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

[Buck Naked]

yes the fact that you deny it was terrorists hijacking and crashing planes.

Hello? Are you listening? Got a quote of mine stating that?

Nope you are denying the truth for whatever reason

Are you going to provide the truth and the quote of mine denying it?

The only way to make such a statement is to deny the reality that the scientific method has PROVEN it was terrorists hijacking and crashing 4 planes on 911.

The Scientic Method was never applied. The investigation was not open. The investigation was not peer reviewed. The investigation did not provide experiments proving the hypotheses. Etc, Etc... What are you talking about? All you got is trust in the Big Brother Government’s conclusions. I bet you don’t even know what consists of the Scientific Method.

Can you demonstrate the Scientific Method was used?

All the evidence proves it.
DNA, FDR's, RADAR, video, eyewitnesses etc etc...

What are you proving? Elaborate and back it up. I don’t trust you in the slightest.

So yeah youre spewing total BS (like every other truther before you) when you say it is not proven.

You repeat your unbacked opinion, but don't provide anything to the contrary. Reel Big of you. Sorry, but I don’t believe you. I don’t trust you. And I don't want your opinion.

 

[Bob0627]

The Scientic Method was never applied. The investigation was not open. The investigation was not peer reviewed. The investigation did not provide experiments proving the hypotheses. Etc, Etc...

And that is proven by NIST itself.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/consp...-report-collapse-wtc7-9-11-w-2152-2510-a.html

(post #3)

 

[Buck Naked]

Nope. Each explantion needs to stand on its own.

You’re kidding, right? How many explanations do you suppose there to be?

Your moving the goal post by failing to discuss alternative.

What’s your point in discussing an alternative? Are you suggesting an alternative must prove the OCT wrong? Are you suggesting the OCT is weak and can be explained by an alternate theory better?

You ask for a discussion of alternate theories, then you backstab the theorist with derogatory implied insinuations and labels. Real big of you, Mike. A game I rather not play with you.

Seems groups like AE911T, CIT, Jones, Prager, DRGriffen have no problems with discussing alternatives. They must have fatal errors in their presentation according to you.

You misunderstand greatly. I didn’t say anything of these people discussing alternatives as making fatal errors. People are free to discuss what they like. The difference between these people and you are, one, they have found faults with the OCT and disregard it, two, THEY ARE ALL CALLING FOR A NEW INVESTIGATION, three, they don't actively advocate against a new investigation, and four, they don’t label each other with derogatory implied names.

Not accusing, just stating facts.

CIT has made claims that the govt did not regarding 9/11. Jones has made claims the govt did not. Prager made claims the govt did not regarding 9/11. Your logic is so flawed, I am embarrassed for you.

So? Is the government responding to any of them? Doesn’t this demonstarte my point? If “alternate explanations” mattered, why aren’t they opening up a new investigation, why doesn’t the government address them? Please reread my statement earlier, and save the embarrassment for yourself.

 

[Buck Naked]

And that is proven by NIST itself.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/consp...-report-collapse-wtc7-9-11-w-2152-2510-a.html

(post #3)

Let's share this with the others,

8A. Blatant FRAUD - NIST's failure to use the scientific method, which includes failure to make available all the tools necessary for peer review. NIST denied FOIA requests for WTC7 data citing that disclosure would "jeopardize public safety".

Despite NIST’s claim that it did indeed adhere to the scientific method, without peer review the scientific method is non-existent. What that means is that no one can review/reproduce/verify/scrutinize any of NIST’s findings and all that is left is to accept NIST’s findings on faith alone. That’s not science, it’s much closer to alchemy/witchcraft or propaganda.

Scientific inquiry is generally intended to be as objective as possible in order to reduce biased interpretations of results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive, and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, giving them the opportunity to verify the results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of the data to be established (when data is sampled or compared to chance).

http://www.debatepolitics.com/consp...-report-collapse-wtc7-9-11-w-2152-2510-a.html


Furthermore,



http://cryptome.org/nist070709.pdf

 

[mike2810]

You’re kidding, right? How many explanations do you suppose there to be?




What’s your point in discussing an alternative? Are you suggesting an alternative must prove the OCT wrong? Are you suggesting the OCT is weak and can be explained by an alternate theory better?

You ask for a discussion of alternate theories, then you backstab the theorist with derogatory implied insinuations and labels. Real big of you, Mike. A game I rather not play with you.



You misunderstand greatly. I didn’t say anything of these people discussing alternatives as making fatal errors. People are free to discuss what they like. The difference between these people and you are, one, they have found faults with the OCT and disregard it, two, THEY ARE ALL CALLING FOR A NEW INVESTIGATION, three, they don't actively advocate against a new investigation, and four, they don’t label each other with derogatory implied names.





