• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Offer to the Truth Movement: Let's Settle It

RedIbis said:
I said Bush is more savvy than people give him credit for. By most accounts he's quite boorish, given to profanity laced tirades and frat boy like humor.
Click to expand...

LBJ (remember him?) was also by all accounts quite crude, though he didn't have a frat boy background. So what? These are politicians.
 
Dictator Cheney said:
i dont really know how much i feel honored that you "allowing me to come up with the question"

never mind sir.

i retrect my question :)
and i have no real interest in your "new way of thinking" "experiment"

have a nice day sir.
Click to expand...

Sorry for the brief derail. Sarcasm and the inability to articulate a point and defend it are the trademarks of twoofers. If you have no point then refrain from posting in this thread. If you stop and take the time read the issues being discussed you might learn something. If your mind is closed then why bother coming to this site at all?
 
Confuseling said:
Did you spot my question on the first page? I admit it's pretty open, and I'll accept with good grace if you don't feel it worth answering because any answers would be too vague.

It's just an interesting point to me - perhaps the crux of the matter (I can actually see a potential motive here, so I don't discount LIHOP, but I just feel MIHOP would be far too risky if not logistically impossible), and I'd be curious to see a breakdown by somebody with the brains and analytic experience to attack the problem properly, even if only in broad strokes.
Click to expand...

I saw it, but I don't know how to respond to it. The number of actors required is strongly dependent on the narrative of events. To this day, I have never heard a complete narrative of any stripe, from anyone.

The best answer I can give is a lower bound, and that would be the classic al-Qaeda narrative. This involves roughly 50 people. Any increase in complexity also requires these people to exist, i.e. as patsies, and would be larger. Some of the more fantastic ideas, such as those calling for unobtainable superweapon technology etc., could require millions. The range is too large for me to comment in any detail.
 
I was unsure whether to start a new thread on this but hope it's not too far from the original intent of the excellent OP.

I fully accept that Islamic Extremists carried out the 9-11 attacks. I have seen no evidence to date that would convince me otherwise.

But......what would it take for others of similar beliefs to question the "official" story.

For me it would have to be something like major players blowing the whistle covert video of confessions or articles exposing such in "serious" newspapers ie the Washington Post, UK Sunday Times etc.

Therein lies the gulf beween me (and most other posters here) and those that ride the endless twoof cycle. I hold beliefs that are completely falsifiable.
The twoofers will always add another turtle to the tower.

BV
 
Last edited:
Mackey: That's fair enough. My answer has always been thousands at bare absolute minimum if we're talking about actively intervening in any way - a stand down, explosives, whatever. Might be an interesting subject for a thread, if there isn't one already, but I agree - it is pretty much pulling figures out of the air.

Well. No questions forthcoming. No settling of the debate this way.

Paintballs at dawn?

Bonavada: Any foreign government taking it seriously would make me sit up and start actually researching. Like reading books about it and stuff. Not just youtube :D
 
Last edited:
Confuseling said:
Well. No questions forthcoming. No settling of the debate this way.
Click to expand...


Actually, no. This is a no-lose scenario... If I never get any critical questions, this means one of two things:

  • The Truth Movement declines to participate, e.g. forfeits, or
  • The Truth Movement is unable to come up with any such questions, and therefore demonstrates that its conclusions are unfalsifiable.

I would, of course, much prefer that I actually get some good questions. I don't expect to be able to answer them all. This might even lead to a meaningful follow-up inquiry. Maybe there is something important that we've missed? But, if they don't play, indeed even don't know how, then that's also a valuable result.
 
Mackey,
Thanks for answering my questions about 93. I'd like to ask you this question about WTC 7. What objective basis did the OEM have for telling fire chiefs that WTC 7 was going to collapse, by some reports, as early as noon?
 
RedIbis said:
Mackey,
Thanks for answering my questions about 93. I'd like to ask you this question about WTC 7. What objective basis did the OEM have for telling fire chiefs that WTC 7 was going to collapse, by some reports, as early as noon?
Click to expand...

You're welcome.

Regarding the OEM folks, you're asking me to speculate about what they knew at the time, and I don't even know their names. To get this answered properly you'd have to contact them. However, I can take a guess.

We know from firefighter statements that WTC 7 exhibited visible and audible signs of degradation well before it collapsed. The OEM folks would have been inside that structure, until they were forced to evacuate. It is also their job to coordinate emergency efforts, and that includes coordinating information. They probably had a better idea of the interior damage than the fire department did. They also were almost certainly aware of new data seen by the firefighters outside the structure. Therefore, it's not at all surprising to me.

One subtlety you may want to follow is how much the OEM told the fire chiefs, and how much was discussion with the fire chiefs. I don't know how much, if any, information flowed from the OEM that the fire chiefs couldn't get elsewhere. My guess is that there was almost none. No fire chief I'm aware of states that he was given an unconfirmable edict from OEM that it would collapse. All the accounts from firefighters I've read describe the phenomenology itself.
 
