What's your theory about 9/11?

[Stellafane]

I've never contested that real planes hit the towers. I think you're confusing the need for physical evidence to support collapse theories with proving that planes hit the buildings.

I'm not sure "confusing" is the right word here. I'm just trying to establish what we don't have to worry about, and get down to the things that we should be focusing upon. Thus if the theory is LIHOP, we don't have to debate whether or not planes hit the towers -- indeed, we don't have to examine anything at all concerning the physical evidence, since it would be precisely the same as the OCT (unless the theory is some sort of "LIHOP with an assist," in which case the physical evidence comes back into play).

A productive discussion can ensue if various theories aren't simply lumped together. In this thread I've only suggested that IMO, LIHOP is as plausible as the official story.

I readily accept that LIHOP does not fly straight into the face of reality in that it doesn't violate any physical laws or demand evidence that thus far has been utterly lacking. However, I can't accept that it's "just as plausible" as the OCT, for the following reasons:

• I have not seen any real evidence that suggests any specific advance knowledge of the attacks as they occured on 9/11, beyond the usual general indications that terrorists don't like us and would like to do something to us someday.
• The "benefits" of such an attack to whomever did the "L"-ing in the LIHOP scenario seem nonexistant or nebulous at best.

Thus to me, I see no means, motive, or opportunity behind the LIHOP theory. So although it is indeed possible in a technical sense, I find no compelling reason to believe it.

 

[Pardalis]

OK, I haven't got all day, let's try another way.

Red, what percentage of certainty would you put on these theories:

-Controlled demolition of WTC towers:

Me 0%
You ?%

-Controlled demolition of 7 WTC:

Me 0%
You ?%

-No plane crashed in the Pentagon:

Me 0%
You ?%

-No plane crashed in the field in Shanksville:

Me 0%
You ?%

-The hijackers were not Islamic terrorists, but CIA:

Me 0%
You ?%

Let's start with these basic ones for starters. Maybe with this exercise we can help you come up with a general idea of what happened that day.

 

[Toke]

To me the most suspicius thing about 9/11 was the attempt to get Henry Kissinger to head the 9/11 commission. That suggest there is something to hide.
I find LIHOP very unlikely, but have no trouble believing in Bush and Cheney doing their best to hide criminal incompetence.

 

[R.Mackey]

Are you folks seriously playing "Let's Beg RedIbis for his Alleged Theory" again?

He's had years to develop one. He hasn't and he won't.

Honestly, do you folks have nothing better to do? This is like tantalizing a cat by dangling a piece of string in front of its nose. The minute you all stop playing, the pathetic, theory-free remnants of the Truth Movement vanish utterly.

 

[kookbreaker]

one word.

Mothra

You blame Mothra for everything!

 

[Pardalis]

It's kind of fascinating to see someone being so perfectly comfortable living in a country (IIRC Red is an American) with the notion that its government may or may not have killed 3000 of its own citizens. Entertaining such a thought for years on end, seeing two administration pass without ever thinking it through or doing anything about it.

It boggles my mind. If I had any doubts that my own country could be capable of something remotely like this (let alone 95% certainty), I would damn straight want to have the answers, and quick, and I would do something about it, not play with the idea for eight years and still have no coherent idea of what happened.

I imagine different types of personalities react differently. Red Ibis is the passive submissive type I guess.

 

[TruthersLie]

My comment wasn't directed at you. It's not my theory, but I think Stellafane has the right tack as far as just having a reasonable conversation about possible theories. In the interest of time, I'll probably stick to the most specific and sincere questions. Any attempt at getting me to summarize, arguably the most complex single day in American history and what I think "really happened" isn't going to elicit much of a response from me.

So you mean the LIHOP/MIHOP that you believe is so complex it can't be summed up in a paragraph?

I mean the common narrative is that 19 islamic fundamentalists lead by a wack job, use the policies in place on 9/11 to hijack 4 jets, which they then flew into 3 buildings.

 

[twinstead]

You really are a fundamentalist with no real interest in civil discourse.

I lost interest in civil discourse with truthers years ago. You think I'M the fundamentalist? Remember, I support the theory that is supported by the available evidence the BEST, by far. In my mind that's the ONLY position to have until better evidence is presented. It has been not.

Why exactly do you think that makes me a fundamentalist?

 

[Pardalis]

Red Ibis is an agnostic fundamentalist (well, in reality 95% truther, but don't tell anyone).

 

[Comrade Raptor]

I twice offered a group of troofers a real money cash prize if they could put together a MIHOP theory that at least sounded plausible and was internally consistent. Didn't even need to have real evidence, just sound plausible.

Not only did I not get any takers, I was met with a barrage of "disinfo agent" accusations.

This tells me that there's not one, not ONE troofer who will let go of ANY of their ridiculous ideas once adopted, even if some of them contradict others. They would sooner embrace the lot than to dismiss one.