So? Is the government responding to any of them? Doesn’t this demonstarte my point? If “alternate explanations” mattered, why aren’t they opening up a new investigation, why doesn’t the government address them? Please reread my statement earlier, and save the embarrassment for yourself.

By you asking how many explanations it is clear you have not done your research or your playing a game.

Show where I have made " you backstab the theorist with derogatory implied insinuations and labels"? If not retract.

It is clear you see the govt. has made errors but not the alternative explanation authors. What a joke.

Your reason for a new investigation has been discussed over the 14+ years.

imo, there is no need of a new investigation. It would be a waste of time and tax dollars.

The error you make is you think I support the what you call the OCT 100%. I have been consistent in stating one can accept a fire induced collapse of wtc1,2,7, pentagon crash and Shankville crash without accepting every small detail.

Seems many of you accept CD without any details. Why is that, oh wait, you want a new investigation.:lamo
Prager and his nuke explanation is certain, but no details given.
DRG, is certain but no real details but a lot of what if.

 

[Bob0627]

imo, there is no need of a new investigation.

You can't have a "new" investigation if there never was one in the first place.

 

[Mark F]

You can't have a "new" investigation if there never was one in the first place.

Curious that the same guy who complains about 80,000 pages of investigative material not being handed over to another investigative body claims there was no investigation.

You also can't have one if you can't figure out what it is that needs to be investigated (beyond the generic and thoughtless "everything").

 

[BmanMcfly]

Curious that the same guy who complains about 80,000 pages of investigative material not being handed over to another investigative body claims there was no investigation.

You also can't have one if you can't figure out what it is that needs to be investigated (beyond the generic and thoughtless "everything").

There's a difference between an investigation as in finding evidence, analyzing that evidence, and drawing conclusions from that, and the debunker approved investigation of starting with a conclusion and putting up the evidence that supports that case and keeping the rest classified .

 

[Buck Naked]

By you asking how many explanations it is clear you have not done your research or your playing a game.

Listen to yourself, Mike. There can only be one explanation. How can you have a nuclear theory, a CD theory, a Energy weapon theory, etc.?

Show where I have made " you backstab the theorist with derogatory implied insinuations and labels"? If not retract.

So many examples resulted in a simple search, here’s the first few,

The CT crowd cannot agree on controlled demolition of the buildings. (conventional explosives, thermite, nanothermite, nukes, mini neutron nukes, energy beam). Lets not forget that some accept the jets hit the towers, but others say they were fakes/cgi, or drones, or missiles.

"If the CT crowd ran the investigation it woud still result in more CT's. The only binding source they have is they all seem to believe the govt. is behind it. The CT crowd has not developed one concise explanation in 12+ years. Not even over one of the evens (Towers, Pentagon, Shanksville)."

"imo, it will not matter if the investigation does not support the conclusion they want. If it concluded it was a fire induced collapse for wtc1,2,7. the CT would continue. Even if it showed it was CD by conventional explosives, the nanothermite or neutron bomb followers would find a CT that the real explosive used was being covered up."

If you are an example of those demanding an another investigation, then you now have convinced me to not only say no, but fXXk no. To paraphrase your word, " I have a hard time believing people can be such idiots buying into anti govt. propaganda."

I'll repeat. You ask for a discussion of alternate theories, then you backstab the theorist with derogatory implied insinuations and labels. And the dismissive manner in which you label posters here as a "CT" is littered everywhere within your posts.

It is clear you see the govt. has made errors but not the alternative explanation authors. What a joke.

Duh. I don’t care for the alternate theories. The only theory under the microscope is the US Governments. It’s the only theory that matters. How hard is that for you to understand? Over and over I must repeat it. Please write it down a thousand times. I’m so tired of having to repeat this concept to you. The Burden of Proof is on the Government, not the alternate theorist. Jeez. It’s basic logic. You don’t run around to the atheist screaming he must have an alternative explanation for God in order to prove God's inexistence. Pay attention, please.

Your reason for a new investigation has been discussed over the 14+ years.

So? Oh please don’t respond as that is some form of evidence. Sign the petition, speed up the process.

imo, there is no need of a new investigation. It would be a waste of time and tax dollars.

So why are you spending your "time" here, Mike? What's your agenda? There is no honorable position to be held fighting against an investigation. And the no tax dollars position is even more dishonourable, considering the US has spent and is spending astronomical amounts of money and lives on what happened on 9/11? The US policies that have formed from 9/11. The loss of freedoms through the Patriot Act that have been exercised because of 9/11. And you're going to submit a position against a complete, etc, investigation on the grounds of "tax dollars" ? I'll bet the money can even be raised on kickstarter if that was the only issue. Horrible position, Mike.

