Kevin Ryan: "Do we need another 9/11 conspiracy theory?"

[Dash80]

Only those responsible know the operational details.

My theory is that if we want to know what really happened on 9/11, we have to be willing to face painful answers to difficult questions.

From what I have observed, few people have the heart to seriously consider the ramifications of 9/11 being an inside job.

Too big to fail sums it up.

MM

I would consider those ramifications if you and your thruthy pals presented some real evidence. You haven't, you can't even string together a coherent theory.

 

[dafydd]

I would consider those ramifications if you and your thruthy pals presented some real evidence. You haven't, you can't even string together a coherent theory.

So that's why I've never received an answer.

 

[1337m4n]

miragememories, we're not asking you to provide "secret operational planning details". We're just asking you to tell us the events of the day. Did planes hit the WTC or not? Did a plane hit the Pentagon or not? Did al-Qaeda hijack any of those planes or not? Were there bombs in the WTC buildings or not?

You can't demand taxpayers pay for a new investigation until you can explain precisely what facts the previous investigations got wrong.

What part(s) of the following do you not agree with?
"On September 11th, 2001, 19 al-Qaeda terrorists hijacked four airliners, with the intent of using the planes as kinetic weapons. Two crashed into the WTC towers, causing them to collapse. One crashed into the Pentagon. One crashed prematurely before it could reach its target due to passenger resistance."

 

[dafydd]

miragememories, we're not asking you to provide "secret operational planning details". We're just asking you to tell us the events of the day. Did planes hit the WTC or not? Did a plane hit the Pentagon or not? Did al-Qaeda hijack any of those planes or not? Were there bombs in the WTC buildings or not?

You can't demand taxpayers pay for a new investigation until you can explain precisely what facts the previous investigations got wrong.

Comedy Connections: Yes Minister 2 "

Easy questions to answer. What kind of evidence could MM produce to warrant a new investigation?

 

[Miragememories]

miragememories, we're not asking you to provide "secret operational planning details". We're just asking you to tell us the events of the day. Did planes hit the WTC or not? Did a plane hit the Pentagon or not? Did al-Qaeda hijack any of those planes or not? Were there bombs in the WTC buildings or not?

You can't demand taxpayers pay for a new investigation until you can explain precisely what facts the previous investigations got wrong.

What part(s) of the following do you not agree with?
"On September 11th, 2001, 19 al-Qaeda terrorists hijacked four airliners, with the intent of using the planes as kinetic weapons. Two crashed into the WTC towers, causing them to collapse. One crashed into the Pentagon. One crashed prematurely before it could reach its target due to passenger resistance."

BS

We all know the superficial 'events of the day'.

The rest of your post is the usual spin.

I am not a no planer.

MM

 

[ozeco41]

No one has asked you for this. What was asked was, "What is your theory as to what happened on 9/11". Why can't you guys actually get this far?

That is the question I have been giving some thought to. One big reason which seems to fit observable posting behaviours is this:

Most of them lack the thinking skills which are required.

Let me explain a bit further. The events of 9/11 included a lot of happenings and aspects which make up a complex overall situation. The main foci of interest - WTC x 3; Pentagon and Shanksville forming five individual lots of complexity and there are many other factors involved in the totality of 9/11.

Now peoples' thinking styles can be classed into two main strands:
1) Those who can deal with complex multi factor scenarios and apply reasoning to reach conclusions; AND
2) Those who cannot.

Semi-technically those two are often called:
1) "Convergent Thinkers"; AND
2) "Divergent Thinkers".

Convergent thinkers can take a lot of ducks and line them up in meaningful sequences. They can even accommodate other birds. Other animals. Inanimate objects...etc -- any increasing complexities. But irrespective of complexity they are still able to classify, categorise, relate them and work through to reasoned solutions.

Divergent thinkers cannot. The more they look at a complex scenario the more complicated they make it. So they cannot focus on more than a single issue, maybe two and rarely three.

Put even more simply "some people can think" and "some people cannot think".

Now the "useful insight" is that:

A) most truthers seem to be those who cannot deal with complex multi factor situations>>>are divergent thinkers>>cannot think. Or at least cannot think in the ways needed to make meaningful comments on 9/11 matters; WHILST

B) most debunkers seem to be able to deal with complex multi factor situations>>>are convergent thinkers>>>can think in the ways needed to make meaningful comments on 9/11 matters. (Ignore "followers" - see "Disclaimer 1" at end of post.)