I have had them throw out "no plane at the pentagon" and "remote controlled plane" at the pentagon in the same paragraph and categorically refuse to pick one or the other.

They just really, really hate being asked for a coherent story.

 

[Pardalis]

They just want America to be guilty. That's their theory.

 

[TruthersLie]

You blame Mothra for everything!

Hey.
1. The nist report didn't even bother to see if there was proof mothra did it.
2. the 9/11 commission report doesn't even metnion mothra
3. the entry damage to the pentagon was not consistent with mothra
4. the crater in shanksville is not consistent with mothra either.

it is obvious that it was mothra.

 

[Audible Click]

The digging action of ants destabilized the foundations, and caused the buildings to sway into the paths of two innocent passing jetliners, thus resulting in a burst of hot fuel being poured into the ant tunnels; the ants, being thus aggrevated, quickly and sloppily evacuated, further weakening the foundations, causing total global collapse.

And they used thermate.

Or termites. The steel eating kind.

 

[Thunder]

PLEASE DO NOT JUST 'ASK QUESTIONS' IN THIS THREAD. Post your theory, or the alternative theory that you find most credible.

Da Joos did it!!!

That's my theory.

 

[FineWine]

My comment wasn't directed at you. It's not my theory, but I think Stellafane has the right tack as far as just having a reasonable conversation about possible theories. In the interest of time, I'll probably stick to the most specific and sincere questions. Any attempt at getting me to summarize, arguably the most complex single day in American history and what I think "really happened" isn't going to elicit much of a response from me.

But, in reality (how you hate that word!), there was nothing particularly complex about the events of 9/11. Nineteen Islamist terrorists hijacked four planes and flew three of them into buildings. There is overwhelming evidence supporting that assertion and nothing at all contradicting it.

 

[carlitos]

Really?

My comment wasn't directed at you. It's not my theory, but I think Stellafane has the right tack as far as just having a reasonable conversation about possible theories. In the interest of time, I'll probably stick to the most specific and sincere questions. Any attempt at getting me to summarize, arguably the most complex single day in American history and what I think "really happened" isn't going to elicit much of a response from me.

I put my theory in the OP. It's a very short paragraph. Seriously, you can't posit any type of theory in just a few paragraphs?

 

[Pardalis]

We've scared the little bird away, again.

 

[johnny karate]

OK, I haven't got all day, let's try another way.

Red, what percentage of certainty would you put on these theories:

You'll have to pardon me for butting in, but since I doubt RedIbis has the intellectual honesty to answer any of these truthfully, I think we can glean his opinions based on his post history.

Controlled demolition of WTC towers:

Me 0%
You ?%

I couldn't put a percentage on it, but RedIbis has definitely presented and/or defended scenarios that support a belief in the controlled demolition of the towers. Most notably in his implication of Turner Construction here.

And when it was pointed out to him that Turner Construction in fact is not in the controlled demolition industry, he continued to defend his assertion that it was, until finally running away from the issue entirely.

I find it hard to believe someone would defend such a ludicrous position unless they were desparately struggling to wedge it into a pre-determined conclusion that the towers collapsed due to controlled demolition.

Controlled demolition of 7 WTC:

Me 0%
You ?%

RedIbis is 100% on this. Just read any of the numerous threads in which he rails against the WTC7 Report, coupled with his careful parsing of firefighter testimony.

He doesn't buy for a second that it was a fire-driven collapse. So what else does that leave? I'll give RedIbis the benefit of the doubt and assume he doesn't believe in invisible space beams or mini-nukes.

No plane crashed in the Pentagon:

Me 0%
You ?%

I haven't seen enough from RedIbis on this topic. But I see no reason why he would suddenly become rational when it comes to the Pentagon crash.

No plane crashed in the field in Shanksville:

Me 0%
You ?%

I couldn't put a percentage on this either, but a while back, RedIbis sure seemed awfully concerned about the content of the soil at the Shanksville site, didn't he?

The hijackers were not Islamic terrorists, but CIA:

Me 0%
You ?%

As someone who has strong inclinations towards controlled demolition, and has at least confessed his belief in a MIHOP scenario, I would speculate the words he would take issue with here are "hijackers" and "terrorists", preferring to replace them with some version of the word "patsy".

Red, if I'm off-base on anything, feel free to step in and correct me.

 

[johnny karate]

But, in reality (how you hate that word!), there was nothing particularly complex about the events of 9/11. Nineteen Islamist terrorists hijacked four planes and flew three of them into buildings. There is overwhelming evidence supporting that assertion and nothing at all contradicting it.

This has been pointed out to RedIbis pretty much every time he makes that lame argument.

 

[timhau]

My theory is along the following lines: 9/11 is thin at one end, much MUCH thicker in the middle, and then thin again at the far end.

No, wait. That was the brontosaur. I always get those two mixed up.