas?

Name an "alternate" theory that has not yet been debunked. Be a good way to earn your stripes here.

Have you guys here proven that Bin Laden orchestrated the attacks? I'd like to read that. I think Robert Mueller might be interested in reading that, too. I've been looking for a thread, but can't find it yet. (I'm learning my way around).

 

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Oh my, not another anti-government one...

Ha! Fallacy! I expressed disdain for the media, not the government. Careful there.

 

[ConspiRaider]

Have you guys here proven that Bin Laden orchestrated the attacks? I'd like to read that. I think Robert Mueller might be interested in reading that, too. I've been looking for a thread, but can't find it yet. (I'm learning my way around).

How about if you tell us why you do not believe 9/11 was the work of OBL, and then lay out your theory as to who you think was responsible. I think Mueller would be more interested in your assessment.

As Gravy says: Proceed.

 

[skepticalcriticalguy]

How about if you tell us why you do not believe 9/11 was the work of OBL, and then lay out your theory as to who you think was responsible. I think Mueller would be more interested in your assessment.

As Gravy says: Proceed.

Well, I asked first. (wink) Being that this is a skeptics group, I would assume that everybody here is, or at least was initially, skeptical of the Bin Laden theory. Until proven. Am I wrong?

I guess I'm trying to find out what it is that the skeptics here are skeptical of. Is it anything that can't be backed up with evidence/proof? Or just anything that is counter to the "conventional wisdom." (e.g. the official government version).

 

[T.A.M.]

Me personally, i think OBL lied initially, as he has admitted off the record to doing so, as he feels this is how Israel and America do things. He later then confessed, and has many times since spoken of the attacks as his (via al-qaeda) doing. I believe his confession and many subsequent admissions.

How about you Skeptical guy....wait let me take a stab.

You think that he didnt do it, and his initial response, the denial was the real deal. You think that the subsequent confession tape is a forgery/fake, and that all of his subsequent admissions or "taking credit" was either done purposely because he is a CIA plant, or was done, because he was opportunistic and felt the best way to improve his notoriety was to take the blame, and make himself look like a real "bad boy".

Am I even close?

TAM

 

[Alt+F4]

I guess I'm trying to find out what it is that the skeptics here are skeptical of. Is it anything that can't be backed up with evidence/proof? Or just anything that is counter to the "conventional wisdom." (e.g. the official government version).

I for one, have some questions that are not answered to my satisfaction by what I like to call the "generally accepted version" of that days events and the aftermath. For example, according to this story in USATODAY:
"In New York City, medical examiners used DNA profiles furnished by the FBI to match body parts with three of the 10 hijackers who crashed there."

Where did the FBI get these DNA profiles? Family members of the hijackers?

I have a few other small issues but I've seen NOTHING significiant to convince me that anyone other than 19 highjackers committed these crimes.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-09-11-sept11-remains_x.htm

 

[T.A.M.]

Where did the FBI get these DNA profiles? Family members of the hijackers?

I just assumed that they took samples from the appartments and hotel rooms they stayed in, as well as the rental car they found.

TAM

 

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Subpoena power given to whom, and who are the projected recipients of these subpoenas?

Given to an Independent Counsel, a Congressional Panel, a court of law. To name a few. I've read a couple arguments here against an international investigation, and I hope it doesn't come to that.

As for recipients; FAA, Intel agents, those who have been put under gag order for national security. I don't have time tonight to list them all, but there is a lengthy list that I read recently at another board. I can copy/paste if you'd like.

Name an "alternate" theory that has not yet been debunked. Be a good way to earn your stripes here.

I'm still deciding whether I want to bother earning my stripes here. I'm trying to find out what this is about. Somebody at another board recommended I drop by.

That said, I am intrigued by the many recent articles in the "alternate" media that discuss the possibility that we have a Mossad-riddled Pentagon and State Dept. But I see if anybody even shows an interest in discussing that topic here, they are ridiculed and accused of blaming "the jooooooooooose." (Was that too many o's?)

So, no theory at this point; just reading and learning. I trust everybody here continues to read and learn.

 

[T.A.M.]

I love evidence. I love cold hard FACTS. I also deeply appreciate the opinions of EXPERTS in a given field. Even more, I deeply appreciate the opinions of hundreds of experts in a given field. I consider witness testimony reliable only if it is VERY multiple in nature, and has details within it that are corroberated.

I hate hearsay. I dislike, though occasionally engage in, speculation. I consider non expert opinion worthless. I consider spotty, or singular witness testimony weak, and anonymous testimony weaker still.

I trust CNN. I trust, to a lesser degree, MSNBC. I trust CBC. I do not trust "Prisonplanet.com". I do not trust "worldreports.org". I do not trust "alternative media" that clearly exhibits an agenda.

