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

[Mark F]

Are you looking for plausible theories that have substance or is this an opportunity to poke fun and make a jerk out of someone? I ask if your "thread" is genuine because there are people who fit both perspectives and I have no exchanges with you to determine if this thread is serious or not.

If someone can provide an answer with substance there wouldn't be any opportunity to make a jerk out of them, now would there?

 

[BmanMcfly]

Are you looking for plausible theories that have substance or is this an opportunity to poke fun and make a jerk out of someone? I ask if your "thread" is genuine because there are people who fit both perspectives and I have no exchanges with you to determine if this thread is serious or not.

Yes, they need a plausible theory that must be detailed down to the color of the socks that a person planting explosives was wearing on the day.

If that makes the thread serious, then it's serious, otherwise it's what it looks like.

 

[Fledermaus]

Are you looking for plausible theories that have substance or is this an opportunity to poke fun and make a jerk out of someone? I ask if your "thread" is genuine because there are people who fit both perspectives and I have no exchanges with you to determine if this thread is serious or not.

There ARE plausible theories.

I am waiting for someone in opposition to the so-called "OCT" to present one.

I DO retain the right to ridicule the ridiculous.

I have had intelligent discussions with people about the fallout of 9/11. Whether or not there were intentional allowances for what happened for example. Whether or not the attacks could have been stopped.

The problem is the majority of CTers are of the "Gummint did it and there is nothing you can present to change my mind" mindset. The statement is paraphrased but accurate for one poster in particular.

 

[Fledermaus]

Yes, they need a plausible theory that must be detailed down to the color of the socks that a person planting explosives was wearing on the day.

If that makes the thread serious, then it's serious, otherwise it's what it looks like.

No. Simply no.

And you know that.

No one has asked for such BS detail.

Now HOW the claimed explosives melted steel, while exploding, except when there weren't exploding, but created explosions in places that do not make sense, to kill people that weren't killed by explosives, to block egress for folks that were not blocked still needs explaining.

 

[BmanMcfly]

No. Simply no.

And you know that.

No one has asked for such BS detail.

Now HOW the claimed explosives melted steel, while exploding, except when there weren't exploding, but created explosions in places that do not make sense, to kill people that weren't killed by explosives, to block egress for folks that were not blocked still needs explaining.

Yes... Yes you do, and yes, although not stated as such, you have.

 

[Fledermaus]

Yes... Yes you do, and yes, although not stated as such, you have.

Strawmanning once again, eh?

 

[munson]

If someone can provide an answer with substance there wouldn't be any opportunity to make a jerk out of them, now would there?

True, but there are some people who will cry lunacy no matter what type of discussion is being made.

Yes, they need a plausible theory that must be detailed down to the color of the socks that a person planting explosives was wearing on the day.

If that makes the thread serious, then it's serious, otherwise it's what it looks like.

Sarcasm noted.

There ARE plausible theories.

I am waiting for someone in opposition to the so-called "OCT" to present one.

I DO retain the right to ridicule the ridiculous.

I have had intelligent discussions with people about the fallout of 9/11. Whether or not there were intentional allowances for what happened for example. Whether or not the attacks could have been stopped.

The problem is the majority of CTers are of the "Gummint did it and there is nothing you can present to change my mind" mindset. The statement is paraphrased but accurate for one poster in particular.

I appreciate your serious response and would have a discussion concerning 9/11.

Could you elaborate on what "OCT" is? I've never heard it before [or perhaps don't know it as OCT].

 

[Mark F]

True, but there are some people who will cry lunacy no matter what type of discussion is being made.

True, but that is no reason to automatically assume that is the motive behind what is a legitimate question.

Could you elaborate on what "OCT" is? I've never heard it before [or perhaps don't know it as OCT].

I will, as long as I am here. "OCT" is the acronym for "official conspiracy theory", which is conspiracy theorist rhetorical slang for the commonly accepted narrative of events that transpired on 9/11 (terrorists with a long history of attacking the U.S. and its interests hijacking planes and using them as Kamikaze missiles against symbols of American economic, military and political power with the intent to cause maximum damage and casualties).

 

[mike2810]

.

Ask Bob, HD, etc on what OCT is. (Official Conspiracy Theory).

One again, this thread is to discuss other explanations not the "Official" reports. Like Fled, I am waiting for someone to post an alternative and provide evidence it is correct.

Prager writes the WTC1,2,7 were taken down by mini neutron bombs.
Jones spouts about thermite use.
Some support that it was a energy beam weapon.

What is common in these is no specifics and a great deal of "what if". Good luck in anyone coming up with a proven alternative. Most responses will say well that is why we need a new investigation. :mrgreen:

 

[Bob0627]

Most responses will say well that is why we need a new investigation. :mrgreen:

There is only one reason why we need an investigation and not a new one, it's because there never was a legitimate one, not just because there are many theories, including the official theory.

