dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
He is amusing. I think he is trolling, he can't really believe that he is besting us here. A child could spot the logical flaws and contradictions in his posts.
The 100% Impossible 9/11 Inside Job
- Thread starter Regnad Kcin
- Start date
-
- Tags
- inside job
He is amusing. I think he is trolling, he can't really believe that he is besting us here. A child could spot the logical flaws and contradictions in his posts.
Currently easily within the top 1% that the TM has to offer. Infact, I think he is too smart for the TM. None answers AND no evidence trumps DEW and Therm*te for post counts. Name of the game these days. Wouldnt surprise me if he also has a few thousand views on his youtube channel. Kudos for the stupid. 15 minutes of fame. Name in lights. "ok look mom, these people are responding too me", coo, coo. Akin to the Ferrari driver compensating for a lack in other areas
Last edited:
I'm sorry. What is the Standard Model regarding the events of 9-11? I understand that there are 'truthers' and 'ct's' everywhere, but what does standard, accepted, empirically demonstrated, peer reviewed, (and ultimately) culturally supported viewing postulate? In other words, if there is to be a syllabus of propositions/declarative sentences regarding the causality of the event, is there a summary beyond the 911 Commission Report, or is that the so-called canon to this date?
In other words, there seems to be a 'theory' propounded by the 'conspiracy theorists' which seems to evoke the ire of some seeming critical thinkers on this forum. However, the only sign of these thinkers I ever see is their protesting of the interpretation of the available evidence.
Not to be completely disingenuous, btw, but as a casual, somewhat disinterested observer, I must say that if this were CSI, the american security establishment has not quite cleared itself as a suspect.
I would have expected televised lynchings and impeachments of anyone remotely to blame. Maybe even some collaborators put to trial and subsequent transcripts from such. However, all we ever saw through the media was veritable war-mongering. And perhaps one or two cases-to-trial.
I do not identify myself as a 'truther' I remain skeptical of any and all interpretations. And in the spirit of B. Russell, who considered anything outside his most practical, direct experience to be be nigh irrelevant (such as the concept of a prime mover), I must say that if indeed there is a NWO, a public disaster such as 911 has certainly led to less public scrutiny if anything. Don't ever expect me to believe anything which may or may not follow logically from a set of premises.
So, i repeat. What on earth is supposed to have happened? What is the standard model; where are the links to the best summaries (much appreciated), and is the Commission Report the final word, and why?
DRR
In other words, there seems to be a 'theory' propounded by the 'conspiracy theorists' which seems to evoke the ire of some seeming critical thinkers on this forum. However, the only sign of these thinkers I ever see is their protesting of the interpretation of the available evidence.
Not to be completely disingenuous, btw, but as a casual, somewhat disinterested observer, I must say that if this were CSI, the american security establishment has not quite cleared itself as a suspect.
I would have expected televised lynchings and impeachments of anyone remotely to blame. Maybe even some collaborators put to trial and subsequent transcripts from such. However, all we ever saw through the media was veritable war-mongering. And perhaps one or two cases-to-trial.
I do not identify myself as a 'truther' I remain skeptical of any and all interpretations. And in the spirit of B. Russell, who considered anything outside his most practical, direct experience to be be nigh irrelevant (such as the concept of a prime mover), I must say that if indeed there is a NWO, a public disaster such as 911 has certainly led to less public scrutiny if anything. Don't ever expect me to believe anything which may or may not follow logically from a set of premises.
So, i repeat. What on earth is supposed to have happened? What is the standard model; where are the links to the best summaries (much appreciated), and is the Commission Report the final word, and why?
DRR
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2010
- Messages
- 14,424
You sure about that? I haven't seen any such theory.
Seriously, there is no such theory being advance by any twoofers on these forums at least.
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2010
- Messages
- 14,424
I disagree. That's where he fails as a troll in my opinion. Trolling is an artform.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
The problem is the "ct's" are convinced there is an "official theory" on events they made up in their heads (CD, Remote control planes and such). There is none, plain and simple.
Last edited:
Based on what you have read, seen or heard so far, what do you think happened? What is your take to be the 'standard model'? What do you think best summarises what you think happened? And why?
There's a bunch of other stuff. FEMA made a report stating their evaluation of all the buildings in the WTC complex, though their analysis of the collapse initiation for the twin towers has been superseded by NIST's reports. There's also a Pentagon Building Performance Report describing the damage there. Also some reports produced by NTSB, and the 9/11 Commission also released most of their notes (Memorandums for the record). There are tapes that I don't know what they contain, not sure if they are communications between FAA and military, or the military only; there are passenger lists provided by AA and UA, DNA identifications of some of the casualties, taped interviews, a cabin recorder transcript, call data provided by the phone companies, and a lot more clues that tell us a story.
Accepting some of these basically makes illogical that the rest are false, with some exceptions. So, basically the CT'ers just discard them all, which creates a giant puzzle made of completely heterogeneous and unrelated parts that no one knows how to put together.
No, there is not a 'theory'. It's like a short blanket: if you cover your head, you uncover your feet. There are some threads dedicated to such contradictions.
There are two problems that I can see here. First is that we the critical thinkers tend to forget about the big picture when the CT'ers focus on the details. Second is that they (we) are somewhat tired of repeating the same arguments again and again, so the current discussions are mostly disdainful, with a few exceptions of some hot areas where new evidence is being produced.