I'll pause there and suggest that members take my hypothesis and see how it fits against the known posting habits of regulars. (Ignore Trolls - see "Disclaimer 2" at end of post.)

Now once you have given the base hypothesis some thought let's take the next step:

I have been exploring the idea that:

A) Being unable to think as described above pre-disposes people to become "truthers" - or more generically - conspiracy theorists of which set 9/11 Truthers are a sub-set; AND

B) being able to think as described above pre-disposes people to become "debunkers".

And that is sort of a "nature v nurture" concept. So, given that any persons thinking style is more or less fixed, the chance of truthers being able to follow a reasoned argument served up to them on a plate is remote. And the idea that they could form a reasoned argument using their own skills is pie in the sky wishful thinking. They simply lack the needed skills.

And all of that should be read with the "most of them" and "the general trend" style of constraints. I suggest it is "highly probable" but neither "global" nor "exclusive"



Disclaimer 1: "Ignore the followers" - Both sides of the "great polarising divide" include those who actually engage in the intelligent reasoning and those who are more or less followers. The comments do not apply to the followers.

Disclaimer 2: "Ignore the trolls" - The comments apply to those who are more or less genuinely involved in the debate. They specifically do not apply to those who are trolls as shown by their behaviours. The only reasoning skill revealed by trolling is the ability to pick points on which they can needle. Granted some do it with more finesse than others. Some may be capable of reasoned thinking but it is hidden behind the tactics of trolling.

 

[dannyb]

If it was an 'inside job', why would the government not just say Hani Hanjour was a brilliant pilot?

 

[dafydd]

BS

We all know the superficial 'events of the day'.

The rest of your post is the usual spin.

I am not a no planer.

MM

CDer? What was superficial about the events of the day? What lies hidden under the obvious fact that terrorists hijacked planes and flew them at high speed into buildings which caught fire and collapsed?

 

[Oystein]

MM's understanding of plain English seems poor. He thinks I didn't point out an glaring and obvious inconsistency in Kevin's convoluted conclusions regarding the reinforcement and subsequent explosive opening of the Pentagon wall.

I am of course not surprised that MM missed the glaringly obvious. He just enjoys stalking me. Perhaps he enjoys the sight of his behind on silver tableware.

 

[ozeco41]

MM's understanding of plain English seems poor. He thinks I didn't point out an glaring and obvious inconsistency in Kevin's convoluted conclusions regarding the reinforcement and subsequent explosive opening of the Pentagon wall.

I am of course not surprised that MM missed the glaringly obvious. He just enjoys stalking me. Perhaps he enjoys the sight of his behind on silver tableware.

Stalking appears to be taking over from trolling. I seem to have acquired a personal stalker because I stand firm on the principle that "details which must be considered are those details which are both relevant and significant". The stalker insisting that he disagrees, insisting that I am wrong and refusing to say why or discuss his erroneous concerns. Needless to say he misrepresents my position so he can win sycophant support.....

...such is the level of desperation in these dying days of 9/11 discussion.

 

[Miragememories]

MM's understanding of plain English seems poor. He thinks I didn't point out an glaring and obvious inconsistency in Kevin's convoluted conclusions regarding the reinforcement and subsequent explosive opening of the Pentagon wall.

I am of course not surprised that MM missed the glaringly obvious. He just enjoys stalking me. Perhaps he enjoys the sight of his behind on silver tableware.

You flatter yourself.

The only thing I am stalking is the truth about 9/11.

Since you present your unsupported opinions in most of the threads I read, it is only natural that you will get feedback.

Apparently you find baiting me with false accusations preferable to actually addressing the many reasoning flaws in your posts.

MM

 

[dafydd]

The only thing I am stalking is the truth about 9/11.



MM

Do you have any preliminary results? Why do you think that the explanation of the events that is accepted by most people is not the truth?

 

[Robrob]

Only those responsible know the operational details.

Analogous to the non-answer, "man cannot know the mind of God."

My theory is that if we want to know what really happened on 9/11, we have to be willing to face painful answers to difficult questions.

