LastChild gives his theory of what happened

[calebprime]

I was just about to ask LastChild what his theory was, but the thread was closed.

LastChild, what (in broad outline) do you think happened on 9/11?

[Lisa Simpson]

Do not turn this thread into a free-for-all of name-calling or it will be closed and moved to AAH as well. This applies to everyone equally.

[Architect]

Yes, mum

:)

[LastChild]

I was just about to ask LastChild what his theory was, but the thread was closed.

LastChild, what (in broad outline) do you think happened on 9/11?

What's the point? If I had a theory and you debunked it would it make your version true?

[LastChild]

Do not turn this thread into a free-for-all of name-calling or it will be closed and moved to AAH as well. This applies to everyone equally.

They will and they'll get it. Because that's what the debunkers want when they're getting embarrassed in their own backyard.

[Good Lt]

If I had a theory and you debunked it would it make your version true?

In order for you to have a theory, you must first have evidence to base it on.

So far, you've provided exactly none.

We, as it were, don't have "a version." We follow the evidence available to us, which definitively disproves any conspiracy fantasies you might want to put out there.

Unless you've got evidence to the contrary...which you're free to cite.

[AMTMAN]

What's the point? If I had a theory and you debunked it would it make your version true?


It's a rather simple question. What's your theory on 9-11?

[Par]

What's the point? If I had a theory and you debunked it would it make your version true?


Well, that wouldn’t, no. The fact that the prosaic theory is by far and away best supported by the evidence, however, means that it is appreciably the most rational one.

[Redtail]

What's the point? If I had a theory and you debunked it would it make your version true?

The debunking of any theory you put out would not make "our version" true.

What makes "our version" true is the evidence that backs it up.

Now if you have a theory and evidence to back it up you might prove "your version" true.

[LastChild]

In order for you to have a theory, you must first have evidence to base it on.

So far, you've provided exactly none.

We, as it were, don't have "a version." We follow the evidence available to us, which definitively disproves any conspiracy fantasies you might want to put out there.

Unless you've got evidence to the contrary...which you're free to cite.

So you don't have a version?

[LastChild]

It's a rather simple question. What's your theory on 9-11?

I don't have one. I don't think there has been enough of an investigation.

[tomwaits]

I don't have one.

Thank you. He answered and this thread is done methinks.

[AMTMAN]

I don't have one. I don't think there has been enough of an investigation.

You don't have a theory? Then why are you here talking about 9-11 if you don't have any thoughts of your own? For some reason I doubt your sincerity.

[LastChild]

Well, that wouldn’t, no. The fact that the prosaic theory is by far and away best supported by the evidence, however, means that it is appreciably the most rational one.

That's right it wouldn't so what's the point? If you have a version you claim is supported by the evidence what is it you need with alternative theories from me to debunk? Does it make you feel better about what you believe? Do you have doubts?

[Par]

Thank you. He answered and this thread is done methinks.


Sí.

[Sporanox]

I don't have one. I don't think there has been enough of an investigation.

Have you read the 9/11 Commission Report? Have you read the NIST report? Have you seen the rubble of truther arguments scattered across this board?

See, the thing is, you have, but either you're incapable of reasoning with the evidence or you're just ignoring it. Almost all of your posts are simply awkward attempts at sarcasm or snide questions.

To demand a new investigation, you must have sufficient evidence. This does not mean footage showing squibs of dust in the WTC collapses or misquotes of "explosions" from firefighters or appeals to personal opinion.

It seems you don't have the evidence. Without that, you're never going to get anything.

-Sporanox

[LastChild]

You don't have a theory? Then why are you here talking about 9-11 if you don't have any thoughts of your own? For some reason I doubt your sincerity.

I didn't say I had no thoughts on 9/11 I believe no one really knows for sure what happened. Some people just claim to know. They need alternative theories to debunk to sooth their many doubts about what they assert to be the truth.

[dbalsdon]

I believe no one really knows for sure what happened.

I was pretty sure I knew what had happened.

[AMTMAN]

I didn't say I had no thoughts on 9/11 I believe no one really knows for sure what happened. Some people just claim to know. They need alternative theories to debunk to sooth their many doubts about what they assert to be the truth.

When you repeat truther mantras like guys living in caves it tells me you do have your own pet theroies as to what happened. So for you to say that you have no thoughts on 9-11 is incredibly dishonest.

[Par]

That's right it wouldn't so what's the point? If you have a version you claim is supported by the evidence what is it you need with alternative theories from me to debunk? Does it make you feel better about what you believe?


Well, I didn’t actually ask for you to present a theory for me to debunk. (In fact, I didn’t ask you for a theory at all, but one would be appreciated, nonetheless.) In any event, you are going to need to present a theory so that we can assess whether or not it competes with the prosaic one. Descartes’ extreme scepticism is useful for showing us that synthetic truths can never be known with absolute certainty, but little else besides. Anyone can sit around proclaiming that they don’t believe this or that, but unless they can come up with a more rational theory, there really isn’t much point in doing so.

[Redtail]

I didn't say I had no thoughts on 9/11 I believe no one really knows for sure what happened. Some people just claim to know. They need alternative theories to debunk to sooth their many doubts about what they assert to be the truth.

Or we just don't want silly theories to be running around unchallenged, but what ever makes you feel better.

[LastChild]

Have you read the 9/11 Commission Report? Have you read the NIST report? Have you seen the rubble of truther arguments scattered across this board?

Yes

See, the thing is, you have, but either you're incapable of reasoning with the evidence or you're just ignoring it. Almost all of your posts are simply awkward attempts at sarcasm or snide questions.

What evidence? What does NIST prove as far as who knocked down the towers? For instance even if it was solely the planes and the damage they caused how does that prove who was ultimately behind the attacks. Compound that with the fact that NIST is highly debated and just a theory of collapse initiation. Not even proof of how the towers collapse never mind proof of who was behind it. The commission report is now referred to by many as the omission report. Again not proof of anything. They spent all their time just trying to assert who wasn't to blame not who was. The commission report is political whitewash not truth.

To demand a new investigation, you must have sufficient evidence. This does not mean footage showing squibs of dust in the WTC collapses or misquotes of "explosions" from firefighters or appeals to personal opinion.

I'm not demanding anything just pointing out that some really have nothing that they base their beliefs on. If you don't want a new investigation fine. But don't tell me you have the complete truth and base it on the commission report and NIST. That's lie or at least a delusion.

It seems you don't have the evidence. Without that, you're never going to get anything.

Right back at ya

[dbalsdon]

The commission report is now referred to by many as the omission report.

By who? Other conspiracy theorists?


On a diff note, as mentioned earlier, shouldn't this thread now be closed? LC has pretty much given his 'theory'(that he doesnt have 1), so this thread is now pointless.

[LastChild]

Well, I didn’t actually ask for you to present a theory for me to debunk. (In fact, I didn’t ask you for a theory at all, but one would be appreciated, nonetheless.)

What's the name of the thread you wandered into?

In any event, you are going to need to present a theory so that we can assess whether or not it competes with the prosaic one.

I have no need to supply you with things that make feel better about what you believe to be true.

Descartes’ extreme scepticism is useful for showing us that synthetic truths can never be known with absolute certainty, but little else besides. Anyone can sit around proclaiming that they don’t believe this or that, but unless they can come up with a more rational theory, there really isn’t much point in doing so.

So come up with one. Nothing rational has been presented. BTW what's rational about simultaneous suicide hijackings?

[Par]

Do you have doubts?


Well, I cannot hold my beliefs about 9/11 with absolutely certainly, no. Similarly though, I cannot hold my beliefs about the truth of the theories of evolution or gravity with absolute certainty either, but that doesn’t mean it’s particularly rational to remain an agnostic or a sceptic with regards to them.

[Par]

Well, I didn’t actually ask for you to present a theory for me to debunk. (In fact, I didn’t ask you for a theory at all, but one would be appreciated, nonetheless.)
What's the name of the thread you wandered into?


So, the fact that I have posted in this thread means that I have asked you to present a theory? Well, you yourself have also wandered into this thread. So, by your own measure, you must be asking yourself to present a theory. On this point, perhaps I can concur.

[Par]

BTW what's rational about simultaneous suicide hijackings?


There is nothing rational about carrying out suicide hijackings. However, the prosaic theory of the events of 9/11 – one which posits suicide hijackings – is by far and away the most rational one we have available to us.

[SpitfireIX]

. . . NIST is highly debated and just a theory of collapse initiation. . . .


That's an argument frequently used by creationists against evolution, and it frankly demonstrates gross ignorance of both the scientific method and epistemology. NIST's theory is currently generally accepted as the most likely explanation because it's the theory that's best supported by the available evidence. And among structural engineers and fire professionals, the debate isn't controlled demolition vs structural/fire damage; it's over issues of building construction.