The error you make is you think I support the what you call the OCT 100%. I have been consistent in stating one can accept a fire induced collapse of wtc1,2,7, pentagon crash and Shankville crash without accepting every small detail.

Do you even pay attention to your previous statements? Who cares about 100%, that’s irrelevant. You just got through saying, "there is no need of a new investigation”. That in itself is enough to be considered complete support for the OCT. Jeez, logic be damned.

Seems many of you accept CD without any details. Why is that, oh wait, you want a new investigation.:lamo

Have you illusioned multiple posters? Who are you talking too? I'm not "many of you", it's just me here. Do you have a quote of mine accepting “CD”?

Prager and his nuke explanation is certain, but no details given.
DRG, is certain but no real details but a lot of what if.

So what? What does that have to do with me and my position? Are you starting to oblivisquirm again?

 

[BmanMcfly]

Listen to yourself, Mike. There can only be one explanation. How can you have a nuclear theory, a CD theory, a Energy weapon theory, etc.?



So many examples resulted in a simple search, here’s the first few,







I'll repeat. You ask for a discussion of alternate theories, then you backstab the theorist with derogatory implied insinuations and labels. And the dismissive manner in which you label posters here as a "CT" is littered everywhere within your posts.



Duh. I don’t care for the alternate theories. The only theory under the microscope is the US Governments. It’s the only theory that matters. How hard is that for you to understand? Over and over I must repeat it. Please write it down a thousand times. I’m so tired of having to repeat this concept to you. The Burden of Proof is on the Government, not the alternate theorist. Jeez. It’s basic logic. You don’t run around to the atheist screaming he must have an alternative explanation for God in order to prove God's inexistence. Pay attention, please.



So? Oh please don’t respond as that is some form of evidence. Sign the petition, speed up the process.



So why are you spending your "time" here, Mike? What's your agenda? There is no honorable position to be held fighting against an investigation. And the no tax dollars position is even more dishonourable, considering the US has spent and is spending astronomical amounts of money and lives on what happened on 9/11? The US policies that have formed from 9/11. The loss of freedoms through the Patriot Act that have been exercised because of 9/11. And you're going to submit a position against a complete, etc, investigation on the grounds of "tax dollars" ? I'll bet the money can even be raised on kickstarter if that was the only issue. Horrible position, Mike.



Do you even pay attention to your previous statements? Who cares about 100%, that’s irrelevant. You just got through saying, "there is no need of a new investigation”. That in itself is enough to be considered complete support for the OCT. Jeez, logic be damned.



Have you illusioned multiple posters? Who are you talking too? I'm not "many of you", it's just me here. Do you have a quote of mine accepting “CD”?



So what? What does that have to do with me and my position? Are you starting to oblivisquirm again?

I'm pretty sure this was before you joined the forum, but there was once a thread challenging the debunkers to prove the official version, and the claims that they support.

It took something like 10-20 pages before ANY evidence started to come up, the rest of the time was trying to flip burdens of proof.

 

[Buck Naked]

I'm pretty sure this was before you joined the forum, but there was once a thread challenging the debunkers to prove the official version, and the claims that they support.

It took something like 10-20 pages before ANY evidence started to come up, the rest of the time was trying to flip burdens of proof.

They still do it, so I guess it's as if I was there at the time.

 

[Quag]

Hello? Are you listening? Got a quote of mine stating that?

if you are not denying it then why are you posting here?

Are you going to provide the truth and the quote of mine denying it?

You dont think 911 was been proven as you stated before.

The reason the burden of proof still lies with the OCT(US Government) is because they haven’t satisfied the requirements demanded by the Scientific Method.

Just typical truther BS on your part

The Scientic Method was never applied. The investigation was not open. The investigation was not peer reviewed. The investigation did not provide experiments proving the hypotheses. Etc, Etc... What are you talking about? All you got is trust in the Big Brother Government’s conclusions. I bet you don’t even know what consists of the Scientific Method.

No you just want it to not be proven your BS is noted.

Can you demonstrate the Scientific Method was used?

Can you demonstrate what was wrong with the investigations done and where/why they are accurate? Or are you just trying to blow smoke hoping that someone will buy into your truther BS?

What are you proving? Elaborate and back it up. I don’t trust you in the slightest.

