• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Unanswered questions in regards to 9/11[W:762]

I see that Mark has started to respond.

I will respond later to this quoted post.

All your questions are IMO valid.
 
No takers... It was a really straight forward question...

Not why you do not support a new investigation... Why are you fundamentally opposed to one?
 
BmanMcfly said:
No takers... It was a really straight forward question...

Not why you do not support a new investigation... Why are you fundamentally opposed to one?
Click to expand...

Waste of time.

Waste of money.

Because all the important questions have been answered.

Because TRUTHERS won't accept the findings.

All those apply.

now, have you any unanswered question pertaining to 9/11?
 

Some reasons to oppose a new investigation.

- waste of tax dollars and resources
- Much of the debris (some hold so dear) is gone to landfills or recycled plants. What is kept in storage, I expect some would claim its tainted to support the govt. position.
- Basically, the accident scene has been clean up.
- Anything the govt did, or funded as part of a new investigation would just prompt more conspiracies.
- If the new investigation determined and supported the fire induced collapse of wtc1,2,7, some would still not accept it.
- No new investigation will quite the CD crowd unless that is the determined findings.

What some still fail to understand is one can accept the hijack, crash, fire induced collapse without accepting 100% of the govt reports.

Using your term of "confidence in the findings,"it is interesting how many supporters of the "govt is wrong" distance themselves from the group who came up with the Pentagon flyover explanation, or Dr. Judy Woods and the energy beam weapon, or how Jones/Harriet nanothermite never gained support, or Prager's mini neutron bomb, or the Russian scientist nuke in the basement explanation.

I find it more plausible for the hijack/crash/damage/fire/collapse than any of the alternative explanations that have floated about.

If you really believe a new investigation would "shut up the critics", imo you are sadly mistaken.
 
OK - I have a few minutes so let me start my response to this post:
The target was originally global - "What could have people.." BmanMcfly focussed it tighter to individual "you" in a later post. I'll take that as "me":
BmanMcfly said:
...Not why you do not support a new investigation... Why are you fundamentally opposed to one?
Click to expand...
(My bold emphasis in both quotes.)

If I responded to the first Bman post I would identify three groups of "people":
1) Me;
2) Others who have their own reasons for opposition which may not be the same as mine; AND
3) Those who oppose without reasoned argument - simply accepting of the official position.

In this post I will focus on MY reasons and leave the other two groups aside at this stage.

Here goes.

Point #2 from Bman's later post.
"Why are you fundamentally opposed to one?" I'm not - in fact I'm many times on record stating that I think there are probably legitimate reasons to investigate some of the socio-political aspects of 9/11. I do not think that there are grounds for re-investigating the main technical questions to satisfy truth movement demands. Those issues being 2 x Aircraft impact and unfought fire resulted in collapse without help from CD; 1 x unfought fire resulted in collapse without help from CD; 1 x "It was that 'plane at the Pentagon" AND 1 x "There was no shoot down at Shanksville".


Point #1 from Bman's later post.
"...why you do not support a new investigation..." I'm agnostic on "new investigation" - my position is that no one has made a prima facie case to support a "New Investigation" NOR shown a realistic plan for how such a political goal could be achieved.

OK - back to Bman's original challenge - I'll limit the focus to ME not "people"


Point #1 from Bman's original post.
"What could have people so fundamentally opposed to a new investigation" - already answered - I'm not fundamentally opposed.


Point #2 from Bman's original post.
"...when they themselves make every effort to distance themselves from the only actual investigation..." My position clear since 2007. "distance" is hyperbole. I neither use nor rely on NIST or any other authority's reasoning. My reasons published many times. I am interested in the facts of the real event - whether the Authorities got the explanations right is secondary to me.


Point #3 from Bman's original post.
"...because of its many admitted flaws?" My position simple - I am not aware of any significant flaws. I am aware of detail issues of concern to some which do not effect the outcomes. I have commented on NIST PR policy in responding to parties such as Chandler. None of which change the '...core concepts of what some call the "Official Conspiracy Theory"?' Which has us circled back to the legitimate question of the OP.