I'm not demanding anything just pointing out that some really have nothing that they base their beliefs on. If you don't want a new investigation fine. But don't tell me you have the complete truth and base it on the commission report and NIST. That's lie or at least a delusion.


Textbook definition of a straw man argument. No one here claims to have "the complete truth." But we have enough of the truth to know that it's overwhelmingly likely that the September 11 attacks were planned and carried out by Islamic extremist terrorists, and not elements of the US government, Israeli intelligence, or the New World Order.

[Jonnyclueless]

What's the name of the thread you wandered into?



I have no need to supply you with things that make feel better about what you believe to be true.



So come up with one. Nothing rational has been presented. BTW what's rational about simultaneous suicide hijackings?

Of course you don't. Much easier to do nothing but take pot shots at others who actually do investigations and research. You don't think there is enough of an investigation, yet you are unable to provide rational reasoning to show that.

I think it's pretty obvious that by a real investigation you simply mean one that tells you what you want to hear. In the meantime, pretend that the others who base their opinions on scientific testing and analysis as simply being delusional, while you promote conjecture and speculation as credible evidence.

[pomeroo]

I don't have one. I don't think there has been enough of an investigation.


Really? When the FBI claims that it was the largest, most exhaustive investigation in the bureau's history, what did they overlook. Or are they yet another part of your bloated conspiracy?

[e^n]

I don't have one. I don't think there has been enough of an investigation.

Can you list which outstanding issues must be resolved in order for you to believe in the 'official story'?

[Sporanox]

Have you read the 9/11 Commission Report? Have you read the NIST report? Have you seen the rubble of truther arguments scattered across this board?Yes

No.

What evidence? What does NIST prove as far as who knocked down the towers?

That's the 9/11 Commission part. Plus Osama bin Laden's multiple confessions, plus the media...etc.

For instance even if it was solely the planes and the damage they caused how does that prove who was ultimately behind the attacks.

Yes, it was solely the planes and the damage. Yes, passengers used cell phones to tell their family members that hijackers were on board. Does that sound like remote control planes to you? Obviously not.

The hijackers definitely boarded the planes. The passengers definitely said there were hijackers on the planes. Osama took credit. Black boxes recovered prove the hijackers were steering the planes.

What do you want, a COMPREHENSIVE SURVEILLANCE VIDEO of the planes' innards just before their demise? Because it sounds like that's what it's going to take to convince you. Just use your head and figure out the hijackers hijacked the planes and flew them into the 9/11 targets.

Compound that with the fact that NIST is highly debated and just a theory of collapse initiation. Not even proof of how the towers collapse never mind proof of who was behind it. The commission report is now referred to by many as the omission report. Again not proof of anything. They spent all their time just trying to assert who wasn't to blame not who was. The commission report is political whitewash not truth.

This seems to me to be further proof you haven't read the report. It's only an "omission report" to truthers - by that time, EVERYBODY could clearly see from the evidence who was behind the attacks. EVERYBODY could see how our intelligence service ultimately failed us. Want to know why the commission didn't address a shadow government as a possible cause of the attacks? Because THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE FOR IT. If there was it would have surfaced by now.

NIST is NOT highly debated. A bunch of people doing nothing more than making noise is not called a debate. Anybody can claim that they're right without science. Just look at your fellow truthers' posts.

Please see that the answers to your "questions" are complex and not always the black-and-white, 1+1 = 2 nonsense that Avery and his ilk advocate.

I'm not demanding anything just pointing out that some really have nothing that they base their beliefs on. If you don't want a new investigation fine. But don't tell me you have the complete truth and base it on the commission report and NIST. That's lie or at least a delusion.

We don't know all of what happened that day. But we DO know an important fact - who was behind the attack - as well as several others, like how our defense agencies failed to protect us.

You don't think that there's been enough of an investigation. But you CAN'T TELL US WHY. On those grounds, we should investigate...everything.

Right back at ya

This is the meaningless attempts at comeuppance I'm talking about. It gets you nowhere and makes you look like a troll, which you very well may be.

[westprog]

I was just about to ask LastChild what his theory was, but the thread was closed.

LastChild, what (in broad outline) do you think happened on 9/11?

I don't think even this is necessary. All I'd require is that he indicates evidence which contradicts the 19 terrorists crashed planes theory, and suggests a possible alternative theory which would incorporate all the evidence.

[Mobyseven]

Yes

You've read the NIST report? Fantastic!

In that case, what does NIST say initiated the collapse of the towers, and why do you find their explanation inadequate?

[LastChild]

Do not turn this thread into a free-for-all of name-calling or it will be closed and moved to AAH as well. This applies to everyone equally.

Well I was gone for a little while and came back to see what the duh bunkas were up to with all their scary facts and I see the thread is already starting to degrade into the usual schoolyard antics.

It's good to see that the moderators are not asleep at the wheel and are heading off all the name calling and attacks before it gets out of hand so that another perfectly valid thread won't have to be closed.

Good job.

[AMTMAN]

Well I was gone for a little while and came back to see what the duh bunkas were up to with all their scary facts and I see the thread is already starting to degrade into the usual schoolyard antics.

It's good to see that the moderators are not asleep at the wheel and are heading off all the name calling and attacks before it gets out of hand so that another perfectly valid thread won't have to be closed.

Good job.

This coming from someone who says he has no theory on 9-11. Yet has a tendancy to repeat CT mantras and use their terminology.

[stateofgrace]

Well I was gone for a little while and came back to see what the duh bunkas were up to with all their scary facts and I see the thread is already starting to degrade into the usual schoolyard antics.

It's good to see that the moderators are not asleep at the wheel and are heading off all the name calling and attacks before it gets out of hand so that another perfectly valid thread won't have to be closed.

Good job.

Really ?

[Good Lt]

Irony so thick you could cut it with thermite.

[twinstead]

I was going to go on a hunger strike until LC actually provided evidence that 911 was an inside job instead of going off on this new debunker second eye whatever tangent he's on now, but then I started getting hungry and that burger just looked sooo good...

Well, sorry. I guess I'm not cut out for that whole protest thing.

[Sporanox]

Indeed it is a perfectly good thread. A thread to show us that LostChild really isn't that interested in much of anything...but we might have already known that from prior experience.

[T.A.M.]

Well I was gone for a little while and came back to see what the duh bunkas were up to with all their scary facts and I see the thread is already starting to degrade into the usual schoolyard antics.

It's good to see that the moderators are not asleep at the wheel and are heading off all the name calling and attacks before it gets out of hand so that another perfectly valid thread won't have to be closed.

Good job.

If you have an issue with the moderation of this thread or the subforum in general, take it to the "Forum Management" section Troll.

Welcome to ignore.

TAM:)

[stilicho]

I don't have one. I don't think there has been enough of an investigation.
You think more money ought to have been pumped into NIST and the Kean-Hamilton Commission? Or are you one of those who are asking for an "impartial" investigation? Throw us a crumb, here. Who would you have on this "impartial" commission?

Let me propose something. Given the same information and access to people that the Kean-Hamilton Commission had, and reforming it with Ralph Nader and Ron Paul as co-chairs, do you think the final report would have been different? And, if so, on what points?

Or are Ralph Nader and Ron Paul in on it too?

[fuelair]

Is it just me or has anyone else caught the potential significance of LC's initials. (Since I haven't read all the pages of the silliness, I don't know).

[Reality Believer]

Is it just me or has anyone else caught the potential significance of LC's initials. (Since I haven't read all the pages of the silliness, I don't know).
I thought the name was a hopeful prediction regarding the membership list. :rolleyes:

[Apollo20]

LastChild:

On the critically important question of the level of damage to the SFRM in the Twin Towers, NIST has this to say: “Fireproofing thickness and fireproofing damage due to aircraft impact is identified as the single most important parameter in the fire simulations”, (See NCSTAR 1-5G). NIST postulate that some SFRM may have been dislodged by impact-induced vibrations of the buildings outside the directly impacted floors of each tower. But in NCSTAR 1-2 NIST confess that no visible information could be obtained on the extent of damage to the interior of the towers from the video or photographic record. Hence it is no surprise that NIST ultimately admit it was unable to estimate SFRM damage outside of the aircraft debris impact zone. However, even for surfaces within this zone we read: “thermal insulation was NOT included in the aircraft impact model”, (See NCSTAR 1-6 page 130). But reading further in NCSTAR 1-6 we discover that NIST assumed without proof that SFRM was considered to have been removed “if the room furnishings were damaged”, (See NCSTAR 1-6 page 129).
In NCSTAR 1 NIST claims that SFRM was dislodged on five floors (94 – 98) of WTC 1 and six floors (78 – 83) of WTC 2. Unfortunately this assertion is contradicted by the figures given in Chapter 5 of NCSTAR 1-6 that show significant SFRM removal was confined to four floors of WTC 1 and five floors of WTC 2. But perhaps this uncertainty is to be expected when we read on page 190 of NCSTAR 1-2 that the physics of the fuel impact and dispersion in the WTC aircraft impact events was not analyzed because “no single analysis technique was available… (to deal with) … fuel dispersion without significant uncertainties”.