As opposed to simply looking at facts and evidence? Why do your emotions get involved?

From what I have observed, few people have the heart to seriously consider the ramifications of 9/11 being an inside job.

See?

I am not a no planer.

Which brings up another parallel to religiosity. You and the non-planers worship at the same alter of trutherism, you just disagree on one or two points of dogma.

Sort of orthodox and reformed trutherism.

 

[dafydd]

Which brings up another parallel to religiosity. You and the non-planers worship at the same alter of trutherism, you just disagree on one or two points of dogma.

Sort of orthodox and reformed trutherism.

At least the Big Endians and the Little Endians disagreed about something that actually existed.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Without a full 9/11 investigation,...

9/11 was subjected to the largest criminal investigation in Galactic History (7,000+ FBI agents, 2000 support personnel). The collapses of the twin towers and building 7 were heavily investigated by FEMA and NIST as well.

9/11 was without a doubt, the most fully investigated event in history.

 

[000063]

Well, I can certainly agree that you are consistent.

In spite of the volume of english words you make use of, your coarse understanding of the language is again revealed in this thread.

And your personal dislike against Oys, as expressed in very thinly veiled personal attacks, is again expressed.

A conspiracy by its very nature, is shrouded in secrecy!

Unless he was a high-level 9/11 conspirator, how could Kevin Ryan know the planning details without the help of a major investigation.

Straw man. It is not that Ryan does not know the details of the alleged conspiracy. It is that at least two claims for the same overall theory contradict each other.

Without a full 9/11 investigation, Kevin Ryan is quite correct, the Official Story will remain in place and the true story will be kept buried. Too big to permit exposure.

Larger things, by definition, are easier to expose.

The goal of the 9/11 was to shock the world and finger arab terrorists as responsible. It effectively handed the Bush administration the emergency powers they needed to obtain a blank check from Congress.

Power to wage war wherever they claimed members or supporters of the 9/11 terrorist organization existed, and the authority to heavily suppress the rights and freedoms of virtually anyone.

That's nice. It's also a verbal smoke grenade, chaff meant to hide Oys very logical points.

Oh, and it made a lot of big corporations wealthier,

War tends to make corporations richer.

and gave the military an opportunity to test their latest hardware advances and wage war.

Yes, that's why they planted conclusive links to Iraq when th - oh, wait.

What you are doing with this thread Oystein is playing it both ways. You damn Kevin Ryan as wrong in his beliefs because he cannot provide all the secret planning details behind 9/11,

Again, straw man. Ryan makes self-contradictory claims. Either he withdraws the claims, or he is wrong by definition.

and when he makes educated guesses about parts of what might have happened, you mock him for lacking sufficient physical and eyewitness proof.

No, for contradicting himself, as Oys explicitly stated and you have not addressed at all.

...

He puts out a theory - but it is not coherent. It has contradicting explanations for two separate anomalies. I predict that the comments section of that latest blog post will attract the usual praise from the twoofer sheep, and no one will catch the glaring discrepancies....

So, the only person who seems to be having problems with English is you.

At least the thread's title was honest.

MM

Yes, feel free to throw around generalizations and pithy slogans instead of evidence. Oys has show that Ryan is explicitly wrong in several areas, such as "the tapes" not being released.

BS

We all know the superficial 'events of the day'.

The rest of your post is the usual spin.

I am not a no planer.

MM

>Asked direct question about what he doesn't believe in a given statement.
>Refuses to respond beyond denying that he's not a no-planer.
>declares everything else "spin" and "BS"

You flatter yourself.

The only thing I am stalking is the truth about 9/11.

Since you present your unsupported opinions in most of the threads I read, it is only natural that you will get feedback.

Apparently you find baiting me with false accusations preferable to actually addressing the many reasoning flaws in your posts.

MM

You still refuse to actually address Oys points, much less in any detail.

9/11 was subjected to the largest criminal investigation in Galactic History (7,000+ FBI agents, 2000 support personnel). The collapses of the twin towers and building 7 were heavily investigated by FEMA and NIST as well.

9/11 was without a doubt, the most fully investigated event in history.

Also, the most recorded and broadcasted crime in history.

 

[atavisms]

great article. Thanks.