Point #3 from Bman's original post.
"Especially given the confidence in the finding, you would expect people would have desired a new investigation, if only to shut up the critics?"
 "People" may have that expectation. I don't share it. Conspiracy needs are IMO deeper that any specific conspiracy theory. I would expect a goalpost shift which would not "shut up the critics".
 
Fledermaus said:
Repeating Oz's guidelines for truthers only was worthy.

And far better worded than I can produce.

I think every Bman post can be responded to with Oz's four points.
Click to expand...

ftfy!
......
 
ozeco41 said:
I understood. Just having fun with the ambiguity.

Contrary to some truther/troll opinions this is a fun hobby. :roll:
Click to expand...

Cant be, people only go awol from a thread when they can see the big hammer is about to fall on them.

Then its fun for me. :mrgreen:
 
ozeco41 said:
I've only said that I will respond. Haven't address his legitimate questions yet. And a bit time limited right now. Seasonal social activities business.
Click to expand...


well I have a question that is unanswered. you know using reason.




how come the deflagration looks like anfo instead of jet fuel?

:lol:
 
KokomoJojo said:
Cant be, people only go awol from a thread when they can see the big hammer is about to fall on them.

Then its fun for me. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...
Koko I even have fun carving up your nonsense - on the rare occasions I care to expend the energy. BUT I only do it about once ever 5 or 6 times you repeat the same silly non claims or non rebuttals.

Now if you really want some fun why don't you:

EITHER
Try to rebut my claims with reasoned argument;
OR
Make you own implied claims explicit AND support them with reasoned argument.
 
KokomoJojo said:
well I have a question that is unanswered.

you know using reason.
Click to expand...
And once again you self debunk.

KokomoJojo said:
how come the deflagration looks like anfo instead of jet fuel?

:lol:
Click to expand...
Try framing it in a legitimate WTC 9/11 context and I may condescend to respond.

Here - try the guidelines:
1) Start by identifying and agreeing to the claim to be discussed;
2) Outline and agree the context;
3) Define any necessary and valid assumptions;
4) Then step by step assemble and discuss stages of logical reasoning needed to build a valid case.
Click to expand...
Step one:
What are you claiming?
 
ozeco41 said:
And once again you self debunk.

Try framing it in a legitimate WTC 9/11 context and I may condescend to respond.

Here - try the guidelines:
Step one:
What are you claiming?
Click to expand...

You have to be joking that you do not understand what that gif means.

My statement was clear. If you have questions about the content of the statement I may also condescend.

Otherwise I bore to quickly to be bothered when someone needs everything drawn out with crayolas.

Its a fact that people with similar background experiences understand what is being shown and crayons are not necessary. eace
 
Last edited:
ozeco41 said:
Koko I even have fun carving up your nonsense
Click to expand...

pretty delusional stuff there Oz.

Face it man I am not the one who continues to handwave the core away by claiming it is insignificant.

I am the one who said wtc was a lattice construction that you and dorman laughed at, only to have engineers from europe confirm it. I try to help you and even explained that burden of proof to you though I can only point the way to reason, nothing more.
 
STATUS:

Koko does not make a claim. Nothing to discuss.

..and he needs to make 9 more nonsense posts before my ROEs allow me to respond.
 
KokomoJojo said:
well I have a question that is unanswered. you know using reason.




how come the deflagration looks like anfo instead of jet fuel?

:lol:
Click to expand...

What plane crash is that?
 
Oh and just to answer your "question" you posted in the form of yet another completely dishonest and ridiculous gif, it didn't look like ANFO. Not even close bub.












But you would obviously know that if you ever actually watched the video footage (without desperately looking for something you can cherry pick and spin into some utter BS to post here).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFiEgwLQVJk
 
ozeco41 said:
OK - I have a few minutes so let me start my response to this post:
Click to expand...

hmm...