I could go on but I think you get the picture!

[Apollo20]

LastChild:

It is indeed remarkable that most JREF NISTIAN apologists insist that the NIST Report provides the "MOST LIKELY" explanation of how and why the Twin Towers collapsed ..... but at other times say that the NIST Report is "a likely" explanation.

BIG DIFFERENCE!

You see LastChild, for the NIST Report to be the MOST LIKELY of all possible explanations, NIST must have thought about and tested every possible explanation. There is NO WAY NIST did this. Thus NIST's collapse hypothesis - because that's all it is - is just one possible hypothesis, NOT, as the JREF debunking crowd suggest, the most likely hypothesis.

What is more, NIST's collapse initiation hypothesis is un-verifiable because it is based on the caveat that a critical amount of SFRM had been removed from steel surfaces in the impact zones. But the pre-supposition about the state of the SFRM in the fire-affected zones of WTC 1 & 2 is clearly an ad hoc ASSUMPTION that is demonstrably unknown and unknowable, as NIST themselves admit! Thus NIST's theory truly is a THEORY that is incapable of being falsified and therefore UNSCIENTIFIC!

So, might I suggest LastChild that you ask the JREF 9/11 conspiracy debunking crew to PROVE to you that NIST's version of what happened to WTC 1 & 2 on 9/11 was the most likely of all possible explanations of what happened, not simply some sort of maximum entropy convergence point within the self-fulfilling confines of a computer model.

[MG1962]

I am struggling with the rational here - Competing theories are given rise to different interpretation of the same set of facts. You can not simply say theory A is deficient without offering an alternative theory that you believe fits the facts better. Without the advent of theory B you cant give anyone something to measure theory A against

An excellent example of this was the battle between Fred Hoyle and Edwin Hubble in the 20's and 30's Hoyle was a well credentialed British astronomer wh believed in the steady state universe. He covered this off with the fact Einsten made no prediction of expansion in the space time continum.

Hubble went the other way and began first by establishing cosmic scale, then studying red and blue shift. Although he never pinned down the rate of exapansion, he proved it was a consitient force. Ultimately Hoyle had to conceed defeat when Einstein admited that his calculation suggested their should be expansion, but didn't recognise the significance.

Without Hoyles theory, Hubble had nothing to test his idea against, conversely Hoyles theory fitted all the known data until Hubble found a new data set

This is the problem the whole CT community has to deal with - Any theory has to explain every phenomena and event of the day - Not just some of them. The one strenght - regardless if you agree or not with the offical version of events - It does explain everything that happened that day

[Apollo20]

MG1962:

NIST's theory is a nice bedtime story for Jay-refers and others of this authoritarian ilk.... That is all.

I and others can, and have, come up with plenty of other stories that fit the evidence just as well or better as NIST's effort.

One day the gospel according to St. Sunder will be revealed for what it is, you will see........

[Good Lt]

I and others can, and have, come up with plenty of other stories that fit the evidence just as well or better as NIST's effort. Care to share, Dr. Greening?

[beachnut]

MG1962:

NIST's theory is a nice bedtime story for Jay-refers and others of this authoritarian ilk.... That is all.

I and others can, and have, come up with plenty of other stories that fit the evidence just as well or better as NIST's effort.

One day the gospel according to St. Sunder will be revealed for what it is, you will see........
BS, total nonsense.

[MG1962]

MG1962:

NIST's theory is a nice bedtime story for Jay-refers and others of this authoritarian ilk.... That is all.

I and others can, and have, come up with plenty of other stories that fit the evidence just as well or better as NIST's effort.

One day the gospel according to St. Sunder will be revealed for what it is, you will see........

Then why is everyone so shy to discuss them? I mean these stories cover ever aspsect do they? - I am guessing the energy beam tales dont fit this catagory

[LashL]

MG1962:

NIST's theory is a nice bedtime story for Jay-refers and others of this authoritarian ilk.... That is all.

I and others can, and have, come up with plenty of other stories that fit the evidence just as well or better as NIST's effort.

One day the gospel according to St. Sunder will be revealed for what it is, you will see........

Ah, yes. (To steal borrow a great line from A.W. Smith) It's Saturday night. Party on, Dr. FrankenHyde.

[LastChild]

LastChild:

It is indeed remarkable that most JREF NISTIAN apologists insist that the NIST Report provides the "MOST LIKELY" explanation of how and why the Twin Towers collapsed ..... but at other times say that the NIST Report is "a likely" explanation.

BIG DIFFERENCE!

You see LastChild, for the NIST Report to be the MOST LIKELY of all possible explanations, NIST must have thought about and tested every possible explanation. There is NO WAY NIST did this. Thus NIST's collapse hypothesis - because that's all it is - is just one possible hypothesis, NOT, as the JREF debunking crowd suggest, the most likely hypothesis.

What is more, NIST's collapse initiation hypothesis is un-verifiable because it is based on the caveat that a critical amount of SFRM had been removed from steel surfaces in the impact zones. But the pre-supposition about the state of the SFRM in the fire-affected zones of WTC 1 & 2 is clearly an ad hoc ASSUMPTION that is demonstrably unknown and unknowable, as NIST themselves admit! Thus NIST's theory truly is a THEORY that is incapable of being falsified and therefore UNSCIENTIFIC!

So, might I suggest LastChild that you ask the JREF 9/11 conspiracy debunking crew to PROVE to you that NIST's version of what happened to WTC 1 & 2 on 9/11 was the most likely of all possible explanations of what happened, not simply some sort of maximum entropy convergence point within the self-fulfilling confines of a computer model.

Thank you Apollo and yes I get the picture. I've have also already asked many a time for the JREF debunkers to support their theory. They never seem to be interested in doing so. They just keep ordering me to serve up some version that they will then assert has been debunked. This in and of itself wouldn't be so bad if they would just actually debunk something once in a while.

Most likely version? You are right in that it’s not even that much but what if that was even the case? Why is most likely good enough? Why do some people want to put it all to bed so quickly with so many things left unanswered? Where’s the curiosity? Where is this critical thinking they speak of all the time?

Now I don't like to generalize and I realize there are some people on here with some real knowledge and valid opinions to offer. Though the majority here are just a bunch of fraud wannabe debunkers and hanger on types shouting in the background with absolutely nothing to offer. Am I guilty of ever antagonizing at all and fueling the fire? Sure I’ll admit it. If the least I can do is have them point out the stupidity behind their beliefs then why not?

You certainly have shown much more patience and restraint then I.

[Totovader]

Just when Greening was getting better, he gets back to this NISTIAN nonsense and blathering on about how unscientific "everyone else" is.

Sad.

[Corsair 115]

I and others can, and have, come up with plenty of other stories that fit the evidence just as well or better as NIST's effort. Then, please, by all means present such alternative theories, provided of course they fit the evidence as good as or better than what NIST proposed.

But since you said in your quote the alternatives fit the evidence as good or better, it shouldn't be any trouble.

[Good Lt]

I've have also already asked many a time for the JREF debunkers to support their theory.

The burden of proof is on you, the claimant.

We've asked you repeatedly to support your fantasy, to positively no avail. You've failed to do it every time. You haven't even attempted to prove your fantasies are plausible.

Care to start supporting your "9-11 was an inside job" fantasy any time soon?

[Arus808]

apollo, seriuosly lay off the name calling and the rhetoric. YOUR science is good, but when you start getting into the personal insults, you are becoming no better than the truthers

Just when I think you're doing fine, you slip into the behavior of the same of the truthers.

YOU'RE better than this.

And simple stating we are "nistians" is soley unwarranted.


Tell us why we shouldn't "believe" the NIST report? For the TIME it was published BASED on teh AVAILABLE EVIDENCE at the time they published, its a pretty damned detail report about what happened that day.

OF course, through TIME, other factors could come to light, however, that is the process of ALL scientific studies. if someone releases a studies findings too early, then results LATER may contradict alter their claims. WE ARE Seeing this with the studies done bY other scientists and engineers, but surely HOW long do you think they should have to have to study the event? 1 year? 3 years/ 10 years? 50 years?


However, I take the NIST report faithfully, due to the FACT THAT they had access to the EVIDENCE. and based on that evidence and what they could create locally, they wrote their report on their studies.


Im tired of your flippant attitude toward the NIST investigators. They were handed a job that required 200 of their experts and outside help to study the collapses. And you are simply attacking them on minor points seems just petty.

And they even state htrought out hte report that many factors couldn't be modeled due to the amount of data that would be needed that they simply did not have access to, or their computers just didn't have the power to render.


Your ego is blnding you to the obvious, and its getting very tiresome.

KEEP to the science, and stop personally attacking us, the NISt investigators with your bias and your political nonsense.

