The ALTERNATE 9/11 theory.[W:15:213:1219]

[Fledermaus]

Re: The ALTERNATE 9/11 theory.[W:15]

He very specifically answered Mike's question to him.

That is WAY more than you have ever done here.

What, R U a moderator?

No comprende OP?

 

[Fledermaus]

Re: The ALTERNATE 9/11 theory.[W:15]

Why don't you LIST some of those "more popular" alternative explanations? I mean, if you're so darn curious, eh?

Why don't you?

This thread is intended for the TRUTHERS to present their counter-theories as to what happened on 9/11.

It IS NOT for critiques of the 9/11 Commission Report.
It IS NOT for critiques of the FBI report
It IS NOT for critiques of the FEMA, NTSB, EPA, military, NORAD/NEADS contributions to the Reports, the MSM, etc.....

Lay out your best theory about what happened....

 

[Thoreau72]

Re: The ALTERNATE 9/11 theory.[W:15]

Why don't you?

This thread is intended for the TRUTHERS to present their counter-theories as to what happened on 9/11.

It IS NOT for critiques of the 9/11 Commission Report.
It IS NOT for critiques of the FBI report
It IS NOT for critiques of the FEMA, NTSB, EPA, military, NORAD/NEADS contributions to the Reports, the MSM, etc.....

Lay out your best theory about what happened....

Because it was Mike who commented about it...no comprende usted?

 

[Fledermaus]

Re: The ALTERNATE 9/11 theory.[W:15]

Because it was Mike who commented about it...no comprende usted?

This thread is intended for the TRUTHERS to present their counter-theories as to what happened on 9/11.

It IS NOT for critiques of the 9/11 Commission Report.
It IS NOT for critiques of the FBI report
It IS NOT for critiques of the FEMA, NTSB, EPA, military, NORAD/NEADS contributions to the Reports, the MSM, etc.....

Lay out your best theory about what happened....

 

[mike2810]

Re: The ALTERNATE 9/11 theory.[W:15]

You asked me for those that I feel don't make sense, not the ones that do make sense.

I know.

just wanted to establish what you think is reasonalbe.

With all the evidence then it is just as likely for you that is was done with convential explosives, thermite, nanothermite, convential nukes, and neutron bombs. You find no conflict with what is known that all of these are still possible. Got it.:mrgreen:

 

[mike2810]

Re: The ALTERNATE 9/11 theory.[W:15]

Why don't you LIST some of those "more popular" alternative explanations? I mean, if you're so darn curious, eh?

I have in the past HD. Have you forgotten?

We know you have stated it could have been nukes, neutron nukes and don't rule out thermite.:mrgreen:

My reason for asking HD is to establish what CD mechanism you and others believe was used. Imo they all cannot be true.

 

[Thoreau72]

Re: The ALTERNATE 9/11 theory.[W:15]

I have in the past HD. Have you forgotten?

We know you have stated it could have been nukes, neutron nukes and don't rule out thermite.:mrgreen:

My reason for asking HD is to establish what CD mechanism you and others believe was used. Imo they all cannot be true.

Just so we understand where each other stands Mike, for the record, I have never met Bob, Sadling, You, Bman or any other poster here.

As I've mentioned to you before Mike, I am fiercely independent. I think the way I want to think. It takes me a long time to make up my mind on many subjects, but that's probably because I'm a Libra.

As best I can tell, all those who question the official story do that as individuals. What speculation I may engage in is my own. Not Bob's, not yours, not anybody else's.

You have this unpleasant habit of including me in this never defined category of "truther", and thereby categorize me. I don't appreciate it, but I understand it is a typical human process and hold no ill will.

From your second sentence in this post, it seems you understand my position fairly well. Bravo! :mrgreen:

I post for my own pleasure, not as part of a group effort with people I have never met.

You already understand, according to your post, that I see nukes as certain, thermite as highly probable, and who knows, maybe some old-fashioned C4?

As I've mentioned many times Mike, all I really know for CERTAIN is that office furnishings and jetfuel had very little to do with the destruction of the towers.

 

[Jango]

Re: The ALTERNATE 9/11 theory.[W:15]

The overall reporting. The whole. The totality of the reporting.