So sayeth the truther

You repeat your unbacked opinion, but don't provide anything to the contrary. Reel Big of you. Sorry, but I don’t believe you. I don’t trust you. And I don't want your opinion.

Again the truther tries to pretend that he has the high ground, sorry you are in soo deep you cant even see the light of day from your pit on denial.

 

[Quag]

I'm pretty sure this was before you joined the forum, but there was once a thread challenging the debunkers to prove the official version, and the claims that they support.

It took something like 10-20 pages before ANY evidence started to come up, the rest of the time was trying to flip burdens of proof.

If you mean 4 planes being hijacked and crashed by terrorist on 911 as the official version it has been proven.
RADAR, DNA, FDR's, Video, eyewitnesses etc etc etc....

 

[Quag]

They still do it, so I guess it's as if I was there at the time.

Sure says the guy who denies reality and ignores all the evidence, just like every other truther out there.

 

[Mark F]

There's a difference between an investigation as in finding evidence, analyzing that evidence, and drawing conclusions from that, and the debunker approved investigation of starting with a conclusion and putting up the evidence that supports that case and keeping the rest classified .

Of course some relevant material is going to be classified. It would be foolish to expect otherwise. Hell, there's still classified material from WWI and WWII!

This rather misses the point. There is one narrative that gives the who/what/where/when/why/how and back it with evidence - and it ain't yours.

 

[BmanMcfly]

Of course some relevant material is going to be classified. It would be foolish to expect otherwise. Hell, there's still classified material from WWI and WWII!

This rather misses the point. There is one narrative that gives the who/what/where/when/why/how and back it with evidence - and it ain't yours.

Great words from a position of faith and not fact

 

[mike2810]

You can't have a "new" investigation if there never was one in the first place.

Your opinion, not shared by all.

 

[mike2810]

Listen to yourself, Mike. There can only be one explanation. How can you have a nuclear theory, a CD theory, a Energy weapon theory, etc.?



So many examples resulted in a simple search, here’s the first few,







I'll repeat. You ask for a discussion of alternate theories, then you backstab the theorist with derogatory implied insinuations and labels. And the dismissive manner in which you label posters here as a "CT" is littered everywhere within your posts.



Duh. I don’t care for the alternate theories. The only theory under the microscope is the US Governments. It’s the only theory that matters. How hard is that for you to understand? Over and over I must repeat it. Please write it down a thousand times. I’m so tired of having to repeat this concept to you. The Burden of Proof is on the Government, not the alternate theorist. Jeez. It’s basic logic. You don’t run around to the atheist screaming he must have an alternative explanation for God in order to prove God's inexistence. Pay attention, please.



So? Oh please don’t respond as that is some form of evidence. Sign the petition, speed up the process.



So why are you spending your "time" here, Mike? What's your agenda? There is no honorable position to be held fighting against an investigation. And the no tax dollars position is even more dishonourable, considering the US has spent and is spending astronomical amounts of money and lives on what happened on 9/11? The US policies that have formed from 9/11. The loss of freedoms through the Patriot Act that have been exercised because of 9/11. And you're going to submit a position against a complete, etc, investigation on the grounds of "tax dollars" ? I'll bet the money can even be raised on kickstarter if that was the only issue. Horrible position, Mike.



Do you even pay attention to your previous statements? Who cares about 100%, that’s irrelevant. You just got through saying, "there is no need of a new investigation”. That in itself is enough to be considered complete support for the OCT. Jeez, logic be damned.



Have you illusioned multiple posters? Who are you talking too? I'm not "many of you", it's just me here. Do you have a quote of mine accepting “CD”?



So what? What does that have to do with me and my position? Are you starting to oblivisquirm again?

and with all of your posting you have not disproved anything that I posted.

since you like to search things. Look up who I was referring in regards to accepting CD without details.



What was your position again? You are all over the place.

 

[Buck Naked]

I will not address any other of your comments until this first comment is resolved.

if you are not denying it then why are you posting here?

The dialogue all began when you made the claim that I was a “cter",

This I the cter fatal flaw...

The Cter then claim AHA! the govt did it. Based on no actual evidence or proof but solely on a failure (often intentional) to comprehend reality.

For which I challengingly replied,

Do you got anything to back up this opinion of yours? Do you have a CT of mine you can cite? Do you have a quote of mine saying the government did it?

Understand so far? You called me a “cter” and implied I said, "the govt did it”. I then asked you to prove your claims by citing a quote of mine.

For which you responded,

yes the fact that you deny it was terrorists hijacking and crashing planes.

What kind of response is this? You refrain from answering my challenge for a quote of mine by squirming out of oblivion.