[Hokulele]

<good stuff>

KEEP to the science, and stop personally attacking us, the NISt investigators with your bias and your political nonsense.


What she said.

[MG1962]

I have often wondered at the vitriol leveled at the NIST - It is not a political entity and its reasons for investigating what happened on 911 had nothing to do with some secret agenda. There only interest in investigating 911 was to establish that the buildings fell because of events that day, and not some long term screw up by the architects, engineers and builders. They investigate EVERY building collapse

This organisation has been around for over a hundred years,vitually every measuring system and building code can be sourced back to these guys, among a whole heap of other things

In all these years, research etc etc - They have quietly gone about their business - Now suddenly they are a bunch of idiot buffoons who are under the control of the government.

If this is the case - why dont you challenge how much fuel is in a gallon, or the pre-packaged weight of carrots etc - Why must the NIST be caopable of so many things in your daily life - but useless when it suits you?

[Jonnyclueless]

Though the majority here are just a bunch of fraud wannabe debunkers and hanger on types shouting in the background with absolutely nothing to offer.

Does anyone else see the irony here? In fact does anyone actually remember the last post LastChild has made that wasn't a personal attack on people and that actually contributed to a discussion? Maybe someone can provide a link.

[stilicho]

MG1962:

NIST's theory is a nice bedtime story for Jay-refers and others of this authoritarian ilk.... That is all.

I and others can, and have, come up with plenty of other stories that fit the evidence just as well or better as NIST's effort.

One day the gospel according to St. Sunder will be revealed for what it is, you will see........
Do these other stories include controlled demolition?

[stilicho]

In all these years, research etc etc - They have quietly gone about their business - Now suddenly they are a bunch of idiot buffoons who are under the control of the government.
Don't we also have to include FEMA and ASCE then too?

I don't know why the opposition to NIST stops at their laborious work. There were all kinds of agencies and individuals involved with the investigations.

Moreover, those at Swiss Re with the most to gain (financially) from a reopened investigation or an outright rejection of the NIST conclusions have not, in years of litigation, sensed the requirement for a new investigation. Here's a sample of some of the legal claims brought against Westfield America regarding the terrorist attacks: http://www.eapdlaw.com/files/News/5ea79777-c129-440f-a02e-9fcbd2a9ad7c/Presentation/NewsAttachment/a0b5a4ae-75d4-4a86-9952-9fdcc27ef96d/media.317.pdf. There are many many others available for reading at your leisure.

A lack of legal claims based on inaccurate investigation isn't the only barometer of their veracity but they rank pretty high on the list. Swiss Re's chairman Jacques Dubois has been outspoken about the risks insurers bear due to terrorist attacks. I am absolutely certain that if Dr. Greening's "other stories" could bear fruit that he'd have a very receptive audience in Zurich.

[gumboot]

You see LastChild, for the NIST Report to be the MOST LIKELY of all possible explanations, NIST must have thought about and tested every possible explanation.


This comment is unfathomably stupid. Even more so for coming from a scientist. No person, ever, in the entire history of our species, has been capable of having "thought about and tested every possible explanation". Ergo, by your logic, the human race knows nothing.

And you call yourself a scientist.

-Gumboot

[Jonnyclueless]

I have seen the same complaints Dr Greening is making made by other people about Greening's work. I think that if someone's work doesn't have some other scientists claiming it's complete crap, then it isn't very good work. Is there even such thing as scientific research that no one has any issues with? Has anyone written a paper that everyone in the world agrees with?

[gumboot]

apollo, seriuosly lay off the name calling and the rhetoric. YOUR science is good, but when you start getting into the personal insults, you are becoming no better than the truthers

Just when I think you're doing fine, you slip into the behavior of the same of the truthers.

YOU'RE better than this.


I'm surprised you think this.

This has been his standard posting attitude from day zero.

-Gumboot

[Jonnyclueless]

accidental post

[tarrou]

I and others can, and have, come up with plenty of other stories that fit the evidence just as well or better as NIST's effort.


This is a very bold claim. But as long as you refuse to present these other stories, it is unfortunately worthless.

[Par]

You see LastChild, for the NIST Report to be the MOST LIKELY of all possible explanations, NIST must have thought about and tested every possible explanation. There is NO WAY NIST did this. Thus NIST's collapse hypothesis - because that's all it is - is just one possible hypothesis, NOT, as the JREF debunking crowd suggest, the most likely hypothesis.


Very silly stuff. Why do the peculiar go all “creationist” when it comes to 9/11? Moreover, why would a scientist knowingly use anti-science demagoguery to encourage a conspiracy theorist? Oh, well. It takes all sorts, I suppose.

“You see Zen, for the theory of evolution to be the MOST LIKELY of all possible explanations, evolutionary biologists must have thought about and tested every possible explanation. There is NO WAY they did this. Thus the evolution hypothesis - because that's all it is - is just one possible hypothesis, NOT, as the pro-science crowd suggest, the most likely hypothesis.”

(Hint: When people say that the prosaic explanation is the most likely, they mean the most likely we have available to us. If you believe you can come up with a new one that it more likely again, then by all means do so.)

[Mobyseven]

Frank:

Please go and see a doctor, seriously. You're unexpected mood swings and sudden changes of opinion are not indicative of a healthy mind. You do good work some of the time - please seek medical attention so as not to detract from that.

[MG1962]

Don't we also have to include FEMA and ASCE then too?

I don't know why the opposition to NIST stops at their laborious work. There were all kinds of agencies and individuals involved with the investigations.

Moreover, those at Swiss Re with the most to gain (financially) from a reopened investigation or an outright rejection of the NIST conclusions have not, in years of litigation, sensed the requirement for a new investigation. Here's a sample of some of the legal claims brought against Westfield America regarding the terrorist attacks: http://www.eapdlaw.com/files/News/5ea79777-c129-440f-a02e-9fcbd2a9ad7c/Presentation/NewsAttachment/a0b5a4ae-75d4-4a86-9952-9fdcc27ef96d/media.317.pdf. There are many many others available for reading at your leisure.

A lack of legal claims based on inaccurate investigation isn't the only barometer of their veracity but they rank pretty high on the list. Swiss Re's chairman Jacques Dubois has been outspoken about the risks insurers bear due to terrorist attacks. I am absolutely certain that if Dr. Greening's "other stories" could bear fruit that he'd have a very receptive audience in Zurich.

Yeah thats a very good point - Never get between a Swiss banker and his money lol. And you could also add insurance companies into that list - They search for every concievable loop hole to get out of paying - so for them to not argue against the NIST report on those grounds, does say an awful lot

[uk_dave]

They're in on it!! eleventy!11three!!!

[westprog]

Do these other stories include controlled demolition?

That's the crux of the matter. If there are two dozen explanations of the collapse, it doesn't matter, in terms of political implications, if they all start with the single cause of the aircraft impacts. It might make a difference for design of high rise buildings, but in deciding whether Bush planned the whole thing, it's irrelevant.

If someone wants a new investigation, then he needs to show that it is plausible that the collapse was not caused by aircraft impacts alone, and that some other seperate event was required.

[WildCat]

I have often wondered at the vitriol leveled at the NIST
Frank's problem with NIST is that it's full of engineers, and Frank hates engineers. It's as simple as that.

[stilicho]

Yeah thats a very good point - Never get between a Swiss banker and his money lol. And you could also add insurance companies into that list - They search for every concievable loop hole to get out of paying - so for them to not argue against the NIST report on those grounds, does say an awful lot
Well, Swiss Re technically is an insurer and not a bank; they've been around a long time too, and lost a considerable amount in the 1906 San Francisco earthquake and fire.

I recommend the "truthers" or the NIST sceptics to take a look at the litigation Swiss Re, led by Jacques Dubois, brought against Silverstein and Westfield America. If there was anything at all to be gained from a new investigation--especially one that proves the owners or operators of the WTC purposely abetted the destruction of the assets--the insurers would finance it themselves. This is practically the number one reason that I know the anti-NISTians have nothing.

So yeah, "eleventy-eleven" as the poster after you said.

[SpitfireIX]

Well I was gone for a little while and came back to see what the duh bunkas were up to with all their scary facts and I see the thread is already starting to degrade into the usual schoolyard antics. . . .


We're well aware that you "Truthers" think facts are scary.

[Par]

We're well aware that you "Truthers" think facts are scary.


Nah. He sneers at the notion of facts. “Facts don’t scare this tough-guy. Oh no.” Telling.

[Myriad]

LastChild has no idea what happened on 9/11.

The only think he's certain of -- and his certainty on this point is oddly unshakeable -- is that whatever happened, someone in the U.S. Government should be punished for it.

The purpose of the new investigation that he will soon advocate is not to determine whether or not this is indeed the case, it's just to decide exactly whom to punish.

We've been over this before, LC. Remember?

What if it never happens? What will you do?