Take for example the "pull it" case: a case of an interpretation of a sentence in an imaginative way, that makes CT'ers accuse Silverstein of admitting to have deliberately demolished building 7. The arguments have all been laid long ago, there are dozens of threads dedicated to Silverstein and his "pull it". There's little more that can be done except noting how it's a misinterpretation of his words based on a jargon that has never been used as the CT'ers pretend and used in a context that is not the purported one.
On the other hand, if someone claims for example that there's a piece of WTC1 being pushed with a rocket because it looks like that to his eyes, what would you do to refute him except claiming that he's misinterpreted the visible evidence? Think I exaggerate? No, that is an actual claim.
And then there's the absence of sound of explosions, which makes CT'ers claim that thermite was used, yet they keep claiming that there were lots of testimonies of explosions therefore there were explosives, in clear contradiction with the thermite claim. And they show as proof the exterior panels of WTC being expelled a far distance away, then you ask "but where are the sounds of the explosions that did that?" and back to thermite. While that should have logically put an end to it, that's just the beginning of two separate discusions: the thermite one and the sound of explosions one.
In conclusion, a forum is not a good place for a reasonable debate where one side's arguments enrich the understanding of the other side and vice versa.
Basically it's the almost-final word, because they provide verifiable references and they have released their MFRs and data as I have already pointed out. There's much more to it than the 9/11 CR on other aspects, especially more technical ones.
ozeco41
Philosopher
A good summary pgimeno. I was tempted but lacked the energy to provide one.
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
That's true. He is not in the same league as Bill Smith.
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
To give a direct answer:
Yes, the 9/11 Commission Report story is canonical. Everything else is filling in of details.
The story is easy: A radical islamistic group called Al Qaeda recruited, financed and and trained 19 men from Saudi Arabia and other middle eastern states. They hijacked for planes shortly after take-off and flew three of them deliberately into 3 buildings, while on one plane, passengers interfered, resulting in a premature crash. Death, fires and enormous destruction were the results.
The Commission Report is very detailed on the planning by Al Qaeda and also on the intelligence gathered by agencies about it, and then about the immediate response by air traffic control, the military and emergency management agencies.
It is almost without any detail on the specifics of the engineering and physics of the plane crashes themselves, the fires, the collapses and the aftermath. But many studies have shed a lot of light on that: The FEMA reports, although superceded, are valuable; the NIST reports on the collapses are canonical. Lots of detail has surfaced after the 9/11 Commission Report was published and has been documented publicly in court cases (litigations as well as the Moussaoui criminal trial).
Some people (including Commission members) felt and feel that the Report was a little short on the motivations and support structure of Al Qaeda. That is perhaps the only arena where more investigation could find something interesting, but I understand that several good books have been written about these things.
Much of the data upon which all these reports and investigations are founded is publicly available and has bee scrutinized in this forum. No contender story to this canon has yet emerged that even remotely approaches its completeness, internal consistency and plausibility.
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
A bunch of pissed-off Muslims did it.
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
I have asked every truther who turns up here to give me their full story of the events of 911 and have yet to receive a reply. Truthers are rebels without a clue.
Sabretooth
No Ordinary Rabbit
How so? Basically, we have Clinton dropping the ball, then Bush Jr. doing the same thing a number of months later. The FBI and CIA couldn't drop their egos long enough to share info, and 19 fanatics slipped through the system.
Does the American judicial system allow a former or current POTUS to be put to trial for failing to react to an intelligence briefing of a potential threat?
The problem is, nearly all of the perpetrators are dead. OBL and most of his friends are dead. The Taliban is eliminated. What now?
KSM went through trial...because he was basically the only one left.
So what now? Jail Clinton for not killing OBL when he had the chance? Jail Bush for not heeding a warning?
It doesn't solve the problem, nor provide justice. Instead, 9/11 opened the eyes of the intelligence communities. It's one of the pin-line silver linings of a horrible event...but positive none-the-less.
The 911CR spells it out rather well. I'd suggest reading it.
I don't believe that KSM has been tried yet.
According to the link below, the feds, the military & congress has been wrangling about where to try him. Obama wanted a civilian trial in federal court in NYC.
Congress passed legislation with riders that (indirectly) forbids civilian trial in the US (by prohibiting the spending of money for the transfer). Obama signed it, but opposes that condition.
Here's a summary.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_Sheikh_Mohammed#Possible_guilty_plea
tom
PS. I could easily be wrong about this. I don't watch much news anymore. If I am wrong, I'll welcome someone correcting this.
According to the link below, the feds, the military & congress has been wrangling about where to try him. Obama wanted a civilian trial in federal court in NYC.
Congress passed legislation with riders that (indirectly) forbids civilian trial in the US (by prohibiting the spending of money for the transfer). Obama signed it, but opposes that condition.
Here's a summary.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_Sheikh_Mohammed#Possible_guilty_plea
tom
PS. I could easily be wrong about this. I don't watch much news anymore. If I am wrong, I'll welcome someone correcting this.
Last edited:
SpringHallConvert
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2010
- Messages
- 1,272
That's great, but who were they working for that day? What was the true origination point of their funding? Could they have been working for the U.S. or Israeli governments on 9/11? If not, why?
TJM
Potsing Whiled Runk
Allah.
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2003
- Messages
- 59,856
Yes, they were working for the US and Israel. They were each promised a check for 1 MILLION DOLLARS upon completion of the job.
SpringHallConvert
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2010
- Messages
- 1,272
Is that who the low-level terrorists thought they were serving? What about those who funded Al-Qaeda? Who were they serving? Could they have been serving a large state sponsor, even without knowing it?