The target was originally global - "What could have people.." BmanMcfly focussed it tighter to individual "you" in a later post. I'll take that as "me"My bold emphasis in both quotes.)
Click to expand...

why phrase this as though you are exposing something? This seems like you started into your typical pseudo-logical argument... regardless, this is just one of the ways you create fallacies where none exist. You'd be just as well to attack grammar, but to be a suitable analogy, would have to be violations of grammar rules for a different language...

Anyway...


Since you require clarification, I meant specifically debunkers like team circle jerk on this site... you barely have credibility for you to speak for yourself, so don't bother speaking for others.


Ok, then what would YOU investigate and to what end?

I mean out of one side of your mouth you are saying you support investigatio , out the other side you are regurgitating the official investigation.

Although, I will grant you that each report is thoroughly flawed. (Possible exception the FAA report, the flaws are less obvious to someone not in the field) (though the way you talk about the flaws is more like a few typos)



Point #1 from Bman's later post.
"...why you do not support a new investigation..." I'm agnostic on ".... achieved.
Click to expand...

Many had presented simple guidelines... an independent investigation with no political affiliations and with subpoena powers. This is an implicit lie.



Right... you set out to prove fire collapse, by your own admissions (because in your opinion you would have been caught, which presumes an honest investigation)

Funny though, you regularly mention flaws in the nist report but I don't think I've seen you mention any specific issues?

BTW, your actions / statements betray your claim of being agnostic to a new investigation.


Point #3 from Bman's original post.
"...because of its many admitted f... of the OP.
Click to expand...


examples of these flaws?


Point #3 from Bman's original post.
"Especially given the confidence in the f... that any specific conspiracy theory. I would expect a goalpost shift which would not "shut up the critics".
Click to expand...


So, ultimately, you have dedicated the better part of a decade on a flawed model of collapse, and spend your time defending the official story (while rejecting the official story ... yes yes in generic minute details that don't change anything) because the goal posts would move.

You realize that this list also includes victims family members who had questions like "after the greatest intelligence, military and political failures in the history of the country, how was not one person even demoted for their actions?"?

It doesn't really matter, the crowd sourced investigation of the available evidence, has shown that there is indisputable evidence that proves complicity, even if the extent of that was knowing what was needed to prevent the attacks and not stopping it.

It's really only those gullible people that believe the government without question that still defend the official fairy tale.
 

So in a massive effort of 'hugger' honesty you found pictures to post of wtc 2 to dispute the explosion of wtc 1 shown in the gif that you labeled dishonest, then go on to claim wtc 2 does not look like anfo. Inventing a double decker strawmen, how naughty.

Bad case of hugger desperation bleeding all over the board. At least try not to post such obviously deceitful **** next time.
 
Last edited:
BmanMcfly said:
Funny though, you regularly mention flaws in the nist report but I don't think I've seen you mention any specific issues?

BTW, your actions / statements betray your claim of being agnostic to a new investigation.
Click to expand...

Thats the MO!

Always posts summaries, never the meat of the argument, then goes on to claim he totally engaged koko or explained his argument. Always deceitful posting practices while demanding honest discussions. Its psychopathic you know when they do not know their posts are orwellian double talk.
 
Your gross intention to be dishonest is once again clearly revealed BmanMcfly. You asked questions. I clarified my intention to respond with my position on each of those questions and honestly answered all of them. You have chosen to ignore my comments other than to use them as excuses to launch further evasive dishonesty and personal attacks. You confirm yet again that you are not interested in honest reasoned discussion.

Your intention is transparent to anyone of modest reading comprehension so I will not give you the further attention you are seeking.

IF you decide to respond honestly to what is put to you I may reconsider my stance.
 
BmanMcfly said:
No takers... It was a really straight forward question...

Not why you do not support a new investigation... Why are you fundamentally opposed to one?
Click to expand...

Missed post #325 completely did you?
 

Ok here you go then... North tower:




And I see that you purposely ignored my post asking what plane crash you are using in your gif. Why?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…