If Respectable media company A said it was 18 hijackers on day one, and Respectable media company B stated 21 hijackers on day one there will be questions. You could read what Respectable media companies C through Z state (19 hijackers) or better yet, wait for what the investigation shows.

In ANY event of this magnitude there will claims and counter claims, sensationalized reporting, incorrect reporting, reporting taken out of context...

And, if you want to play the "one anomaly kills the whole" you can ignore the vast majority of the reports and focus on those that are not completely accurate.

The mainstream view of 9/11 IS, in other words, a vast consensus. A consensus of the investigators, reporters, eyewitnesses, etc.

A consensus on particular themes, yes, like that al Qaeda hijacked the planes, kamikazed them into buildings, buildings subsequently collapsed due to damage & fire, thousands of people died.

Where a consensus is non-existent is in the finer smaller details. And a lot of that is due to a lack of transparency & a rather fangless media I.e. they don't hold the government to account with the vigorousness that they should due to the fear of losing their already limited access because let's face it, a media organization without government access is treated like a tabloid.

 

[Lethbridge]

Re: The ALTERNATE 9/11 theory.[W:15]

A consensus on particular themes, yes, like that al Qaeda hijacked the planes, kamikazed them into buildings, buildings subsequently collapsed due to damage & fire, thousands of people died.

Where a consensus is non-existent is in the finer smaller details. And a lot of that is due to a lack of transparency & a rather fangless media.

"fangless media" I like that, Really the media is quite simply the lap-dog of Big Money.
and the battle against corrupt influence of Big Money dates back very nearly a century & a half!

From many philosophical pundits, consensus is a very dangerous thing and should be
looked upon with great caution. The consensus about there having been hijacked airliners
used as weapons, ( WRONG! ) The consensus about how the airliner crashes & fires destroyed the twin towers, ( WRONG! )

a media organization without government access is treated like a tabloid.

Here is a thought, why not mandate that ALL Government press releases go straight to the web for access by anyone who can login from the library or any means at all. This would eliminate any problem in that area, the Government access should not be a make or break for any newspaper or TV station, they can always report local news, really there should be plenty of that to fill space, and people can get their "official" Gov news from the web. end of problem ... no?

 

[ozeco41]

Re: The ALTERNATE 9/11 theory.[W:15]

...Here is a thought, why not mandate that ALL Government press releases go straight to the web for access by anyone who can login from the library or any means at all...

The idea that somehow giving control to the rabid manic fringe would be better than whatever biases the MSM may have is....


....mildly amusing. :roll:

 

[OldWorldOrder]

A funny thing about the internet is that it's highlighted that just because everyone has an equal voice, it doesn't mean their opinions are equally valid.

 

[mike2810]

Re: The ALTERNATE 9/11 theory.[W:15]

Just so we understand where each other stands Mike, for the record, I have never met Bob, Sadling, You, Bman or any other poster here.

As I've mentioned to you before Mike, I am fiercely independent. I think the way I want to think. It takes me a long time to make up my mind on many subjects, but that's probably because I'm a Libra.

As best I can tell, all those who question the official story do that as individuals. What speculation I may engage in is my own. Not Bob's, not yours, not anybody else's.

You have this unpleasant habit of including me in this never defined category of "truther", and thereby categorize me. I don't appreciate it, but I understand it is a typical human process and hold no ill will.

From your second sentence in this post, it seems you understand my position fairly well. Bravo! :mrgreen:

I post for my own pleasure, not as part of a group effort with people I have never met.

You already understand, according to your post, that I see nukes as certain, thermite as highly probable, and who knows, maybe some old-fashioned C4?

As I've mentioned many times Mike, all I really know for CERTAIN is that office furnishings and jetfuel had very little to do with the destruction of the towers.

Good post. No insult intened towards you HD. You are in a group that disagrees with the official report. I realize you claim to be a free thinker.
With that said. You also have a unpleasant habit of including me in those that you call delusional. It seems because I disagree with you. You have not walked in my shoes. If you did you would have the same work experience, education, life experiences. Like I have not walked in yours.

We all are independent thinkers. I can tell that you and me accept different sources as being valid. Yet, I also read, visit alternative explanation sites.

I really know for certain that the fires could take the buildings down (and that is an opinion based on facts) We just agree to disagree.