 

[Mark F]

There is only one reason why we need an investigation and not a new one, it's because there never was a legitimate one, not just because there are many theories, including the official theory.

So then, who would be conducting this investigation you ask for?

 

[zyzygy]

So then, who would be conducting this investigation you ask for?

If it was conducted by conspiracy theorists then I would pay to see it.

 

[Bob0627]

So then, who would be conducting this investigation you ask for?

By your question, you imply you're not interested in any investigation into 9/11. I can understand that based on all your posts. In this case, it's not just me asking for an investigation into 9/11 despite your deliberately worded question. And since you're not interested why are you even asking? But since you asked, what are you asking? Do you expect me to name names?

In a legitimate setting, the US government would have put together a massive team of independent experts that would include criminal investigators and those in all appropriate and necessary fields of science, using standard industry accepted investigative protocols, allocate $hundreds of millions (perhaps each year) and include a permanent commission to oversee it (as recommended by the 9/11 Commissioners). All evidence would have been meticulously handled, cataloged, chain of custody would be recorded and all evidence would be forensically analyzed (including those pesky airplane part serial numbers). All eyewitness statements would have been carefully recorded and followed up. There would also be a legal team and it would of course have subpoena power and all involved would be required to testify under oath, no one would be immune, all testimonies would be recorded and as much transparency as possible would be the highlight of such an investigation. All of it would have been done as soon as logistically possible following 9/11. Public reports would be required to be published on a regular basis. And that's just some highlights off the top of my head but it is all pretty standard, especially given the enormity of the event.

 

[Mark F]

By your question, you imply you're not interested in any investigation into 9/11.

I imply nothing. I state what I mean and I ask when I want to know. You and your CT ilk are all too eager to impose meaning where there is none. It does you no service.

So back to it, who would be conducting this investigation, or more to the point - How does one gather a massive team of people who are both independent and experts?

How do they get the magical subpoena power that CT's think is so powerful if they are independent?

What evidence would they have that has not already been looked at?

Why even bother when the only people calling for a new investigation are a fringe movement of non-experts who don't even understand the case as it exists and are certainly incapable of presenting any alternative explanation to what we already know that is worthy of further inquiry (to prima facie standard).

 

[Bob0627]

Yet another example of why you can't be taken seriously.

I imply nothing.

You imply many things (as does this post - see below). If that weren't true, not only would you not ask such a question in that manner but you wouldn't even be asking and certainly not posting this ridiculous followup.

I state what I mean and I ask when I want to know.

Not a chance on both.

You and your CT ilk are all too eager to impose meaning where there is none. It does you no service.

I don't have a "CT ilk" and I only speak for myself, not some imaginary invented class. In any case, your posts are all too transparent to anyone or they should be. Exposing you does not do much of a service because it's too easy, I agree there.

who would be conducting this investigation

So are you actually asking me to name names? I still haven't gotten an answer. If you are, do you actually expect me to come up with a list? And why?

How does one gather a massive team of people who are both independent and experts?

The same way any legitimate designated committee would go about it, carefully.

How do they get the magical subpoena power that CT's think is so powerful if they are independent?

Through Merlin the Magician. How did Congress grant the 9/11 Commission "magical" subpoena powers? They used a pot of boiling water and threw in all these magic ingredients, of course. What kind of asinine question is that?

What evidence would they have that has not already been looked at?

All of it, including the evidence that already has been looked at.

Why even bother when the only people calling for a new investigation are a fringe movement of non-experts who don't even understand the case as it exists and are certainly incapable of presenting any alternative explanation to what we already know that is worthy of further inquiry (to prima facie standard).

See what I mean, why you can't be taken seriously? Such juvenile horse manure. Do you even believe what you post? Regardless, there can be no NEW investigation when there has never been a legitimate one in the first place. I know that's a difficult concept but I already made that point many times. AE911T should re-word their petition, it is inaccurate. As to this "fringe movement" claim, the last petition gathered over 100,000 signatures in about 3 months in NYC alone. Always trying to marginalize to the point of absurdity. But they're not going to bother, not because of your silliness but because the US government relies on the OCT for its perpetual agenda. 9/11 is the gift that keeps on giving, even for you.

 

[mike2810]

There is only one reason why we need an investigation and not a new one, it's because there never was a legitimate one, not just because there are many theories, including the official theory.

You have stated that before.. No matter how many times you post it, it does not make it true.
Your opinion is noted.

 

[Fledermaus]

Bob,

Wasn't it your contention the 911 Commission did not have subpoena powers?

Have you changed your mind?