Respectfully,
Myriad

[LastChild]

LastChild has no idea what happened on 9/11.

The only think he's certain of -- and his certainty on this point is oddly unshakeable -- is that whatever happened, someone in the U.S. Government should be punished for it.

The purpose of the new investigation that he will soon advocate is not to determine whether or not this is indeed the case, it's just to decide exactly whom to punish.

We've been over this before, LC. Remember?

What if it never happens? What will you do?

Respectfully,
Myriad

You got a date? Have you got that WTC7 report yet? How about that war on terror? Did we win yet? How about that ghost you claim is behind the 9/11 attacks has he materialized yet? Will that be never too?

What will you do then?

[Gravy]

Hmm, so that's your coherent theory of what happened on 9/11? Interesting.

[Sporanox]

You got a date?

Heh?

Have you got that WTC7 report yet?

Don't need it.

How about that war on terror? Did we win yet?

And your point is...?

What will you do then?

Heh?

More meaninglessness...

[LastChild]

Hmm, so that's your coherent theory of what happened on 9/11? Interesting.

No you're the one with the story. You know the one that claims some guy no one can seem to find was behind the 9/11 attacks?

Is it never yet for your wasted debunker life?

[stateofgrace]

No you're the one with the story. You know the one that claims some guy no one can seem to find was behind the 9/11 attacks?

Is it never yet for your wasted debunker life?

Who would this be LC?

[LastChild]

Who would this be LC?

Wow you don't even know that much about your own story?

Here's a clue. He has a long beard but it ain't Santa.

But in might as well be.

[stateofgrace]

Wow you don't even know that much about your own story?

Here's a clue. He has a long beard but it ain't Santa.

But in might as well be.

What story is that LC? The one where Islamic extremists carried out cold bloodied mass murder against the citizens of the planet or the one you have yet to present?

[Gravy]

No you're the one with the story. You know the one that claims some guy no one can seem to find was behind the 9/11 attacks? Huh. Do you have some evidence that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is not in U.S. custody, awaiting trial? I'm very interested to hear this remarkable information.

While you're thinking about that, here's a challenge issued in 2006 by Rolling Stone writer Matt Taibbi:

I challenge a 9/11 Truth leader like Loose Change writer Dylan Avery to come up with a detailed, complete summary of the alleged plot -- not the bits and pieces, but the whole story, put together -- that would not make any fifth grader anywhere burst out in convulsive laughter. And without that, all the rest of it is bosh and bunkum, on the order of the "sonar evidence" proving the existence of the Loch Ness monster. If you can't put all of these alleged scientific impossibilities together into a story that makes sense, then all you're doing is jerking off -- and it's not like no one's ever done that on the Internet before.Go ahead, LastChild: take the challenge. Give us your version, and we'll see if fifth graders mock you.

[Totovader]

I don't see the reasoning- if the theory involves a criminal that cannot be found... it's not a valid theory?

But... then all cases would be invalid...

LastChild, this makes no sense.

[LastChild]

What story is that LC? The one where Islamic extremists carried out cold bloodied mass murder against the citizens of the planet or the one you have yet to present?

Wow you really are wasting your life.

Carry on.

[stateofgrace]

Wow you really are wasting your life.

Carry on.

Please expand.

[Totovader]

Wow you really are wasting your life.

Carry on.

:drool:

Elucidate- you think that Islamic extremists do not exist?


ETA: what stateofgrace said

[Mobyseven]

LastChild: What flaws were you able to find in the NIST report? Specifically, what do you disagree with in regards to the initiating process?

[LastChild]

Huh. Do you have some evidence that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is not in U.S. custody, awaiting trial? I'm very interested to hear this remarkable information.

While you're thinking about that, here's a challenge issued in 2006 by Rolling Stone writer Matt Taibbi:

Go ahead, LastChild: take the challenge. Give us your version, and we'll see if fifth graders mock you.

I told you you're the one with the story. You're also the one who get's plenty of laughs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhf3u2j2R2k

[Coffee]

yadda yadda yadda

*Plonk* - oldschool usenet style.

[Totovader]

I told you you're the one with the story. You're also the one who get's plenty of laughs.


So you ignore the challenge- and indeed ignore any requests for you to even present your position- because you're scared of being laughed at?

How telling.

[LastChild]

:drool:

Elucidate- you think that Islamic extremists do not exist?


ETA: what stateofgrace said

No. Actually there are probably more today then ever before. How did that happen?

[LastChild]

So you ignore the challenge- and indeed ignore any requests for you to even present your position- because you're scared of being laughed at?

How telling.

What challenge?

[stateofgrace]

No. Actually there are probably more today then ever before. How did that happen?

There is no probability about it sunbeam, now, please expand on you pervious remarks.

Wow you really are wasting your life.

Carry on.

[tomwaits]

Here's a clue. He has a long beard but it ain't Santa.

Charles Darwin?
ZZ Top?
Orthodox Jews? It's the jews, isn't it?

[LastChild]

LastChild: What flaws were you able to find in the NIST report? Specifically, what do you disagree with in regards to the initiating process?

What's to disagree with other then it's just speculation and not proof of what happened?

[Sporanox]

What's to disagree with other then it's just speculation and not proof of what happened?

What kind of science education DO you have, LastChild? What gives you the authority to dismiss the report as speculation?

Who do you believe that said it was speculation?

[LastChild]

Oh this challenge?

I challenge a 9/11 Truth leader like Loose Change writer Dylan Avery to come up with a detailed, complete summary of the alleged plot -- not the bits and pieces, but the whole story, put together -- that would not make any fifth grader anywhere burst out in convulsive laughter. And without that, all the rest of it is bosh and bunkum, on the order of the "sonar evidence" proving the existence of the Loch Ness monster. If you can't put all of these alleged scientific impossibilities together into a story that makes sense, then all you're doing is jerking off -- and it's not like no one's ever done that on the Internet before.

Has he sent this to NIST in regards to the WTC7 report? What a loud mouth know nothing.

[LastChild]

What kind of science education DO you have, LastChild? What gives you the authority to dismiss the report as speculation?

Who do you believe that said it was speculation?

I believe I said it.

[Arus808]

um seeing that he is targeting the 911 truther's not those who are not truthers.. you apparently have a reading comprehension problem

[bynmdsue]

Here's a clue. He has a long beard but it ain't Santa.

KSM didn't have a beard the last time we saw him.In fact I'd never describe his beard as long.

[Sporanox]

I believe I said it.

You believe only yourself?

Has he sent this to NIST in regards to the WTC7 report? What a loud mouth know nothing.

There is no substance behind allegations that WTC7 is explained clearly enough. Should NIST release another report, no doubt none of the truthers would believe it. After all, everybody who wrote it is in on the conspiracy...

[Myriad]

You got a date?


Sorry, I'm married.

Have you got that WTC7 report yet?


No. I didn't even know you wrote a report on WTC7. What kind of analytical models did you use? Please post a link or PM me a copy.

How about that war on terror? Did we win yet?


I did. But you're losing, because you're still too terrified to acknowledge that militant extremists have the desire, will, and resources to attempt to kill you, and might possibly succeed despite all the efforts of those who (despite your contempt for them) are doing their best to protect you.

How about that ghost you claim is behind the 9/11 attacks has he materialized yet? Will that be never too?

What will you do then?


Whether he materializes or not, or when, has no bearing on his role in 9/11.

If, as a result of his remaining uncaptured, he manages to cause more attacks, then what I will do is mourn the victims, if I'm still around to do so.

Now, your turn.

How do you plan to decide who in the U.S. government to punish for the 9/11 attacks?

Do you care whether or not the one(s) punished is(are) actually guilty of anything?

Suppose another six years goes by and still no one in the U.S. government got punished for 9/11. What will that mean to you? What will you do?

Respectfully,
Myriad

[LastChild]

KSM didn't have a beard the last time we saw him.In fact I'd never describe his beard as long.

KSM? Is that the story you're going with these days? The waterboarded world record holder guy? Didn't he confess to shootng Lincoln too?

LOL

[Arus808]

yes LC everything is a comedy to you.

[LastChild]

How do you plan to decide who in the U.S. government to punish for the 9/11 attacks?

There would have to be a real investigation first. Haven't I already told you that?

Do you care whether or not the one(s) punished is(are) actually guilty of anything?

Why would they be punished if they're not guilty?

Suppose another six years goes by and still no one in the U.S. government got punished for 9/11. What will that mean to you? What will you do?

What am I doing now?

[Totovader]

What challenge?

You don't even read the posts you're responding to...

... also very telling.

[stateofgrace]

KSM? Is that the story you're going with these days? The waterboarded world record holder guy? Didn't he confess to shootng Lincoln too?

LOL

So these guys are also wrong?


MADRID, Spain (AP) - Spain's leading investigating judge issued the first known indictment against Osama bin Laden in the Sept. 11 attacks yesterday, accusing al-Qaida of using the country as a base to plot the devastating strikes on New York and Washington.