If and when an alternative explanation comes out that is backed with evidence and not "what if" or speculation , I would then admit the fire induced collapse was wrong. Till then it is the most likely explanation. Unlike some who post here that have ruled out fire as the mechanism and cannot layout the alternative explanation in detail.

 

[NWO_Spook]

Re: The ALTERNATE 9/11 theory.[W:15]

The idea that somehow giving control to the rabid manic fringe would be better than whatever biases the MSM may have is....


....mildly amusing. :roll:

Excellent Sir! :applaud

 

[Lethbridge]

Re: The ALTERNATE 9/11 theory.[W:15]

The idea that somehow giving control to the rabid manic fringe would be better than whatever biases the MSM may have is....


....mildly amusing. :roll:

In what way would the publishing of INFORMATION
constitute giving any sort of control to anybody?
it would mean taking away some measure of control
from the MSM, but other than that, what would happen?
Data published on an official (dot)GOV web-page would
be the final say the end of all arguments about what our
taxpayer funded bureaucracy was up to. And if the taxpayers
didn't like what they saw, they can complain to their Congresspeople.
Simple enough

 

[Bob0627]

Re: The ALTERNATE 9/11 theory.[W:15]

I know.

just wanted to establish what you think is reasonalbe.

With all the evidence then it is just as likely for you that is was done with convential explosives, thermite, nanothermite, convential nukes, and neutron bombs. You find no conflict with what is known that all of these are still possible. Got it.:mrgreen:

There are varying degrees as to what's reasonable. It is not my agenda to examine all the reasonable possibilities, I posted that many times. I'm looking for the truth about what happened, not a cornucopia of speculative theories. So I don't believe you really got it or else you wouldn't keep asking me to speculate as to what I believe happened.

 

[OldWorldOrder]

As you try to parse it down, you're just wasting everyone's time, Bob we know what your agenda is. You are looking for ways in which you can blame this on the EBAL GOBMINT. That's it. You know it. I know it. Everyone reading things knows it. No need to lie, good sir!

 

[Bob0627]

As you try to parse it down, you're just wasting everyone's time, Bob we know what your agenda is. You are looking for ways in which you can blame this on the EBAL GOBMINT. That's it. You know it. I know it. Everyone reading things knows it. No need to lie, good sir!

Whew, now that we got that out of the way, I guess you will no longer be wasting your time and everyone else attached to you that you claim is "everyone".

There are at least 3 or 4 posters here who claim to be speaking for everyone. It seems all of these are rabid defenders of the official narrative. The problem with that claim is that there are other posters who I know speak for themselves and are not defenders of the official narrative. So if you claim you're speaking for everyone, you should be able to answer the following question for "everyone":

Why do you and those you believe are "everyone" need to lie about who you're speaking for?

To me this kind of group think mentality reminds me of the schoolyard child who thinks he's a big wheel when his buddies have his back. But when he has to go it alone, he just doesn't have the stones to confront anyone by himself. Are you seriously afraid to speak for yourself?

 

[OldWorldOrder]

Whew, now that we got that out of the way, I guess you will no longer be wasting your time and everyone else attached to you that you claim is "everyone".

There are at least 3 or 4 posters here who claim to be speaking for everyone. It seems all of these are rabid defenders of the official narrative. The problem with that claim is that there are other posters who I know speak for themselves and are not defenders of the official narrative. So if you claim you're speaking for everyone, you should be able to answer the following question for "everyone":

Why do you and those you believe are "everyone" need to lie about who you're speaking for?

To me this kind of group think mentality reminds me of the schoolyard child who thinks he's a big wheel when his buddies have his back. But when he has to go it alone, he just doesn't have the stones to confront anyone by himself. Are you seriously afraid to speak for yourself?

Bob: too bad. Like I said before, if it bothers you so much make up a crazy conspiracy theory about it. That should make you feel better.

We know what your agenda is. It's patently obvious. You want the "truth" unless the investigation says a fire caused it. You want the perpetrators punished, but only if they're in the government. We know. It's funny.

Again: if that bothers you, create a convoluted conspiracy theory about it. I'm sure some of the posters here will fall for it.

 

[Bob0627]

We know what your agenda is. ... We know. It's funny.

Still lying and claiming to be speaking for everyone. I understand, you can't speak for yourself or are terrified at the thought. No problem son.