 

[Fledermaus]

You have stated that before.. No matter how many times you post it, it does not make it true.
Your opinion is noted.

It is quite silly given 911 was perhaps the most investigated event to date.

 

[Mark F]

Yet another example of why you can't be taken seriously.



You imply many things (as does this post - see below). If that weren't true, not only would you not ask such a question in that manner but you wouldn't even be asking and certainly not posting this ridiculous followup.

Not a chance on both.

I don't have a "CT ilk" and I only speak for myself, not some imaginary invented class. In any case, your posts are all too transparent to anyone or they should be. Exposing you does not do much of a service because it's too easy, I agree there.



So are you actually asking me to name names? I still haven't gotten an answer. If you are, do you actually expect me to come up with a list? And why?



The same way any legitimate designated committee would go about it, carefully.



Through Merlin the Magician. How did Congress grant the 9/11 Commission "magical" subpoena powers? They used a pot of boiling water and threw in all these magic ingredients, of course. What kind of asinine question is that?



All of it, including the evidence that already has been looked at.



See what I mean, why you can't be taken seriously? Such juvenile horse manure. Do you even believe what you post? Regardless, there can be no NEW investigation when there has never been a legitimate one in the first place. I know that's a difficult concept but I already made that point many times. AE911T should re-word their petition, it is inaccurate. As to this "fringe movement" claim, the last petition gathered over 100,000 signatures in about 3 months in NYC alone. Always trying to marginalize to the point of absurdity. But they're not going to bother, not because of your silliness but because the US government relies on the OCT for its perpetual agenda. 9/11 is the gift that keeps on giving, even for you.

This isn't a plan, its fantasy.

You want a truly independent investigation (which presumably to you means no ties to government) yet it has to be staffed by "experts" (who will almost invariably have ties to government if they are worth a ****) AND have subpoena power (which requires government - like a Congressional Commission), all to look at evidence which has either already been looked at and conclusions long ago reached and overwhelmingly accepted by experts in all the relevant fields, or which no longer exists.

And you want to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on an endless investigation because a tiny fringe minority of anti-government non-thinkers just don't get it. And when that investigation reaches the same conclusion as all the others, will you accept it?

Me thinks that unlikely.

So then what?

 

[Bob0627]

You have stated that before.. No matter how many times you post it, it does not make it true.

That no legitimate investigation has ever been conducted regarding 9/11 is absolute fact. The farces masquerading as investigations have been exposed as to what they were in many different ways.

 

[Bob0627]

This isn't a plan, its fantasy.

It's both. Like I said, it's a fantasy to believe this will ever happen but it is absolutely a plan, one that is pretty standard as typical legitimate criminal investigations go but should go much, much further given the event.

You want a truly independent investigation (which presumably to you means no ties to government) yet it has to be staffed by "experts" (who will almost invariably have ties to government if they are worth a ****) AND have subpoena power (which requires government - like a Congressional Commission), all to look at evidence which has either already been looked at and conclusions long ago reached and overwhelmingly accepted by experts in all the relevant fields, or which no longer exists.

That's a mouthful of nonsense. Spewing nonsense and pretending it's what I want. What I posted is quite clear, not your garbage.

And you want to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on an endless investigation because a tiny fringe minority of anti-government non-thinkers just don't get it.

More nonsense. But that "tiny fringe minority" includes the 9/11 Commissioners, it was their recommendation. Non-thinkers would be those who bought the OCT lock-stock and barrel and question none of it.

And when that investigation reaches the same conclusion as all the others, will you accept it?

And yet more nonsense. Perhaps you should try asking reasonable questions, not ones loaded with red herrings and straw man silliness. Then they might be worth answering. There was no legitimate investigation so no legitimate conclusions exist.

 

[Fledermaus]

That no legitimate investigation has ever been conducted regarding 9/11 is absolute fact. The farces masquerading as investigations have been exposed as to what they were in many different ways.

Not a fact. An OPINION that ignores the facts.

 

[mike2810]

It is quite silly given 911 was perhaps the most investigated event to date.

Many of us know that. Some choose to believe 9/11 never was investigated.
Some wonder why certain reports did not contain information other reports did. It is a matter of not understanding what each group was charged with investigating.

Wonder if Bob doesn't believe CIT investigated the Pentagon crash. Despite it being a flawed investigation, they claim they did.

 

[mike2810]

That no legitimate investigation has ever been conducted regarding 9/11 is absolute fact. The farces masquerading as investigations have been exposed as to what they were in many different ways.

Source to back up your statement is....?

I will agree the CIT investigation into the Pentagon was a farce and not legitimate.., Closely followed by Jones, et.al. and the thermite CD or Prager and the mini nukes..:mrgreen:

 

[Bob0627]

Source to back up your statement is....?

It's called a brain, try using it.