Now since squirming from out of oblivion is probably a concept that is difficult to grasp, I will elaborate. First off, you ‘squirm’ by not answering the challenging question of mine for a quote supporting your claim. Secondly, your squirm originates from ‘oblivion’ since your response, "yes the fact that you deny it was terrorists hijacking and crashing planes”, originates from a state of being completely unknown, the definition of oblivion. Now reread that over and over until you understand, because I sincerely doubt you undertood it the first time around. If you have questions, feel free to ask.

I then responded,

Hello? Are you listening? Got a quote of mine stating that?

I responded in this manner because of the oblivisquirming from your previous post. Understand? You now have been challenged twice to prove your claims by citing a quote of mine as supporting evidence.

For which you now question,

if you are not denying it then why are you posting here?

This is oblivisquirming taken to the next level. A Double Oblivisquirm within one dialogue, a rare feat on the level of a Fledermaus. Now I’m sure you are still probably confused since you didn’t take my advise to reread the previous segment of my analogy, so I advise you again to go back and reread it in order to understand the second segment.


Understand? Now please stop oblivisquirming and cite a quote of mine stating a CT or a claim of mine that the government did it. If you can’t, I expect a retraction of your accusations as well as an apology for having to waste my time thoroughly explaining these time wasting methods of distraction you employ.

 

[Buck Naked]

What was your position again?

Comprehension's difficult when you have to critical think instead of relying on spoon fed trust from the Government, isn't it? Sorry, go back and reread, not my fault you don't pay attention.

 

[munson]

Subpoena power and testimony under oath where applicable were part of the 9/11 Commission.

CLUE: Sitting presidents and VPs are not traditionally Subpoena'd.

But you knew that, right? No?

[Warning: devil's advocate]

They were applicable, but were they used? If not, why?

They may not be traditionally Supoena'd, which is true. But, is there a law stating they couldn't be? Again, why wouldn't they be Supoena'd? [Other than "They're a sitting President and VP]

 

[Bob0627]

Your opinion, not shared by all.

No opinion is shared by all. There was never any legitimate investigation into 9/11. There are basic features/procedures that characterize a forensic criminal investigation, especially one involving the worst terrorist attack in modern US history. The most basic of all is the standard and widely accepted use of the scientific method. That standard is one of the protocols incorporated into the NFPA guidelines, a guideline that NIST, a government agency, helped create. The same agency tasked with investigating the collapse of the WTC towers. No investigation of any kind used the scientific method. There are many other characteristics but that one stands out as the most prevalent missing feature. Without that, anything officially labeled as an investigation is nothing more than a fraudulent pretense.

 

[mike2810]

Comprehension's difficult when you have to critical think instead of relying on spoon fed trust from the Government, isn't it? Sorry, go back and reread, not my fault you don't pay attention.

Seems you can't remember what your stance is.
But new you would not give an answer that is worth anything.:mrgreen:

 

[mike2810]

No opinion is shared by all. There was never any legitimate investigation into 9/11. There are basic features/procedures that characterize a forensic criminal investigation, especially one involving the worst terrorist attack in modern US history. The most basic of all is the standard and widely accepted use of the scientific method. That standard is one of the protocols incorporated into the NFPA guidelines, a guideline that NIST, a government agency, helped create. The same agency tasked with investigating the collapse of the WTC towers. No investigation of any kind used the scientific method. There are many other characteristics but that one stands out as the most prevalent missing feature. Without that, anything officially labeled as an investigation is nothing more than a fraudulent pretense.

This point of view has been presented before and discussed. It is pure opinion on your part.
It also points how little you know of multi agency / multi jurisdiction investigations and reporting. That has also been pointed out to you before.

 

[Bob0627]

This point of view has been presented before and discussed.

Yes I did discuss it in detail on several occasions. And?

It is pure opinion on your part.

No it isn't, by NIST's failure to disclose data it used, it makes peer review impossible. Without peer review, there is no scientific method employed. This is clearly detailed in post #3 and fully supported by the standard definition of the scientific method:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/consp...-report-collapse-wtc7-9-11-w-2152-2510-a.html

It also points how little you know of multi agency / multi jurisdiction investigations and reporting.

No it points to my full understanding of the basic elements of a forensic criminal investigation and your lack of understanding of the same. The scientific method has nothing to do with jurisdiction, other than without it, the scientific method is impossible. So if you're saying NIST did not have proper jurisdiction, then you agree that NIST could not possibly have used the scientific method. In any case, jurisdiction was granted to NIST by Congressional mandate.

That has also been pointed out to you before.

A lot of silly things have been pointed out to me before, including this nonsensical claim of yours.