TAM

 

[Alt+F4]

Given to an Independent Counsel, a Congressional Panel, a court of law. To name a few. I've read a couple arguments here against an international investigation, and I hope it doesn't come to that.

The problem with a new investigation is that the CTers don't trust anyone who doesn't already believe their theories. Government, scientists, main-stream media, the insurance industry, the foreign media. Since these groups haven't spoken "the truth" as they see it, then they must be "in on it" too.

No matter who would be involved with a new investigation the CTers would yell foul if it didn't come to their conclusion: inside job.

 

[The Almond]

And every single alternate theory fully debunked?

I think you've hit upon the reason why I don't believe any of the conspiracy theories. Numerous independent investigators, the least of which include the Loose Change producers, Judy Wood, Steven Jones and James Fetzer, all looking at what they consider to be data and evidence have all come up with different theories. Judy Wood thinks a space microwave melted the towers, and Jones thinks thermite did it.

Why, if everyone is looking at the same evidence, are there so many competing conspiracy theories?

Consider now that a collaboration between NIST and 200 different researchers from the US and Canada all managed to agree on the same conclusion while using valid research techniques and scientifically accurate principles. The research has been largely accepted by the scientific and engineering community without dispute.

If you're interested in convincing people here, I might suggest a strategy:
1) Select an alternative theory of how the WTC collapsed
2) Show corroborating evidence for that theory. For instance, if thermite brought down the towers, show who bought it, how it got there, who signed the orders, what parties were involved, who was movtivated to do it, etc.
3) Show how the alternative theory encapsulates MORE of the observable evidence than the NIST theory. Back this claim up with relevant data and calculations.
4) Publish or submit for publication a paper which shows steps 1, 2 and 3 to a reputible, peer-reviewed journal. Suggestions might be:
Nature
Scientific American
Journal of the American Society of Civil Engineers
Physical Review
Journal of the American Concrete Institute
Materials Science
Geochemica
Engineering News Record
American Journal of Mathematics

That would be very impressive. It would be even more impressive if the paper were so well researched and so clearly presented that all of the Truth movement supported it.

 

[skepticalcriticalguy]

I trust CNN. I trust, to a lesser degree, MSNBC. I trust CBC. I do not trust "Prisonplanet.com". I do not trust "worldreports.org". I do not trust "alternative media" that clearly exhibits an agenda.

TAM

See, I don't trust CNN. Nor MSNBC, although I do watch Keith O. (I certainly do not trust FOX.) Why do you trust them? I used to too.

Don't you think that huge corporate media outlets, owned by defense contractors and citizens of other nations, have a glaring agenda? Equal to or greater than the "alternative" outlets you listed?

TAM, what do you think PrisonPlanet's agenda is? I'm curious. I might be missing something. Is it T-shirt and DVD sales? (I notice those are sold here too.) I'm not being confrontational, I am curious what you think. I do pop on there from time to time, and I notice that many of the articles linked there are from mainstream media, and foreign media.

 

[ConspiRaider]

Given to an Independent Counsel, a Congressional Panel, a court of law. To name a few. I've read a couple arguments here against an international investigation, and I hope it doesn't come to that.

As for recipients; FAA, Intel agents, those who have been put under gag order for national security. I don't have time tonight to list them all, but there is a lengthy list that I read recently at another board. I can copy/paste if you'd like.

I'm still deciding whether I want to bother earning my stripes here. I'm trying to find out what this is about. Somebody at another board recommended I drop by.

That said, I am intrigued by the many recent articles in the "alternate" media that discuss the possibility that we have a Mossad-riddled Pentagon and State Dept. But I see if anybody even shows an interest in discussing that topic here, they are ridiculed and accused of blaming "the jooooooooooose." (Was that too many o's?)

So, no theory at this point; just reading and learning. I trust everybody here continues to read and learn.

It appears to me as if you are stunting.

You are very familiar with the JREF forum, but are trying to come across as somebody who just "dropped by" via "a friend". And, there is just the slightest hint of condescension in your final sentence. Newbies don't do that - they tread a bit more lightly and it's apparent. Your posts indicate you are very familiar with 9/11 theories, that you don't buy the official story, and that you may very well have been here under a different name.

Some of us here are in favor of another 9/11 investigation. Including me. No foreign investigation. This happened to the USA, we're best suited to analyze it. We definitely don't need to outsource this.

But I suspect we'll differ with you on the thrust of another investigation - the hub from which the direction of it proceeds. You'll want its POV to be disproving an Inside Job. Our POVs vary, but I'd say they would proceed from determining, in colloquial terms, how we got caught with our pants down. Who screwed up. Why they screwed up. We've got a huge intelligence apparatus, a huge military, a giant-sized federal government. Yet this thing slipped by all that and occurred.