Prosecutors are seeking jail terms of almost 75,000 years each for the three - 25 years for each of the nearly 3,000 people killed in the attack – but the maximum sentence for a terrorism conviction under Spanish law is 40 years.



A Syrian man accused of heading a Spanish al-Qaeda cell and helping to organise the 9/11 attacks has been jailed for 27 years in Madrid

A Moroccan man convicted in Germany as an accessory to the attacks on the United States in September 2001 has been sentenced to 15 years in jail.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article384248.ece
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6242867.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4281808.stm

LC , you were saying about long bearded people, please expand.

[Myriad]

Why would they be punished if they're not guilty?

I don't think they should be. But I wasn't sure you'd agree. For instance, here:

KSM? Is that the story you're going with these days? The waterboarded world record holder guy? Didn't he confess to shootng Lincoln too?

LOL


... you seem to be laughing out loud because you believe that an innocent man was coerced into falsely confessing and then hanged. So, I can't really use how most people would feel about wrongdoing and punishment as a reliable guide in your case.

What am I doing now?


I answered that exact question in this post: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3179704#post3179704.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[A W Smith]

What am I doing now?

what are you doing now he asks?

I challenge a 9/11 Truth leader like Loose Change writer Dylan Avery to come up with a detailed, complete summary of the alleged plot -- not the bits and pieces, but the whole story, put together -- that would not make any fifth grader anywhere burst out in convulsive laughter. And without that, all the rest of it is bosh and bunkum, on the order of the "sonar evidence" proving the existence of the Loch Ness monster. If you can't put all of these alleged scientific impossibilities together into a story that makes sense, then all you're doing is jerking off -- and it's not like no one's ever done that on the Internet before.

[MIKILLINI]

So, will LC ever present his own theory? Jury is still out, apparently.

[tomwaits]

He doesn't have a theory. All he has is GRRR ANGER at you EVIL DEBUNKERS for being a bunch of BIG MEANIES!

[beachnut]

KSM? Is that the story you're going with these days? The waterboarded world record holder guy? Didn't he confess to shootng Lincoln too?

LOL
Our torture is a joke. Get real, and figure out my big brother was worse than water boarding, and you are just a kid who may be so spoiled that your biggest torture is missing your favorite show on cable. Sad, you are too weak to be a real contender in the NWO order where most Chinese are better at written English than you or I. You will be a service provider to the NWO, and they will not be us. Sad, your abilities to understand 9/11 are a premonition of your future plight. Wake up. It may be too late …

[uk_dave]

He doesn't have a theory. All he has is GRRR ANGER at you EVIL DEBUNKERS for being a bunch of BIG MEANIES!


It certainly comes across like that. I mean, how dare people pour scorn and ridicule upon his ill thought out fantasy which he bravely and without regard for his own personal safety puts forth upon the...ummmmm internet.

[Par]

Can you present your theory now, LastChild?

[I Am He]

My dear LostChild, I just had to invite some friend over to read your replies to some of these posts. And do you know what?? They all though that you are a perfect example for my Sig. Come to think of it, so do I. You have to remember my dear, that someday when you grow up, those replies are going to be around to haunt you. I do hope, for your own sake, that you start acting more maturely if you do not wish this to happen.

[LastChild]

Can you present your theory now, LastChild?

They should have a real investigation into 9/11

[JimBenArm]

They should have a real investigation into 9/11
They did. Can't help it you don't like their conclusion. However, it seems you can't accept adult, sane, rational conclusions.

Fortunately, this is entirely your problem, and not mine.

Yay, me!

[beachnut]

They should have a real investigation into 9/11
Oops. There were and are many real investigations on 9/11. How did you miss all of them?

[Par]

Can you present your theory now, LastChild?
They should have a real investigation into 9/11


Please stop trying to change the subject. Can you present your theory now, LastChild?

[JimBenArm]

Please stop trying to change the subject. Can you present your theory now, LastChild?
Unfortunately, that IS his entire theory.

Awesome, isn't it?

[Vincent Vega]

Wow you really are wasting your life.

Carry on.


Is it never yet for your wasted debunker life?

GET A LIFE

Wow, what's the impulse regarding everyone having a 'wasted life'? Sounds like serious case of projection.

[peteweaver]

What's the point? If I had a theory and you debunked it would it make your version true?

Lastchild, the idea is that if your version of events has truth to it, it is watertight, and therefore undebunkable.

So please, if you have any hard evidence, please let us see it.

This is a place of debate critique of arguments, and discussion of facts, not a place for attacking each other.

[LastChild]

Lastchild, the idea is that if your version of events has truth to it, it is watertight, and therefore undebunkable.

I never said I had a version. Unlike you I think there should be a real investigation before anyone goes shooting their mouth off claiming they know for a fact exactly what happened on 9/11.

So please, if you have any hard evidence, please let us see it.

You first. You're the one who claims to know the truth.

This is a place of debate critique of arguments, and discussion of facts, not a place for attacking each other.

Could have fooled me.

[DavidJames]

Lastchild, the idea is that if your version of events has truth to it, it is watertight, and therefore undebunkable.

So please, if you have any hard evidence, please let us see it.

This is a place of debate critique of arguments, and discussion of facts, not a place for attacking each other.LC, along with Red and Swing, refuse to make any claims. They are of the "JAQ's" variety. They don't want to make any statements they would need to support with evidence. The last thing they want to do is be in a position to have to deal with people like themselves ;). They try to never put themselves into a position where they could be "wrong". Their goal is to play "gotcha", put the burden of proof on everyone else and try and find the nit they can pick at.

They are also the most disingenuous of the CTists. Their beliefs are rock solid that the U.S. govt. is behind 9/11, yet they keep pretending to be researching by JAQ's.

[Calcas]

LC, along with Red and Swing, refuse to make any claims. They are of the "JAQ's" variety. They don't want to make any statements they would need to support with evidence. The last thing they want to do is be in a position to have to deal with people like themselves ;). They try to never put themselves into a position where they could be "wrong". Their goal is to play "gotcha", put the burden of proof on everyone else and try and find the nit they can pick at.

They are also the most disingenuous of the CTists. Their beliefs are rock solid that the U.S. govt. is behind 9/11, yet they keep pretending to be researching by JAQ's.

They're always "just asking questions." Perhaps we should suggest they just ask the questions of firefighters.

That way we can tell them to go JAQ OFF.

[DavidJames]

They're always "just asking questions." Perhaps we should suggest they just ask the questions of firefighters.

That way we can tell them to go JAQ OFF.That's the thing, they JAQ OFF here. They don't go to primary sources. They think the U.S. govt. is complicit in murder of 3000 people and they write about it on an Internet forum.

It's really very sad. Think about the psychology behind someone who thinks they know who murdered 3000 people and do nothing of substance about it.

[uk_dave]

It's really very sad. Think about the psychology behind someone who thinks they know who murdered 3000 people and do nothing of substance about it.

meh, it's cheaper to just witter on about it on internet forum. Less dangerous also. Of course, some intrepid investigators do take that important step of entering into the real world with......


........ a book or a film, in the hope that they can make a real difference......


........ to their lives.

$$$ :D

[LastChild]

People should ask question about 9/11. What people shouldn’t do is pretend to answer the questions.

That’s all you do here. Pretend debunking.

[TriskettheKid]

People should ask question about 9/11. What people shouldn’t do is pretend to answer the questions.

That’s all you do here. Pretend debunking.

Pray tell, what is the point of asking questions if you don't care for the answers?

[DavidJames]

Pray tell, what is the point of asking questions if you don't care for the answers?Let's not forget to whom he is asking the questions...

To the police?
To lawers?
To Insurance fraud investigators?
To District Attorney's?
To NIST?
To professional engineering organizations?
To professional demolition organizations?
To the mainstream media?
To any of the above in any country, in case they think the U.S. is 100% "in on it"?

No. They are asking anonymously on an Internet forum.

[beachnut]

People should ask question about 9/11. What people shouldn’t do is pretend to answer the questions.

That’s all you do here. Pretend debunking.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/12447460d8430f0ca9.jpg
Oh, you want questions, you need to join some of these guys who sell lies and make money off of real dumb people like... (sounds like a PBS... )

why does your post remind me of LC ...

[Vincent Vega]

People should ask question about 9/11. What people shouldn’t do is pretend to answer the questions.

That’s all you do here. Pretend debunking.

NO they should look for answers.

It's only pretend debunking if you can prove the answers are wrong.

[chillzero]

Keep it civil here, please.

[AMTMAN]

People should ask question about 9/11. What people shouldn’t do is pretend to answer the questions.

That’s all you do here. Pretend debunking.

Some people, like you, should stop pretending that they don't have a theory. When they do so and then turn around and repeat truther mantras and use their terminology it make them look dishonest.