 

[mike2810]

Re: The ALTERNATE 9/11 theory.[W:15]

There are varying degrees as to what's reasonable. It is not my agenda to examine all the reasonable possibilities, I posted that many times. I'm looking for the truth about what happened, not a cornucopia of speculative theories. So I don't believe you really got it or else you wouldn't keep asking me to speculate as to what I believe happened.

If you are looking for the truth its is interesting how you are not critical of some of the alternative explanations. Yet you are so sure and critical of any fire induced collapse explanations. I don't believe you are looking for the truth. You won't admit it, but you seem to have made up your mind it was CD.

The truth is out there Bob. you just fail to see it.

 

[OldWorldOrder]

Okay, dad. We get it. Maybe I'm a secret disinfo agent, determined to keep the truth down. That'd be a good conspiracy theory! Maybe I'm the clone of Jonas Salk or something. Get that truth! The truth you're so relentlessly pursuing...while dismissing conclusions you don't like and not knowing the difference between mujahideen and Afghan Arabs. Get to the bottom of it! Find those aliens!

WE SUPPORT YOU!

 

[Bob0627]

Re: The ALTERNATE 9/11 theory.[W:15]

If you are looking for the truth its is interesting how you are not critical of some of the alternative explanations.

Looking for the truth has nothing to do with being critical of alternative explanations. I don't understand how you connect the two.

Yet you are so sure and critical of any fire induced collapse explanations.

Of course, there is no such thing as the collapse of a steel frame high rise by fire alone that I've ever heard of, so it goes without saying that any such theory is dubious.

I don't believe you are looking for the truth.

What you believe or not is irrelevant to me.

You won't admit it, but you seem to have made up your mind it was CD.

Baloney, I already posted several times that there is no other explanation that makes sense.

The truth is out there Bob. you just fail to see it.

I haven't failed to see the truth. I'm just looking for the truth about 9/11. The truth is that we've been lied to. And it seems you believe the lies are fact.

I've asked others the same question because they all exhibit the same characteristics. They never question anything about the official narrative and it seems neither do you. So I'll ask you if you don't mind answering. Is there anything you question about the official narrative (other than what may be considered trivial)? I'm just curious.

 

[RedAkston]

Re: The ALTERNATE 9/11 theory.[W:15]

Moderator's Warning:

OneWorld and Bob - knock it off.

 

[Fledermaus]

Re: The ALTERNATE 9/11 theory.[W:15]

There are varying degrees as to what's reasonable. It is not my agenda to examine all the reasonable possibilities, I posted that many times. I'm looking for the truth about what happened, not a cornucopia of speculative theories. So I don't believe you really got it or else you wouldn't keep asking me to speculate as to what I believe happened.

Why are you posting on THIS thread Bob?

THIS thread is the 'The ALTERNATE 9/11 theory', Bob.

Have you one?

 

[Fledermaus]

Re: The ALTERNATE 9/11 theory.[W:15]

Looking for the truth has nothing to do with being critical of alternative explanations. I don't understand how you connect the two.

Looking for the truth SHOULD include being critical of any explanation that does not fit the evidence. And it SHOULD include the only explanation that is supported by the evidence.

Of course, there is no such thing as the collapse of a steel frame high rise by fire alone that I've ever heard of, so it goes without saying that any such theory is dubious.

Well there has been ONE total collapse of a "steel frame high rise". And some partial or total collapses of steel frame buildings.

Why is the only explanation supported by the vast majority of researchers "dubious"?

What you believe or not is irrelevant to me.

Nor is evidence and fact.

Baloney, I already posted several times that there is no other explanation that makes sense.

CD DOES NOT make sense. Take it from someone with an explosives background.

I haven't failed to see the truth. I'm just looking for the truth about 9/11. The truth is that we've been lied to. And it seems you believe the lies are fact.

Were the 19 hijackers a lie? The 4 airliners a lie? Was the damage to the towers and the Pentagon a lie? Is the DNA a lie? Were the fires a lie? How about the victims, were they a lie? Was Betty Ong a lie? Was Mark Bingham a lie?

I've asked others the same question because they all exhibit the same characteristics. They never question anything about the official narrative and it seems neither do you. So I'll ask you if you don't mind answering. Is there anything you question about the official narrative (other than what may be considered trivial)? I'm just curious.

Asked and answered.

So, alternate theory?