Fledermaus
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2014
- Messages
- 134,311
- Reaction score
- 37,386
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
In another thread he said that had such a theory. I'm not holding my breath.
Wist check
In another thread he said that had such a theory. I'm not holding my breath.
I think we can conclude that there is no plausible alternative theory.
Indeed....
I wonder if stundie has one.
We know that.I think we can conclude that there is no plausible alternative theory.
We know that.
The purist pedant in me doesn't agree with asking the common or garden variety truther for a "Full coherent alternative theory"
IF they claim something is wrong with the accepted narrative ["AN"] OR the official version ["OV"] then the legitimate demand of the person making that claim is that they prove their claim. NOT that they produce a complete alternate hypothesis.
Sure they cannot do either. That's almost certainly one reason they are truthers.
But the legitimate ask is that they prove their claim. No more.
We see enough Koko style parody of "Burden of Proof" around here . I prefer that the good guys - debunkers - play it clean by the rules.
And I know many debunkers disagree with me. So be it. :roll:
My other "rant" point is calls for "evidence" when the evidence is not the dispute - it is the lack of a reasoned case or counter claim supported by necessary evidence.
[/EndPedantMode]
:bolt
CT folks won't engage in this thread or any thread specific to there belief. If they can't discuss how wrong the official report, they don't want to discuss.
More like they understand that the whole thread is a giant troll, and they treat it as such.
More like they understand that the whole thread is a giant troll, and they treat it as such.
Compare the 2... Each one on the truthers has offered their best alternative and cited evidence that led them to that... and in each time, the troll was unveiled in the response (a variation of "I meant an INTELLIGENT theory", of course implying that the only correct answer is the nist / commission theory)Much like how this had turned into trolling from the CT side.:mrgreen:
For example, in the nuke thread I asked Koko a direct question, he has yet to give his opinion., Yes he has responded, but not with an answer to the question.
Why is it so difficult for you and others to give your opinion when asked?
Compare the 2... Each one on the truthers has offered their best alternative and cited evidence that led them to that... and in each time, the troll was unveiled in the response (a variation of "I meant an INTELLIGENT theory", of course implying that the only correct answer is the nist / commission theory)
In the other thread the responses have amounted to repeating aspects of the official story, no evidence required.
Or, trying to turn that thread into this thread. A few of the non debunkers have gone over specific aspects, but they will typically At least engage in discussion, not ridiculous illogical semantic games.
What can I say, trolls are gonna troll.
Compare the 2... Each one on the truthers has offered their best alternative and cited evidence that led them to that... and in each time, the troll was unveiled in the response (a variation of "I meant an INTELLIGENT theory",
The clue here is the word "intelligent". Nukes, CDs and no-planes do not count. We still await the "plausible theory".
You do your very best to dismiss any and all plausible theories. You accept only the Official Conspiracy Theory.
You do your very best to dismiss any and all plausible theories. You accept only the Official Conspiracy Theory.
Give me a plausible theory so I can judge. CDs, nukes, no-planes and the like are not plausible theories. I'll repeat it for you yet again. I do not accept the official theory, it seems to me to be the most plausible and nothing you have said so far has changed my mind. Evidence would do it.
I won't waste my time, sorry.
You do not accept the OCT, yet you consider it plausible. LOL
You consider it plausible that 93 crashed at Shanksville even though every single witness that was there could not detect 93 on the ground. (1)
You consider it plausible that 19 hijackers took 4 airplanes even though there is no proof of that. (2) You find it plausible, even though cellphones were incapable of making calls like that. (3) You find it plausible that AA11 struck the North tower even though most callers to NYC 911 regarding that incident reported that it was NOT an airliner, but a smaller aircraft. (4)
Yeah, you're quite the critical thinker! :lamo
I am. And you don't appear to understand a word I say.I won't waste my time, sorry.
You do not accept the OCT, yet you consider it plausible. LOL
You consider it plausible that 93 crashed at Shanksville even though every single witness that was there could not detect 93 on the ground.
You consider it plausible that 19 hijackers took 4 airplanes even though there is no proof of that. You find it plausible, even though cellphones were incapable of making calls like that. You find it plausible that AA11 struck the North tower even though most callers to NYC 911 regarding that incident reported that it was NOT an airliner, but a smaller aircraft.
Yeah, you're quite the critical thinker! :lamo
I won't waste my time, sorry.
You do not accept the OCT, yet you consider it plausible. LOL
You consider it plausible that 93 crashed at Shanksville even though every single witness that was there could not detect 93 on the ground.
You consider it plausible that 19 hijackers took 4 airplanes even though there is no proof of that. You find it plausible, even though cellphones were incapable of making calls like that. You find it plausible that AA11 struck the North tower even though most callers to NYC 911 regarding that incident reported that it was NOT an airliner, but a smaller aircraft.
Yeah, you're quite the critical thinker! :lamo
I won't waste my time, sorry.
You do not accept the OCT, yet you consider it plausible. LOL
You consider it plausible that 93 crashed at Shanksville even though every single witness that was there could not detect 93 on the ground.
You consider it plausible that 19 hijackers took 4 airplanes even though there is no proof of that. You find it plausible, even though cellphones were incapable of making calls like that. You find it plausible that AA11 struck the North tower even though most callers to NYC 911 regarding that incident reported that it was NOT an airliner, but a smaller aircraft.
Yeah, you're quite the critical thinker! :lamo
Also, that there were up to a dozen military drills that we're going on during 9-11, including some that involved hijacked airplanes, all coinciding with the attacks.
That much of the military structure in place that had the authority to respond to the situation were absent, replaced with a novices or gone that day with no replacement, yet not one of them was so much as disciplined for that absence.
And so on... The debunkers are true believers that barely know the facts beyond the media narrative of "planes hijacked by 19 Saudis and Egyptians, crashed into their targets".
Also, that there were up to a dozen military drills that we're going on during 9-11, including some that involved hijacked airplanes, all coinciding with the attacks.
That much of the military structure in place that had the authority to respond to the situation were absent, replaced with a novices or gone that day with no replacement, yet not one of them was so much as disciplined for that absence.
And so on... The debunkers are true believers that barely know the facts beyond the media narrative of "planes hijacked by 19 Saudis and Egyptians, crashed into their targets".
Amalgam Virgo.
I wish you would stop posting in all threads, since you rarely offer anything more than asinine nonsense... Unfortunately, neither of us can control what the other person does.