Here's the thing, you don't want answers. What you want is someone to confirm your own pet theory. If you don't get it you accuse them of "pretend debunking".

[stateofgrace]

People should ask question about 9/11.


Yes they should LC, so are you now going to apply this criteria to the 911 truth movement?

Will you start questioning their assertions and claims?

The main claim being that 911 was an inside job. Do you question this? Have you any questions at all that you feel need to be asked of this claim? Or do you blindly accept it?

Is to even question the very foundation of your own questions out of the question?

[PhantomWolf]

KSM? Is that the story you're going with these days? The waterboarded world record holder guy? Didn't he confess to shootng Lincoln too?

LOL

Show that anything major that KSM confessed to planning or being involved in wasn't already known about or at least suspected of being an Al Qaeda plot.

They should have a real investigation into 9/11

Who is "they" and what do you consider a "real investigation"?

[LastChild]

Show that anything major that KSM confessed to planning or being involved in wasn't already known about or at least suspected of being an Al Qaeda plot.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/library/news/2007/03/sec-070315-voa03.htm


Terrorist Leader Confession Raises Questions
By Gary Thomas
Washington
15 March 2007
But some experts believe that while Mohammad was indeed a key al-Qaida figure, they also say some of his claims are open to question and that he may be inflating his importance in some areas. In 2005, the commission that investigated the September 11 attacks noted Mohammad's sometimes extravagant ambitions and said that he liked to cast himself as a super-terrorist.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009814

KSM's Confession

BY EDWARD JAY EPSTEIN
Wednesday, March 21, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

Of course, KSM's credibility is a very big "if." He might have lied in his confession about his role in the 1993 WTC bombing; he might have lied to his CIA captors (which itself would say something about the effectiveness of their aggressive interrogation); or, in selecting bits and pieces out of their full context, the CIA project officer may have accidentally mis-briefed the 9/11 Commission staff.

The commission considered using its subpoena power, but was advised by its general counsel that since KSM was being held in a secret prison on foreign soil, it was unlikely that any court would enforce a subpoena. The commission also decided against taking the issue public, believing it could not win in a battle with the administration, at least in the time it had left. So, lacking any viable alternatives, it allowed the CIA to control the information it needed from KSM and other detainees.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/03/exclusive_pearl.html
Exclusive: Pearl Family Doubts KSM Confession
The father of murdered Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl says he doesn't believe al Qaeda mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed is the man who beheaded his son, despite Mohammed's confession to a U.S. military tribunal.
"He wants to take credit for doing it, and he wants to exonerate al Qaeda, blame Pakistan and whatever," said Judea Pearl, Danny's father. "When a person confesses and he has nothing to lose, you have to take it with a spice of doubt."


Who is "they" and what do you consider a "real investigation"?

We the people

[JimBenArm]

We the people? If you mean your fellow truthers, hey, take up a collection and do it already. What, do you need our permission? Our approval? What? Get off your tiny heinies and get with it!
Sheesh, I'm so tired of hearing you all whine about needing a new investigation, and doing zippo about it. We have to do everything FOR you?

[LastChild]

Yes they should LC, so are you now going to apply this criteria to the 911 truth movement?

Will you start questioning their assertions and claims?

The main claim being that 911 was an inside job. Do you question this? Have you any questions at all that you feel need to be asked of this claim? Or do you blindly accept it?

Is to even question the very foundation of your own questions out of the question?

As a matter of fact I have had questions on some of the conspiracy theories. For instance I' m not much of a no planer. Although I concede it could be possible that some video might be fake or embellished it doesn't necessarily mean inside job even if someone could prove it. I mean newspapers and tabloids have been faking pictures forever just so they could have an exclusive shot.

I also once asked a no-planer that if videos of the planes going into the one tower were all fake then why didn't they just whip up some fake videos of all the other planes crashing on 9/11? Especially the pentagon. When I asked they just said they didn't know.

It doesn’t really matter to me though because as far as I’m concerned there all conspiracy theories the official version included. No one knows the complete truth about 9/11 some people just claim to.

[PhantomWolf]

http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/library/news/2007/03/sec-070315-voa03.htm


Terrorist Leader Confession Raises Questions
By Gary Thomas
Washington
15 March 2007
But some experts believe that while Mohammad was indeed a key al-Qaida figure, they also say some of his claims are open to question and that he may be inflating his importance in some areas. In 2005, the commission that investigated the September 11 attacks noted Mohammad's sometimes extravagant ambitions and said that he liked to cast himself as a super-terrorist.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009814

KSM's Confession

BY EDWARD JAY EPSTEIN
Wednesday, March 21, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

Of course, KSM's credibility is a very big "if." He might have lied in his confession about his role in the 1993 WTC bombing; he might have lied to his CIA captors (which itself would say something about the effectiveness of their aggressive interrogation); or, in selecting bits and pieces out of their full context, the CIA project officer may have accidentally mis-briefed the 9/11 Commission staff.

The commission considered using its subpoena power, but was advised by its general counsel that since KSM was being held in a secret prison on foreign soil, it was unlikely that any court would enforce a subpoena. The commission also decided against taking the issue public, believing it could not win in a battle with the administration, at least in the time it had left. So, lacking any viable alternatives, it allowed the CIA to control the information it needed from KSM and other detainees.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/03/exclusive_pearl.html
Exclusive: Pearl Family Doubts KSM Confession
The father of murdered Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl says he doesn't believe al Qaeda mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed is the man who beheaded his son, despite Mohammed's confession to a U.S. military tribunal.
"He wants to take credit for doing it, and he wants to exonerate al Qaeda, blame Pakistan and whatever," said Judea Pearl, Danny's father. "When a person confesses and he has nothing to lose, you have to take it with a spice of doubt."

Nice quotes, but none of them say he didn't actually do what he says he did, they just say they suspect he might not have (by the way, KSM is the Uncle of Ramzi Yousef and he funded him for the attack in 1993, though I'll note here neither of them were members of or ascociated with Al Qaeda at the time.) Since Pearl's killers wore masks there is not evidence that he wasn't the one that did the actual killing just his son speculating. Got anything better?

We the people

It's been 6 years, what are you doing about it?

[LastChild]

Nice quotes, but none of them say he didn't actually do what he says he did, they just say they suspect he might not have (by the way, KSM is the Uncle of Ramzi Yousef and he funded him for the attack in 1993, though I'll note here neither of them were members of or ascociated with Al Qaeda at the time.) Since Pearl's killers wore masks there is not evidence that he wasn't the one that did the actual killing just his son speculating. Got anything better?

His confession means nothing. Especially under torture. Have you got anything better? What happen to UBL? Giving up on him?

It's been 6 years, what are you doing about it?

Anything I can. Yes 6 years and where is the boogeyman Al Queda leader? Is he under your bed?

BOO!

[PhantomWolf]

His confession means nothing. Especially under torure.

He wasn't tortured for the confession. The CIA tortured him before he was send to G. bay, but he stated at the hearing that he had been treated well since then and that the confession he gave was his own. Now you could say that he was being forced to say that, but why complain about the CIA mistreating him and say the opposite about his current position? If he was being forced to say something then surely he would have said the CIA treated him well too.

Have you got anything better?

How aboout that he confessed to being the main planner for the attacks on TV in 2003, prior to his being captured. I guess that was due to his fear of the CIA's up coming torture, right?

What happen to UBL? Giving up on him?

Last I heard there were still UN forces in Afghanistan with orders to capture him if they can locate him, he's still wanted by the FBI, are you suggesting that they don't want to catch him?

Anything I can.

Posting on the internet does not count as a new investigation. How about getting a panel to gether and talking with a bunch of real scientists and engineers.

Yes 6 years and where is the boogeyman Al Queda leader? Is he under your bed?

If he was under my bed he'd have to be really thin, and since I'm not in the middle of the Afghanistan/Pakistan border areas, I doubt he's anywhere near me, but hey, if you keep waving your arms that hard you might be able to overfly the area and help out the troops there looking.

[JimBenArm]

Anything I can.
Anything you can? As in what, exactly? Complaining to us about how we need a new investigation? Making snarky comments?

What, exactly, constructive have you done?

Raised any money? Started any revolutions? Or does whining here count as all you've accomplished?

Know where I'm placing my bets...

[PhantomWolf]

Or does whining here count as all you've accomplished

Oh I'm sure that he's whined in other places as well...

[LastChild]

He wasn't tortured for the confession. The CIA tortured him before he was send to G. bay, but he stated at the hearing that he had been treated well since then and that the confession he gave was his own. Now you could say that he was being forced to say that, but why complain about the CIA mistreating him and say the opposite about his current position? If he was being forced to say something then surely he would have said the CIA treated him well too.

He wasn't tortured for the confession? You mean he was rewarded for his confession? LOL

How aboout that he confessed to being the main planner for the attacks on TV in 2003, prior to his being captured. I guess that was due to his fear of the CIA's up coming torture, right?

How about it? Bragging about being a Big Time terrorist in the Middle East is like bragging about being a War hero in the States. It means nothing.

Last I heard there were still UN forces in Afghanistan with orders to capture him if they can locate him, he's still wanted by the FBI, are you suggesting that they don't want to catch him?

I don't even know if he's alive or even exsists anymore and neither does anyone else. Maybe if they caught him even more people wouldn't think the war on terror is necessary anymore. Would everyone be happy with that idea?

Posting on the internet does not count as a new investigation. How about getting a panel to gether and talking with a bunch of real scientists and engineers.

You don't know me or what I do. You should worry about filling in the holes on your version. Not as many people are buying into it as you might think.

If he was under my bed he'd have to be really thin, and since I'm not in the middle of the Afghanistan/Pakistan border areas, I doubt he's anywhere near me, but hey, if you keep waving your arms that hard you might be able to overfly the area and help out the troops there looking.

How do you know he's near the Afghanistan/Pakistan border? He could be in Crawford getting ready to spend the Holidays with old family friends. I hear it's easy for him to charter flights so you never know. It's like that when you have friends in high places.

[stateofgrace]

As a matter of fact I have had questions on some of the conspiracy theories. For instance I' m not much of a no planer. Although I concede it could be possible that some video might be fake or embellished it doesn't necessarily mean inside job even if someone could prove it. I mean newspapers and tabloids have been faking pictures forever just so they could have an exclusive shot.

I also once asked a no-planer that if videos of the planes going into the one tower were all fake then why didn't they just whip up some fake videos of all the other planes crashing on 9/11? Especially the pentagon. When I asked they just said they didn't know.

It doesn’t really matter to me though because as far as I’m concerned there all conspiracy theories the official version included. No one knows the complete truth about 9/11 some people just claim to.

No LC, this is not what I asked; I asked do you ever question the very foundation of your own questions?

Do you for once step back and question the very basic premise of the truth movement? It being one way or the other 911 was an inside job.

Take for example the claim you have made, that being a new investigation is needed. Do you ever question this? Do you ever probe and scrutinise this claim?

Why is a new investigation is needed LC? What area needs reinvestigating? Who should do it ?

Do you not accept that Al Qaeda carried out this attack? Why do you not accept this?

It is easy to ask questions LC, and it the basic question of all is if you seriously doubt the commonly accepted version of events then why? Why do you not accept that Islamic extremists attacked the US?

Do you seriously believe the world would stand idly by while Islamic terrorists murder their citizens? Why do you believe this? Do you genuinely believe that you are the only person that sees this and everybody else is blissfully unaware? Why do you believe this?

Asking questions is one thing, offering up a realist alternative version of events is another.It is clear you are incapable of such a feat as is the movement that promote these alternative theories.

[Corsair 115]

Yes 6 years and where is the boogeyman Al Queda leader? Is he under your bed?So you think it should be easy to find one person in the rugged, mountainous, and remote regions along the Afghanistan/Pakistan border, a place where everyone is sympathetic to OBL and his views? A place where there is little in the way of official national government and instead is governed by the local tribes?

Any particular reason why you think it'd be easy?

[westprog]

People should ask question about 9/11. What people shouldn’t do is pretend to answer the questions.

That’s all you do here. Pretend debunking.

And that's the hole in the child's position.

He wants a real investigation, but he doesn't care for the kind of investigating that is done by the people here. There's an amazing array of expertise on JREF which has been brought to bear on 911. Pilots, engineers, firemen - people who have experience of all the relevant disciplines.

So why does the child dismiss everything they have to say en bloc? Why doesn't he want to hear what a fireman might have to say about 911? Well, that's obvious. The conclusions they reach aren't what he wants to hear.

That's also, in a broader sense, why such experts are routinely banned from the conspiracy forums. No matter what their expertise, if their conclusions don't fit, they are disregarded.

It's fairly plain that the child is being disengenous when he's JAQ. There is a mountain of material there, which can address his questions. He doesn't want it.

[PhantomWolf]

He wasn't tortured for the confession? You mean he was rewarded for his confession? LOL

False dichotomy fallacy.

How about it? Bragging about being a Big Time terrorist in the Middle East is like bragging about being a War hero in the States. It means nothing.

Then it's rather funny that no others but Bin Laden and KSM have ever publicly claimed responsibility. Surely if it was just bragging we'd have confessions from Hamas, Hesboallah, and half a dozen others. Why have the only ones that have confessed to being in on the planning been people that are involved in Al Qaeda? If they weren't involved, why have people such as Ramzi Binalshibh confessd to being in on it? Why did all the principles involved in Germany all disappear off to Afghanistan just days before the attacks? This is all a coincidence? Why was there correspondence on Zacarias Moussaoui's computer with KSM and Binalshibh dealing with him training to fly one of the planes? Why was the money that Atta, Jarrah, Honjour, Moussaoui and al-Shehhi used for flight training and living in the US traced back to Binalshibh in Germany and from him to KSM? All of the evidence points in one direction, and the best you have is to close your eyes and ignore it. Some "truth" seeker you are. You claim you want a new investigation, but you refuse to even look at the evidence of the first one.

I don't even know if he's alive or even exsists anymore and neither does anyone else. Maybe if they caught him even more people wouldn't think the war on terror is necessary anymore. Would everyone be happy with that idea?

Bin Laden isn't the only person in the world financing and running terror campaigns, he just happens to be the most focused on by the media currently. Personally I agree with the idea of not deliberately going after him alone and making him the focus of the WoT precisely because it would give the impression that once he was gone there'd be no more terrorism. There was terrorism long before Bin laden and there will be long after him. Having said that I actually disagree with the way the WoT itself is being run, I don't think that any American Administration has ever understood the Middle Eastern mind, and Bush's in particular. The way he is doing things will backfire on him and the US.

You don't know me or what I do. You should worry about filling in the holes on your version. Not as many people are buying into it as you might think.

I know you aren't out there raising money and organising an investigation committee to sit down and go over all the evidence collected by the thousands of people involved in the collecting, collating and analysing of the evidence from 9/11. Why not? You claim that you want a new investigation; well that's what you need to do to have one. As to what I'm doing, well I have no need to do anything. I have done my own research (and continue to do it, at the present time I'm half way through Steve Coll's Ghost wars which unfortunately is a book you'd never even bother to consider reading because it might make you reconsider your world view) and I am perfectly satisfied with my conclusions, as are 95% of the population by the last poll results.

How do you know he's near the Afghanistan/Pakistan border? He could be in Crawford getting ready to spend the Holidays with old family friends. I hear it's easy for him to charter flights so you never know. It's like that when you have friends in high places.

Educated guess, there aren't a lot of places for him to go, despite your incredulousness. When all you can do is wave your hands in the air, and shout, "lalalalala, I can't hear you and even if I could I'm never going to believe it" you're in a very sorry position. By the way, the so-called chartered flight you mentioned, it wasn't chartered by Bin Laden, it was chartered by the Saudi Royal family.

[dudalb]

So you think it should be easy to find one person in the rugged, mountainous, and remote regions along the Afghanistan/Pakistan border, a place where everyone is sympathetic to OBL and his views? A place where there is little in the way of official national government and instead is governed by the local tribes?

Any particular reason why you think it'd be easy?

That area is the Old Northwest Frontier of India,and at the height of it's power the British Empire could never really establish control. It is one of the wildest and toughest area to conduct military operations in on earth.
And then you have the problem that the Pakistani government has refused to allow the US in there to look. (Don't get me started on that issue).
Even if Pakistan was fully cooperative,it would still be finding the needle in the proverbial haystack.

[gumboot]

Even if Pakistan was fully cooperative,it would still be finding the needle in the proverbial haystack.


As it is it's like trying to find a needle in a stack of hay that has little arms and legs and doesn't want you to find the needle.

The easy solution would be to set fire to the entire haystack and then go pick through the ashes.

-Gumboot

[westprog]

I never said I had a version. Unlike you I think there should be a real investigation before anyone goes shooting their mouth off claiming they know for a fact exactly what happened on 9/11.


So clearly the child wants to know what really happened, and isn't satisfied with what has been revealed so far. He has no preconcieved ideas, and will accept whatever the investigation reveals, provided it is neutral and given the proper resources.

However, there's nothing to stop the child, for example, taking out the Yellow Pages, looking up a structural engineer or demolition expert, and asking his opinion. That would be "real investigating".

What I find interesting is that the child won't do this. We know he won't. He knows he won't. He also knows what any such expert will tell him. What I'd like to know is how he justifies this determination not to find out the information he claims to be searching for.

[PhantomWolf]

As it is it's like trying to find a needle in a stack of hay that has little arms and legs and doesn't want you to find the needle.

The easy solution would be to set fire to the entire haystack and then go pick through the ashes.

-Gumboot

Brings back memories of the call for Lake Afghanistan