 

[Alt+F4]

Don't you think that huge corporate media outlets, owned by defense contractors and citizens of other nations, have a glaring agenda? Equal to or greater than the "alternative" outlets you listed?

I certainly do. But if the evidence for a conspiracy is a clear as the CTers say why hasn't ANY of the mainstream media picked up on it as a serious story? Don't you think the liberal, Bush-hating New York Times would love the Pulitzer? What about the CBC and the BBC? Do you think the worldwide media is all under control?

 

[skepticalcriticalguy]

I think you've hit upon the reason why I don't believe any of the conspiracy theories. Numerous independent investigators, the least of which include the Loose Change producers, Judy Wood, Steven Jones and James Fetzer, all looking at what they consider to be data and evidence have all come up with different theories. Judy Wood thinks a space microwave melted the towers, and Jones thinks thermite did it.

Why, if everyone is looking at the same evidence, are there so many competing conspiracy theories?

Consider now that a collaboration between NIST and 200 different researchers from the US and Canada all managed to agree on the same conclusion while using valid research techniques and scientifically accurate principles. The research has been largely accepted by the scientific and engineering community without dispute.

If you're interested in convincing people here, I might suggest a strategy:
1) Select an alternative theory of how the WTC collapsed
2) Show corroborating evidence for that theory. For instance, if thermite brought down the towers, show who bought it, how it got there, who signed the orders, what parties were involved, who was movtivated to do it, etc.
3) Show how the alternative theory encapsulates MORE of the observable evidence than the NIST theory. Back this claim up with relevant data and calculations.
4) Publish or submit for publication a paper which shows steps 1, 2 and 3 to a reputible, peer-reviewed journal. Suggestions might be:
Nature
Scientific American
Journal of the American Society of Civil Engineers
Physical Review
Journal of the American Concrete Institute
Materials Science
Geochemica
Engineering News Record
American Journal of Mathematics

That would be very impressive. It would be even more impressive if the paper were so well researched and so clearly presented that all of the Truth movement supported it.

Very valid point. And one of two things will happen: they will continue to flail around, and come apart through infighting, or solid leadership will emerge, and what you illustrate above will happen; a focused panel, corroboration, etc. I guess we'll see. I'm keeping an open mind to any and all new theories.

Of course, it would help to close the case for the government if they would provide the evidence that it was Bin Laden and Al Qaida. The FBI admits they don't have enough. That's disturbing.

 

[The Almond]

Very valid point. And one of two things will happen: they will continue to flail around, and come apart through infighting, or solid leadership will emerge, and what you illustrate above will happen; a focused panel, corroboration, etc. I guess we'll see.

My money is on the infighting. What I've noticed during the last few months of studying the Truth movement is that it is largely driven by ego. It is the realization of a paranoid fantasy whose validity is protected only by ego and the intense desire to be declared "right."

Lyte Trip announced in November that our world would come tumbling down after he released his evidence. 28th Kingdom is "taking it easy" on us old timers because he doesn't want to blow our minds with his truth. What appears to govern the Truth movement is not the validity of their conclusions, but rather the conviction behind it. It is a war of ego, and Steven Jones vs. Jim Fetzer is a perfect example.

I'm keeping an open mind to any and all new theories.

I'm curious about this statement. Do you not believe that the NIST theory, which has followed all 4 of my steps, is the most logical theory in explaining the collapse of the WTC towers? Or are your criticisms directed largely at the administration and the intelligence community? Do you believe that airplanes, flown by islamic hijackers, attacked and destroyed the Pentagon and WTC 1, 2 and 7?

Of course, it would help to close the case for the government if they would provide the evidence that it was Bin Laden and Al Qaida. The FBI admits they don't have enough. That's disturbing.

If the FBI were interested in framing bin Laden, how could they have too little evidence? If you're fabricating it all, why not fabricate everything?

 

[skepticalcriticalguy]

if the evidence for a conspiracy is a clear as the CTers say why hasn't ANY of the mainstream media picked up on it as a serious story? Don't you think the liberal, Bush-hating New York Times would love the Pulitzer? What about the CBC and the BBC? Do you think the worldwide media is all under control?

Well, I lean more toward that media-under-control paradigm than most here, I guess. It's all about money. And who the ownership is connected to.

I don't see the New York Times being as "Bush-hating" as some see it. Maybe Bush-blackmailing? Also, consider that although breaking a story of this magnitude should win the Pulitzer, the NYT (or any other MSM outlet) would be torched for their failure to break it sooner (read: complicity). Didn't they already apologize for their rush-to-war stance before Iraq? (I don't know much about the CBC or BBC).

Add to that the CIA's (and Mossad's) penchant for getting their own agents placed throughout the MSM, and it leaves a bad smell on the "news." (Can I call it the "nooooooos?")