Would you mind documenting where the OEM told anybody about WTC 7 falling? It had been evacuated right before the South Tower fell.
 
RedIbis said:
Then you may not be in the best position to answer this question.
Click to expand...

Yes, I believe I said that above. The fire chiefs and OEM personnel themselves would have to get involved to answer this question definitively.

Is there a particular account that you can't reconcile? I'm not sure the problem you're describing exists.
 
Dictator Cheney said:
i dont really know how much i feel honored that you "allowing me to come up with the question"

never mind sir.

i retrect my question :)
and i have no real interest in your "new way of thinking" "experiment"

have a nice day sir.
Click to expand...


The fact is, you have "no real interest" in anything concerning the jihadist attacks of 9/11/01 except your fantastic, politically-motivated agenda.
 
applecorped said:
Are you saying that a skyscraper should be built and a plane flown into it just to prove you wrong?
Click to expand...
I would imagine that a scale model would suffice to most normal people but truthers want a full size recreation.
 
pomeroo said:
The fact is, you have "no real interest" in anything concerning the jihadist attacks of 9/11/01 except your fantastic, politically-motivated agenda.
Click to expand...

Dictator Cheney said:
Did you read the Koran?
Click to expand...

Gentlemen, take your disagreement elsewhere. You are derailing my thread and inviting abuse.

To all posters, let us please keep the signal-to-noise high. There are plenty of other places to snipe at one another. Don't do it here.
 
Nothing can be settled with conspircy theorists. Thats the whole problem. They will never be satisfied with rational, logical, imperical thinking.

They live in an insane world, where black is white, red is green, and truth is fiction.

I pitty them...I really really do. Must suck to live in a self-made world of constant anger, doubt, and paranoia.
 
Ryan, it is difficult to view reality through the eyes of a twoofer. I'm going to make the attempt and ask you to help me flesh out the details. Let's suppose that I am, for purely ideological reasons, committed to the position that a gigantic cabal operating within the U.S. government perpetrated the attacks attributed to Islamist terrorists. I can't begin to explain the role of the planes. All of my fabricated arguments--faked phone calls, remote-controlled flight--have been annihilated beyond any hope of resurrection. I must cling to the notion that somehow two of the world's tallest skyscrapers were surreptitiously wired with tons of explosives. Without stopping to examine the plausibility of this notion, I want to you to offer a glimmer of hope that my fantasy could--just could--be real.

I understand that demolition experts reject my movement's moonshine because the collapses obviously started at the impact floors. We'll pretend that somehow the precise floors hit by the planes were wired with explosives. We won't ask how this could have been accomplished. Here's my biggest problem: I keep citing accounts of explosions. I know that you debunkers argue that things always blow up in office fires. But these fires were different from any fires in history. Absolutely nothing blew up except the charges themselves. Please don't ask me to explain. What I can't figure out is how the explosions were spaced so far apart. I mean, even I understand that in a controlled demolition, ALL the charges have to go off simultaneously. How can I try to persuade myself that a blast here and a blast there has any resemblance whatever to a demolition? Nobody, but NOBODY, heard a coordinated series of explosions. The seismic data reveal conclusively that nothing of the sort occurred. My powers of self-deception are almost limitless, but I'm having trouble getting past this puppy. I'm not asking you to show that my cherished myths reflect reality. All I want is for you to admit that there is a remote chance.
 
Last edited:
pomeroo said:
Ryan, it is difficult to view reality through the eyes of a twoofer. I'm going to make the attempt and ask you help me flesh out the details. Let's suppose that I am, for purely ideological reasons, committed to the position that a gigantic cabal operating within the U.S. government perpetrated the attacks attributed to Islamist terrorists.

... My powers of self-deception are almost limitless, but I'm having trouble getting past this puppy. I'm not asking you to show that my cherished myths reflect reality. All I want is for you to admit that there is a remote chance.
Click to expand...

Ah, turnabout. I've been expecting something like that, though figured it would come from the Truth Movement.

Is there a remote chance? That depends. You are, in essence, asking me for my own "critical questions." And that's totally fair.

As I've stated here before, my question is this: "Is there an alternate explanation?" If anyone can provide me some hypothesis of how it was done, other than the commonly accepted one, then I will take it seriously.

These are few and far between. Poster Sizzler recently made a valiant effort to come up with a thermite-demolition hypothesis, but was ultimately unable to do so. Still, I applaud him for trying rather than just ducking the question.

Other people sometimes say "well, I didn't do it, so of course I can't know how it was done." This may be true, but it doesn't prevent you from coming up with a hypothesis. You can propose any mechanism, so you don't have to know what specific one it was. Your search space is larger, not smaller, because of this.

Without an alternate hypothesis, I cannot evaluate it on the basis of probability or difficulty. Therefore, until this question is answered, I am forced to conclude that there is no chance, not even a small one. Not a remote chance. Zero. Were there a valid competing theory, this might be different, but as it stands, there is not.

That's my answer, and my own critical question as a challenge for anyone who wants to trade places in this discussion. I'm perfectly willing to play either side of the board.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom