Which is it Debunkers? And you're not going to get angry are you?

[LastChild]

Which is it Debunkers? Building content fire or steel melting jet fuel fire? Building content fire or 10 story gashes? Buckling or pancake? UBL or KSM? Where was Cheney again and when and what exactly was the order? The hijackers were identified or did they use fake ID’s? Which ones? Was the phone call Cheney claimed that stated “Angel is next” an inside job? Was it even true? What did Dubya claim to see on the TV before he went into the classroom? What TV? How many seconds did the towers fall in? Why did the news report WTC-7 falling before it fell and how did they know again? How hot did the steel get and just how do you know? Fireproofing sheered off or shaken off, and how much, and how do you know again? How many core columns were damaged and is that just a guess? How often does a high-rise suffer global collapse from anything other then explosives? Plane parts and serial numbers are where? Are they with the steel? Where are the other two black boxes again? Box-cutters or short knives? No pepper spray, bombs, or guns, on the planes, and how do you know, and just how did you know about the box-cutters again? How many lawsuits against the airlines have gone to trial? Who is poor Larry suing and why? Where is the hard evidence against UBL? In fact where the hell is UBL and who how many is keeping it a secret all of these years? Who mailed that Anthrax from a Government lab and is keeping that a secret all theses years? What’s that you claim about the impossibility of keeping secrets? Who chartered the flights after 9/11? How many victims’ remains are still missing and you want to know where the explosives evidence is? Where is the WTC-7 report? Who and how many planned and financed the mission? Got any names? Have any confessions that weren’t the product of torture? The administration had no idea someone would attempt to fly planes into the WTC or they had a pretty good idea? What did that folder say on Dubya’s desk when he had better things to do like build a nature walk down on the ranch? Dubya wanted a limited investigation into 9/11 why? Dubya wouldn’t talk to the commission separate from Cheney and under oath why? Kean and Hamilton said the investigation was obstructed and you claim to know what and based on what? Your general expert consensus and their personal quotes supporting the official theory are where? Is 9/11 the only thing this administration has told the truth about or is it really more like the fables they told about, WMD’s, Valerie Plame, Pat Tillman, attorney firings, torture, wire tapping, the elections, etc. etc. etc….

You’re not getting angry that I’m asking questions are you? Why?

[Tricky]

I'm leaning toward learning the proper use of the paragraph.

[DavidJames]

Edited for civility

[Hans]

[yawn] or is this too dismissive?

[gc051360]

I'll attempt to go through a few

Building content fire or steel melting jet fuel fire?
Not steel melting. Fuel does burn though, yes? Building content does burn, yes?

Building content fire or 10 story gashes?
Why not both?

Buckling or pancake?
hmm...not sure. What do experts in the relevant fields of science have to say?

UBL or KSM?
CIA!!!!

Where was Cheney again and when and what exactly was the order?
He was at Denny's. And he ordered the Grand Slam.

I got too bored to go through the rest....

eta: Paragraphs would be nice. Though I think cramming it all together, was part of his tactic with this one.

[Garb]

Ummmm what?

[ElMondoHummus]

Good Lord, how many false dichotomies can be stuck into one post?

[Alareth]

Everybody run! I think this truther is about to blow!

[johnny karate]

I'm angry.

[gtc]

And I'm not going to take it anymore!

I confidently predict that this will be consigned to AAH. However, when you say 'which is it' you should have an either/or in mind.

For instance, 'Which is it? Chicken or Beef?' is a proper question.

This question isn't:
'Which is it?... How often does a high-rise suffer global collapse from anything other then explosives?'

It just doesn't make sense.

Finally, a series of questions isn't evidence for a conspiracy, its just a series of questions. If you look you will find that all or most of those questions you have are already answered in other threads. Why don't you read those other threads and see if you can get the answers there. If you don't think those other threads answer your questions, you can explain your reasoning or ask for clarification in those threads. If there are no threads on your questions, you can open a thread yourself. This is how a discussion board works.

On the other hand, maybe you were just telling the world 'Look, I have a lot of questions about 9/11.' In which case, you wasted your time as we all KNOW you have lots of questions about 9/11 and we think you are quite silly for not listening to the answers, but that is just our personal opinion.

Edited to add, I am reminded of the joke someone made about how its not possible to make posts in AAH...directly.

[jhunter1163]

The Truth Movement... "JAQing Off Since 2001"

[stateofgrace]

Which is it Debunkers? Building content fire or steel melting jet fuel fire? Building content fire or 10 story gashes? Buckling or pancake? UBL or KSM? Where was Cheney again and when and what exactly was the order? The hijackers were identified or did they use fake ID’s? Which ones? Was the phone call Cheney claimed that stated “Angel is next” an inside job? Was it even true? What did Dubya claim to see on the TV before he went into the classroom? What TV? How many seconds did the towers fall in? Why did the news report WTC-7 falling before it fell and how did they know again? How hot did the steel get and just how do you know? Fireproofing sheered off or shaken off, and how much, and how do you know again? How many core columns were damaged and is that just a guess? How often does a high-rise suffer global collapse from anything other then explosives? Plane parts and serial numbers are where? Are they with the steel? Where are the other two black boxes again? Box-cutters or short knives? No pepper spray, bombs, or guns, on the planes, and how do you know, and just how did you know about the box-cutters again? How many lawsuits against the airlines have gone to trial? Who is poor Larry suing and why? Where is the hard evidence against UBL? In fact where the hell is UBL and who how many is keeping it a secret all of these years? Who mailed that Anthrax from a Government lab and is keeping that a secret all theses years? What’s that you claim about the impossibility of keeping secrets? Who chartered the flights after 9/11? How many victims’ remains are still missing and you want to know where the explosives evidence is? Where is the WTC-7 report? Who and how many planned and financed the mission? Got any names? Have any confessions that weren’t the product of torture? The administration had no idea someone would attempt to fly planes into the WTC or they had a pretty good idea? What did that folder say on Dubya’s desk when he had better things to do like build a nature walk down on the ranch? Dubya wanted a limited investigation into 9/11 why? Dubya wouldn’t talk to the commission separate from Cheney and under oath why? Kean and Hamilton said the investigation was obstructed and you claim to know what and based on what? Your general expert consensus and their personal quotes supporting the official theory are where? Is 9/11 the only thing this administration has told the truth about or is it really more like the fables they told about, WMD’s, Valerie Plame, Pat Tillman, attorney firings, torture, wire tapping, the elections, etc. etc. etc….

You’re not getting angry that I’m asking questions are you? Why?

Any chance you could take a stab at answering your own questions and give us a full narrative based on your own answers?

[Sunstealer]

Another good example of poor text formatting. Lastchild, this is being discussed in this thread. http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3612851#post3612851 Would you care to give us a reason as to why you feel the need not to use clear formatting that makes your post readable? TIA.

[MarkyX]

Which is it Debunkers? Building content fire or steel melting jet fuel fire? Building content fire or 10 story gashes? Buckling or pancake? UBL or KSM? Where was Cheney again and when and what exactly was the order? The hijackers were identified or did they use fake ID’s? Which ones? Was the phone call Cheney claimed that stated “Angel is next” an inside job? Was it even true? What did Dubya claim to see on the TV before he went into the classroom? What TV? How many seconds did the towers fall in? Why did the news report WTC-7 falling before it fell and how did they know again? How hot did the steel get and just how do you know? Fireproofing sheered off or shaken off, and how much, and how do you know again? How many core columns were damaged and is that just a guess? How often does a high-rise suffer global collapse from anything other then explosives? Plane parts and serial numbers are where? Are they with the steel? Where are the other two black boxes again? Box-cutters or short knives? No pepper spray, bombs, or guns, on the planes, and how do you know, and just how did you know about the box-cutters again? How many lawsuits against the airlines have gone to trial? Who is poor Larry suing and why? Where is the hard evidence against UBL? In fact where the hell is UBL and who how many is keeping it a secret all of these years? Who mailed that Anthrax from a Government lab and is keeping that a secret all theses years? What’s that you claim about the impossibility of keeping secrets? Who chartered the flights after 9/11? How many victims’ remains are still missing and you want to know where the explosives evidence is? Where is the WTC-7 report? Who and how many planned and financed the mission? Got any names? Have any confessions that weren’t the product of torture? The administration had no idea someone would attempt to fly planes into the WTC or they had a pretty good idea? What did that folder say on Dubya’s desk when he had better things to do like build a nature walk down on the ranch? Dubya wanted a limited investigation into 9/11 why? Dubya wouldn’t talk to the commission separate from Cheney and under oath why? Kean and Hamilton said the investigation was obstructed and you claim to know what and based on what? Your general expert consensus and their personal quotes supporting the official theory are where? Is 9/11 the only thing this administration has told the truth about or is it really more like the fables they told about, WMD’s, Valerie Plame, Pat Tillman, attorney firings, torture, wire tapping, the elections, etc. etc. etc….

You’re not getting angry that I’m asking questions are you? Why?

So full of words, so full of nothing.

[SpitfireIX]

Which is it Debunkers? Building content fire or steel melting jet fuel fire? Building content fire or 10 story gashes? Buckling or pancake? UBL or KSM? Where was Cheney again and when and what exactly was the order? The hijackers were identified or did they use fake ID’s? Which ones? Was the phone call Cheney claimed that stated “Angel is next” an inside job? Was it even true? What did Dubya claim to see on the TV before he went into the classroom? What TV? How many seconds did the towers fall in? Why did the news report WTC-7 falling before it fell and how did they know again? How hot did the steel get and just how do you know? Fireproofing sheered off or shaken off, and how much, and how do you know again? How many core columns were damaged and is that just a guess? How often does a high-rise suffer global collapse from anything other then explosives? Plane parts and serial numbers are where? Are they with the steel? Where are the other two black boxes again? Box-cutters or short knives? No pepper spray, bombs, or guns, on the planes, and how do you know, and just how did you know about the box-cutters again? How many lawsuits against the airlines have gone to trial? Who is poor Larry suing and why? Where is the hard evidence against UBL? In fact where the hell is UBL and who how many is keeping it a secret all of these years? Who mailed that Anthrax from a Government lab and is keeping that a secret all theses years? What’s that you claim about the impossibility of keeping secrets? Who chartered the flights after 9/11? How many victims’ remains are still missing and you want to know where the explosives evidence is? Where is the WTC-7 report? Who and how many planned and financed the mission? Got any names? Have any confessions that weren’t the product of torture? The administration had no idea someone would attempt to fly planes into the WTC or they had a pretty good idea? What did that folder say on Dubya’s desk when he had better things to do like build a nature walk down on the ranch? Dubya wanted a limited investigation into 9/11 why? Dubya wouldn’t talk to the commission separate from Cheney and under oath why? Kean and Hamilton said the investigation was obstructed and you claim to know what and based on what? Your general expert consensus and their personal quotes supporting the official theory are where? Is 9/11 the only thing this administration has told the truth about or is it really more like the fables they told about, WMD’s, Valerie Plame, Pat Tillman, attorney firings, torture, wire tapping, the elections, etc. etc. etc….

You’re not getting angry that I’m asking questions are you? Why?


. . . a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.


--William Shakespeare, Macbeth, Act V, Scene 5

ETA: :p @Gord

[Gord_in_Toronto]

So full of words, so full of nothing.


. . . it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

. . . . . .

[MarkyX]

. . . . . .

dot dot dot dot dot

[LastChild]

Another good example of poor text formatting. Lastchild, this is being discussed in this thread. http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3612851#post3612851 Would you care to give us a reason as to why you feel the need not to use clear formatting that makes your post readable? TIA.

With all the obvious problems surrounding the official version that would take much too long.

[Loss Leader]

You’re not getting angry that I’m asking questions are you? Why?



<sigh>

LastChild, would you please show me any alternate theory that raises fewer questions.

I mean, the fact that there may be unsanswered questions doesn't make a thing untrue. I have many, many unanswered questions about exactly what went on between Brad and Jenn but that doesn't mean that they're still together.

If you have an idea of what may have happened that is more consistent, please state it.

Otherwise, accept the fact that something in this universe can happen even though you are personally incapable of understanding it.

[chillzero]

Posts moved to AAH. Either respond appropriately, or don't respond at all.

[twinstead]

Otherwise, accept the fact that something in this universe can happen even though you are personally incapable of understanding it.

What a concept...

[Dr Adequate]

Which is it Debunkers? Building content fire or steel melting jet fuel fire? Building content fire or 10 story gashes? Buckling or pancake? UBL or KSM? Where was Cheney again and when and what exactly was the order? The hijackers were identified or did they use fake ID’s? Which ones? Was the phone call Cheney claimed that stated “Angel is next” an inside job? Was it even true? What did Dubya claim to see on the TV before he went into the classroom? What TV? How many seconds did the towers fall in? Why did the news report WTC-7 falling before it fell and how did they know again? How hot did the steel get and just how do you know? Fireproofing sheered off or shaken off, and how much, and how do you know again? How many core columns were damaged and is that just a guess? How often does a high-rise suffer global collapse from anything other then explosives? Plane parts and serial numbers are where? Are they with the steel? Where are the other two black boxes again? Box-cutters or short knives? No pepper spray, bombs, or guns, on the planes, and how do you know, and just how did you know about the box-cutters again? How many lawsuits against the airlines have gone to trial? Who is poor Larry suing and why? Where is the hard evidence against UBL? In fact where the hell is UBL and who how many is keeping it a secret all of these years? Who mailed that Anthrax from a Government lab and is keeping that a secret all theses years? What’s that you claim about the impossibility of keeping secrets? Who chartered the flights after 9/11? How many victims’ remains are still missing and you want to know where the explosives evidence is? Where is the WTC-7 report? Who and how many planned and financed the mission? Got any names? Have any confessions that weren’t the product of torture? The administration had no idea someone would attempt to fly planes into the WTC or they had a pretty good idea? What did that folder say on Dubya’s desk when he had better things to do like build a nature walk down on the ranch? Dubya wanted a limited investigation into 9/11 why? Dubya wouldn’t talk to the commission separate from Cheney and under oath why? Kean and Hamilton said the investigation was obstructed and you claim to know what and based on what? Your general expert consensus and their personal quotes supporting the official theory are where? Is 9/11 the only thing this administration has told the truth about or is it really more like the fables they told about, WMD’s, Valerie Plame, Pat Tillman, attorney firings, torture, wire tapping, the elections, etc. etc. etc…. So let's get this straight. After making over 1700 posts on this forum, you still haven't the faintest clue what debunkers think?

This is most amusing.

You’re not getting angry that I’m asking questions are you? Why? No, not at all, you're one of my favorite cat toys.

[LastChild]

<sigh>

LastChild, would you please show me any alternate theory that raises fewer questions.

I mean, the fact that there may be unsanswered questions doesn't make a thing untrue. I have many, many unanswered questions about exactly what went on between Brad and Jenn but that doesn't mean that they're still together.

If you have an idea of what may have happened that is more consistent, please state it.

Otherwise, accept the fact that something in this universe can happen even though you are personally incapable of understanding it.

Now how could anyone have any kind of version that doesn't raise many unanswered questions when there hasn't been a real investigation?

Maybe you would like to answer that?

[Dr Adequate]

With all the obvious problems surrounding the official version that would take much too long. Hey, why don't you start a thread on one of those problems?

[CHF]

Now how could anyone have any kind of version that doesn't raise many unanswered questions when there hasn't been a real investigation?

You mean an investigation payed for by the taxpayer but judged by you?

[Dr Adequate]

Now how could anyone have any kind of version that doesn't raise many unanswered questions when there hasn't been a real investigation? Why are you pretending that there "hasn't been a real investigation"? Whom do you hope to deceive?

[twinstead]

Now how could anyone have any kind of version that doesn't raise many unanswered questions when there hasn't been a real investigation?

Maybe you would like to answer that?

Your 'I just want another investigation' is simply a debate tactic. You believe it was an inside job without one. JAQing is a circuit breaker in this debate for you and many others.

This vague demand for a 'new investigation' doesn't fool many people here. Even if there were magically a totally new investigation, unless it came to the same conclusion you did you'd still be right here on the internet complaining it wasn't investigated properly.

We're not stupid

[John Blonn]

TL: DR

Holy excluded middle, Batman.

[LastChild]

Why are you pretending that there "hasn't been a real investigation"? Whom do you hope to deceive?

Why are you pretending there was a real investigation? How is a limited obstructed investigation an adequate one? Or aren't you pretending? Which is it?

If you’re not pretending your capacity for deceiving yourself is scary.

[LastChild]

Your 'I just want another investigation' is simply a debate tactic. You believe it was an inside job without one. JAQing is a circuit breaker in this debate for you and many others.

This vague demand for a 'new investigation' doesn't fool many people here. Even if there were magically a totally new investigation, unless it came to the same conclusion you did you'd still be right here on the internet complaining it wasn't investigated properly.

We're not stupid

I don't know that 9/11 was an inside job you claim to know it wasn't. I want to know what you have to support that belief other then faith.

[LastChild]

You mean an investigation payed for by the taxpayer but judged by you?

The taxpayers are paying for a lot of things that aren't real. Like a war based on WMD's.

[CHF]

LOL! I notice you didn't take issue with the "judged by you" part.

[LastChild]

Is it harder to pretend you are debunking when you're not allowed to post a bunch of pictures of cats?

[Loss Leader]

Now how could anyone have any kind of version that doesn't raise many unanswered questions when there hasn't been a real investigation?

Maybe you would like to answer that?


I'll answer that.

I didn't ask you for a version that doesn't raise "many" unanswered questions; I asked you for a version that raises "fewer" unanswered questions.

If there hasn't been a real investigation, then we're both on equal footing. There hasn't been a real investigation of the so-called official story and there hasn't been a real investigation of whatever alternate theory you'd propose. We're both in exactly the same position. Thus, I continue to ask you for any version of facts that raises fewer questions.

Of course, your premise is wrong. There have been extensive investigations by numerous bodies into all manner of aspects of the "official story." That you discount such investigations because they were paid for by the government or some such reason does not mean they didn't take place.

[LastChild]

LOL! I notice you didn't take issue with the "judged by you" part.

How did Kean and Hamilton judge the investigation when they called it obstructed? How do you know better?

[GregoryUrich]

Alot of questions LastChild,

These two strike me as not indicative of any nefarious actions?

1. How many seconds did the towers fall in? Even using NIST's exaggeratedly fast times there is plenty of energy dissipation during the collapse showing that the towers provided very significant resistance. WTC7 may be another story but it is not conclusive. There are a couple threads here where I have dealt with these issues.

2. How many victims’ remains are still missing and you want to know where the explosives evidence is? I have dealt with this one on the S911TJ forum and most of the truther engineers seem to agree. The pressures generated during the collapse due to impacts were up to a 60,000 psi at a minimum. There is no question in my mind why so many bodies have not been found.

These questions deserve more attention IMO:

1. Fireproofing sheered off or shaken off, and how much, and how do you know again? No good explanation has been provided by NIST or anyone else.

2. How many core columns were damaged and is that just a guess? NIST modelled this, and probably very carefully. They validated their result against Wierzbicki's earlier work, but Wierzbicki later stated that his result should be interpreted as an upper bound.

3. Who and how many planned and financed the mission? Got any names? "The money trail is unimportant!". Hi, my name is Able Danger!

4. Have any confessions that weren’t the product of torture? bin Loaden.


5. The administration had no idea someone would attempt to fly planes into the WTC or they had a pretty good idea? They knew, period.

6. What did that folder say on Dubya’s desk when he had better things to do like build a nature walk down on the ranch? This is suspicious - how does on "build" a nature walk?

7. Dubya wanted a limited investigation into 9/11 why? He wanted to have a reserve fund in case another democrat was ever accused of sexual impropriety.

8. Dubya wouldn’t talk to the commission separate from Cheney and under oath why? Dubya can't talk unless he is sitting on Cheney's lap with Cheney's hand up the back of his shirt.

9. Kean and Hamilton said the investigation was obstructed and you claim to know what and based on what? "We still don't know why they (NORAD) told us what they told us." Let's wrap up the investigation.

10. Is 9/11 the only thing this administration has told the truth about or is it really more like the fables they told about, WMD’s, Valerie Plame, Pat Tillman, attorney firings, torture, wire tapping, the elections, etc. etc. etc.? They told the truth about...something.

Asking questions should be illegal.

[CHF]

There's not a whole lot to debunk when all you're doing in JAQing off.

[Dr Adequate]

Why are you pretending there was a real investigation? How is a limited obstructed investigation an adequate one? Or aren't you pretending? Which is it?

If you’re not pretending your capacity for deceiving yourself is scary. The general thrust of your remarks seems to be that you are continuing to pretend that there hasn't been a real investigation.

There was in fact an investigation. It was perfectly real.

Could I ask you again whom you hope to deceive?

If you want to fool someone with this claim, make a crappy video about it, post it on YouTube, and hope that some pothead teenager watches it.

[CHF]

How did Kean and Hamilton judge the investigation when they called it obstructed? How do you know better?

Would that be the same investigation which they claim succeeded?

Or am I thinking of another one?

[LastChild]

I'll answer that.

I didn't ask you for a version that doesn't raise "many" unanswered questions; I asked you for a version that raises "fewer" unanswered questions.

If there hasn't been a real investigation, then we're both on equal footing. There hasn't been a real investigation of the so-called official story and there hasn't been a real investigation of whatever alternate theory you'd propose. We're both in exactly the same position. Thus, I continue to ask you for any version of facts that raises fewer questions.

Of course, your premise is wrong. There have been extensive investigations by numerous bodies into all manner of aspects of the "official story." That you discount such investigations because they were paid for by the government or some such reason does not mean they didn't take place.

I didn't claim to have a theory so no we are not on equal footing. Your this is the best version we got mentality doesn't cut it. A real investigation is needed to have a real theory.

[LastChild]

Would that be the same investigation which they claim succeeded?

Or am I thinking of another one?

Which claim came first? They claimed it succeeded before they found out they were obstructed. Now what else weren't they told about and how do you know?

[Dr Adequate]

I don't know that 9/11 was an inside job you claim to know it wasn't. I want to know what you have to support that belief other then faith. The evidence for it.

The total absence of any evidence conflicting with it.

The fact that no other theory has been advanced that does not conflict with the evidence.

The fact that so many twoofers have given up even trying to produce evidence against it, or any alternative theory of their own, in favor of childish whining and pointless lies.

[CHF]

Ah I see....so we need a new investigation to see if they were obstructed about thermite bombs being planted in the WTC...or the remote control planes and fake phone calls....or the FDNY lying about WTC7....or the Red Cross countdown....or the BBC WTC7 cover-up....or "pull it"....or volcanic clouds at GZ....or whatever else is an issue to single white males living in their mom's basement.

Gotcha.

[LastChild]

Evidence. The fact that no other theory has been advanced which is supported by the evidence.

What evidence? Your investigation was labeled obstructed by the very people who handed it in.

The absence of any evidence conflicting with the OCT.

Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence

The fact that so many twoofers have given up even trying to produce evidence against the OCT in favor of childish whining and pointless lies.

Childish whining? What is it when debunkers give up supporting the official fable in favor of posting cartoons? Pretending to debunk one theory does not lend any credibility to another unsupported theory.

[LastChild]

Ah I see....so we need a new investigation to see if they were obstructed about thermite bombs being planted in the WTC...or the remote control planes and fake phone calls....or the FDNY lying about WTC7....or the Red Cross countdown....or the BBC WTC7 cover-up....or "pull it"....or volcanic clouds at GZ....or whatever else is an issue to single white males living in their mom's basement.

Gotcha.


Even if you could debunk any of those things it wouldn't make the official version valid by default nor would it completely rule out any kind inside knowledge about the attacks.

We need a new investigation to see exactly what was obstructed and what wasn't. We need an investigation that is more about exactly how 9/11 went down and less about who wasn't responsible for failing to protect the US.

[CHF]

Even if you could debunk any of those thingsYeah no one's been able to tackle Griffin's fake phone calls, or the pyroclastic clouds, or the FDNY's views on WTC7, or "pull it" or any of that other stuff. It's all still rock-solid twoofer "evidence," isn't it? :rolleyes:

Tell me about this new investigation, LC.

Who funds it? Who testifies? Who passes final judgment?

[LastChild]

Yeah no one's been able to tackle Griffin's fake phone calls, or the pyroclastic clouds, or the FDNY's views on WTC7, or "pull it" or any of that other stuff. It's all still rock-solid twoofer "evidence," isn't it? :rolleyes:

Tell me about this new investigation, LC.

Who funds it? Who testifies? Who passes final judgment?

How about one that's not limited or obstructed for a start?

[Dr Adequate]

What evidence? Your investigation was labeled obstructed by the very people who handed it in. What an interesting lie.

Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence Personally, I find the absence of evidence for flying pigs convincing evidence for the absence of flying pigs. In truthworld, perhaps it is different.

Childish whining? What is it when debunkers give up supporting the official fable in favor of posting cartoons? That would be both childish whining and a pointless lie on your part. It's not necessarily a dichotomy.

Pretending to debunk one theory does not lend any credibility to another unsupported theory. You inadvertently said something true!

I think I should Stundie that.

[Dr Adequate]

Even if you could debunk any of those things it wouldn't make the official version valid by default nor would it completely rule out any kind inside knowledge about the attacks. Of course not. What makes the official version valid is that it is supported by the e-vi-dence.

However, the fact that all truther claims turn out to be stupid crap does suggest that there can't be any real flaws in the official version, because otherwise truthers would talk about them.

We need a new investigation to see exactly what was obstructed and what wasn't. We need an investigation that is more about exactly how 9/11 went down and less about who wasn't responsible for failing to protect the US. Go ahead, feel free. Let us know what you find out.

[CHF]

How about one that's not limited or obstructed for a start?

Let's try that again....

Tell me about this new investigation, LC.

Who funds it? Who testifies? Who passes final judgment?

[LastChild]

Let's try that again....

Tell me about this new investigation, LC.

Who funds it? Who testifies? Who passes final judgment?

It's not for me to say but a new administration, a new commission, and it might as well be paid for by a windfall profit tax. And maybe we should spend at least as much as was spent on the one that produced nothing but a dirty dress. 9/11 should almost be as important for some people but you never know.

[CHF]

It's not for me to say but a new administration, a new commission, and it might as well be paid for by a windfall profit tax. And maybe we should spend at least as much as was spent on the one that produced nothing but a dirty dress. 9/11 should almost be as important for some people but you never know.

You're the one calling for this new investigation so I kinda assumed you would have thought it out a little more than....."Ummm....a new government and a new 9/11 commission, payed for by taxes, staffed by....I dunno, judged by....I dunno, relying on the testimony of....I dunno, and given a bugger budget."

Don't worry, LC - that's pretty much what the rest of your "movement" says too.

[Dr Adequate]

There's a typo in the tag to this thread. Can the moderators remove the erroneous "s"?

[applecorped]

It's not for me to say but a new administration, a new commission, and it might as well be paid for by a windfall profit tax. And maybe we should spend at least as much as was spent on the one that produced nothing but a dirty dress. 9/11 should almost be as important for some people but you never know.

I think this has gone on to long. This is like watching Apollo Creed being demolished by Ivan Drago. Stop before you guys kill LC!

[SpitfireIX]

What evidence? Your investigation was labeled obstructed by the very people who handed it in.


Much as you want to, you can't just throw out the entire investigation because of the CIA's failure to turn over the interrogation videotapes.

From a New York Times editorial (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/02/opinion/02kean.html?_r=1&ex=1357016400&en=8860409215ffb2a9&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&oref=slogin) by Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton:

A meeting on Jan. 21, 2004, with Mr. Tenet, the White House counsel, the secretary of defense and a representative from the Justice Department also resulted in the denial of commission access to the detainees. Once again, videotapes were not mentioned.

As a result of this January meeting, the C.I.A. agreed to pose some of our questions to detainees and report back to us. The commission concluded this was all the administration could give us. But the commission never felt that its earlier questions had been satisfactorily answered. So the public would be aware of our concerns, we highlighted our caveats on page 146 in the commission report.


So Kean and Hamilton have always wanted more details about the interrogations, yet they've still maintained that the report is reasonably accurate. The fact that the CIA failed to produce additional evidence that might have helped answer some of the commission's questions does not invalidate the conclusions.

Lee Hamilton, in a CBC interview (http://www.cbc.ca/sunday/911hamilton.html), August 2006:

We had two responsibilities - first, tell the story of 9/11; I think we've done that reasonably well. We worked very hard at it; I don’t know that we’ve told the definitive story of 9/11, but surely anybody in the future who tackles that job will begin with the 9/11 Commission Report. I think we’ve been reasonably successful in telling the story. . . .

When you conduct a major investigation, you cannot possibly answer every question, you just do the best you can. But for every question you leave unanswered, you create an opening to a conspiracy theory, and a good many of them have popped up here.

[B]The only thing I ask in the future is that the conspiracy theory people do not apply a double standard. That is to say, they want us to make an airtight case for any assertion we make. On the other hand, when they make an assertion they do it often on very flimsy evidence. [bolding mine]


Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence


Because of the impossibility of proving the of a conspiracy, we must assume the non-existence of a conspiracy and require proof of existence. Further, as the claim of a massive government conspiracy is clearly extraordinary, the proof must also be extraordinary.


Childish whining? What is it when debunkers give up supporting the official fable in favor of posting cartoons? Pretending to debunk one theory does not lend any credibility to another unsupported theory.


As noted, you can't simply dismiss out of hand all of investigations that have been conducted just because some imperfections have been discovered.

[Alareth]

I didn't claim to have a theory so no we are not on equal footing. Your this is the best version we got mentality doesn't cut it. A real investigation is needed to have a real theory.

If you don't have a theory, why do you put such effort into wasting our time with childish tantrums such as the OP?

The "rage against the machine" mentality without a foundation to stand on and what amounts to zero commitment on your part is laughable.

[Regnad Kcin]

Which is it Debunkers?There is in no way, shape, or form any element to suggest, much less to prove, that the events of 9/11/2001 involved anyone whose participation would give credence to any sort of "inside job" theory. None.

That was easy.

[pomeroo]

Which is it Debunkers? Building content fire or steel melting jet fuel fire? Building content fire or 10 story gashes? Buckling or pancake? UBL or KSM? Where was Cheney again and when and what exactly was the order? The hijackers were identified or did they use fake ID’s? Which ones? Was the phone call Cheney claimed that stated “Angel is next” an inside job? Was it even true? What did Dubya claim to see on the TV before he went into the classroom? What TV? How many seconds did the towers fall in? Why did the news report WTC-7 falling before it fell and how did they know again? How hot did the steel get and just how do you know? Fireproofing sheered off or shaken off, and how much, and how do you know again? How many core columns were damaged and is that just a guess? How often does a high-rise suffer global collapse from anything other then explosives? Plane parts and serial numbers are where? Are they with the steel? Where are the other two black boxes again? Box-cutters or short knives? No pepper spray, bombs, or guns, on the planes, and how do you know, and just how did you know about the box-cutters again? How many lawsuits against the airlines have gone to trial? Who is poor Larry suing and why? Where is the hard evidence against UBL? In fact where the hell is UBL and who how many is keeping it a secret all of these years? Who mailed that Anthrax from a Government lab and is keeping that a secret all theses years? What’s that you claim about the impossibility of keeping secrets? Who chartered the flights after 9/11? How many victims’ remains are still missing and you want to know where the explosives evidence is? Where is the WTC-7 report? Who and how many planned and financed the mission? Got any names? Have any confessions that weren’t the product of torture? The administration had no idea someone would attempt to fly planes into the WTC or they had a pretty good idea? What did that folder say on Dubya’s desk when he had better things to do like build a nature walk down on the ranch? Dubya wanted a limited investigation into 9/11 why? Dubya wouldn’t talk to the commission separate from Cheney and under oath why? Kean and Hamilton said the investigation was obstructed and you claim to know what and based on what? Your general expert consensus and their personal quotes supporting the official theory are where? Is 9/11 the only thing this administration has told the truth about or is it really more like the fables they told about, WMD’s, Valerie Plame, Pat Tillman, attorney firings, torture, wire tapping, the elections, etc. etc. etc….

You’re not getting angry that I’m asking questions are you? Why?



So, you ran away to try to figure out the difference between supply and demand and, predictably, you weren't able to. You offer a load of empty rhetoric instead.

Yawn.

[SpitfireIX]

Even if you could debunk any of those things it wouldn't make the official version valid by default nor would it completely rule out any kind inside knowledge about the attacks.


The so-called "official version" is generally accepted because it is supported by far more evidence than any other version.

We need a new investigation to see exactly what was obstructed and what wasn't.


No, "we" don't. The alleged obstruction is being investigated. As I noted previously, you can't just throw out the entire report because of this apparent imperfection. Neither can you claim, without any evidence, that other obstruction took place that might call into question any of the report's major conclusions.

We need an investigation that is more about exactly how 9/11 went down and less about who wasn't responsible for failing to protect the US.


As I've pointed out before, such assertions beg the question of whether any individuals deserve to be blamed.

Lee Hamilton, from the CBC interview linked in my previous post:

Look, you can go down the list and probably identify a hundred people who made mistakes that day: the ticket-taker at the Boston Logan airport; the customs official who let these fellows in, not one but many times, right up to Bill Clinton or George Bush. . . .

[W]hat we thought was really important in all of this was not so much that a particular person failed in their responsibility, whatever that responsibility might be, but that there were systemic problems in the government that we really thought need to be identified and corrected.

[pomeroo]

How about one that's not limited or obstructed for a start?


Over your recent absence to recover from the severe beatings you have received from intelligent adults, you seem to have forgotten that some of us really are adults. That is to say, no matter how many times you attempt your puerile deception, we will always call you on it. The 9/11 Commission was tasked with establishing an accurate timeline and providing answers to certain questions raised by the families of the jihadist's victims. Nobody thinks that the commission conducted the original investigation, A MASSIVE UNDERTAKING CONDUCTED BY SEVERAL AGENCIES WORKING IN CONCERT.

We have noticed that you invariably flee with your tail between your legs when asked if the FBI is part of your imaginary conspiracy. You should attempt to answer the question.

[pomeroo]

Now how could anyone have any kind of version that doesn't raise many unanswered questions when there hasn't been a real investigation?

Maybe you would like to answer that?


I can answer for all rationalists:

You should stop lying. The investigation that determined the identities of the jihadist hijackers was massive and comprehensive. You won't trick anyone here with your childish falsehoods.

[LastChild]

Much as you want to, you can't just throw out the entire investigation because of the CIA's failure to turn over the interrogation videotapes.

From a New York Times editorial (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/02/opinion/02kean.html?_r=1&ex=1357016400&en=8860409215ffb2a9&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&oref=slogin) by Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton:




So Kean and Hamilton have always wanted more details about the interrogations, yet they've still maintained that the report is reasonably accurate. The fact that the CIA failed to produce additional evidence that might have helped answer some of the commission's questions does not invalidate the conclusions.

Lee Hamilton, in a CBC interview (http://www.cbc.ca/sunday/911hamilton.html), August 2006:







Because of the impossibility of proving the of a conspiracy, we must assume the non-existence of a conspiracy and require proof of existence. Further, as the claim of a massive government conspiracy is clearly extraordinary, the proof must also be extraordinary.





As noted, you can't simply dismiss out of hand all of investigations that have been conducted just because some imperfections have been discovered.

Nice quote from 2006 and nice dodge of the final word from their statement in 2008. Here I'll help you make my point. You're welcome.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/02/opinion/02kean.html

As a legal matter, it is not up to us to examine the C.I.A.’s failure to disclose the existence of these tapes. That is for others. What we do know is that government officials decided not to inform a lawfully constituted body, created by Congress and the president, to investigate one the greatest tragedies to confront this country. We call that obstruction.

Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton served as chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of the 9/11 commission.

[pomeroo]

How did Kean and Hamilton judge the investigation when they called it obstructed? How do you know better?



Why don't either Kean or Hamilton swallow your nonsensical snake oil about an inside job? They don't, you know.

Do you seriously think you can fool us into believing that the 9/11 Commission conducted the investigation that began within hours of the last attack?

[LastChild]

I think this has gone on to long. This is like watching Apollo Creed being demolished by Ivan Drago. Stop before you guys kill LC!

Careful you don't wind up in AAH with the rest of the so-call demolishers.

Pretend demolishing

Pretend debunking

yawn

zzzzzzzzzzzz

[LastChild]

Why don't either Kean or Hamilton swallow your nonsensical snake oil about an inside job? They don't, you know.

Do you seriously think you can fool us into believing that the 9/11 Commission conducted the investigation that began within hours of the last attack?

What inside job snake oil?

The inside job limiting and obstruction of the investigation?

[applecorped]

Actually I hope this does end up in AAH, as there is nothing actually being discussed here that hasn't been rehashed many times over.

[LastChild]

I can answer for all rationalists:

You should stop lying. The investigation that determined the identities of the jihadist hijackers was massive and comprehensive. You won't trick anyone here with your childish falsehoods.

Who do you think you're tricking? Everyone here knows that every single view you have on anything and everything comes from right field.

Give it up lackey.

[Myriad]

LastChild, as I've explained before, there has been no new government-sponsored investigation, and there will be no new government-sponsored investigation.

This is because neither you nor anyone else are doing, or appear to have any intention of doing, any of the things that would be necessary to cause such an investigation to take place.

So, if as you claim, formulating a viable alternative theory requires a new investigation, then there will also be no viable alternative theory.

With no viable alternative theory, the answers to your OP questions are irrelevant.

You've reached a dead end. You should recognize it; it's the same dead end you've been at for more than a year now.

Which is odd, and doesn't seem healthy. Most people, when they reach a dead end, backtrack to an earlier position and look for a different way forward. You seem to prefer to continually remind us that you're stuck at this dead end and that you're not happy about it.

Why you do this is difficult to understand. We have nothing to do with your being at the dead end you're in. We didn't lead you into it and we cannot (though some have tried) lead you out of it if you're determined to stay. And by now, you must have realized that we are not stupid enough to be deceived into joining you there, however much you would enjoy the company. I guess a little attention is all you can hope for, and since we are providing you that, I suppose you'll continue to seek it. But, how sad that is. Can't you do better for yourself?

Respectfully,
Myriad

[applecorped]

Who do you think you're tricking? Everyone here knows that every single view you have on anything and everything comes from right field.

Give it up lackey.

What are going to do? Go get your big brother?

[LastChild]

Actually I hope this does end up in AAH, as there is nothing actually being discussed here that hasn't been rehashed many times over.

Yeah that's what I'm trying to fill you in on genius. Others here previously had that same hope. Why don't you go look where they wound up?

[SpitfireIX]

Nice quote from 2006 and nice dodge of the final word from their statement in 2008. Here I'll help you make my point. You're welcome.


It's obvious you either didn't read or are ignoring what I wrote. Kean and Hamilton have always felt that there were unanswered questions about the interrogations, yet they've stood by the report's conclusions.

And again, you can't just throw out the entire report and call for a new investigation. You are merely focusing on the "We call that obstruction" statement to attempt to cast doubt on all of the commission's conclusions. Real investigations simply do not work that way, whether you like it or not.

[applecorped]

I would gladly suffer anything to rid the world of your nonsense.

[pomeroo]

I didn't claim to have a theory so no we are not on equal footing. Your this is the best version we got mentality doesn't cut it. A real investigation is needed to have a real theory.


Yes, you've trapped yourself again. Do you think that Kean and Hamilton are skeptical of the notion that Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon? Do you think they harbor secret suspicions that Craig Ranke's team of innumerate imbeciles might be right to believe that the presence of a FDR in the Pentagon proves that no plane hit the building? Do you think that they have discovered a scientific controversy over the validity of the NIST Report? Do you think they want to interview Judy Wood on the properties of her futuristic beam weapons? Do they want to discuss with Morgan Reynolds and Ace Baker the possibility that no planes hit the Towers? Do you think that they believe that Larry Silverstein asked the FDNY to blow up his building?

In short, tell us if you think that, contrary to their own words, they really aren't interested in the CIA's interrogation of al Qaeda members, but are actually attempting to determine if a mathematically-impossible conspiracy operating at the highest levels of the government perpetrated the attacks in order to...to...to do whatever the hell they wanted to do. Tell us which of the lunatic fables promoted by your mindless, evil movement you think Kean and Hamilton might take seriously.

[LastChild]

It's obvious you either didn't read or are ignoring what I wrote. Kean and Hamilton have always felt that there were unanswered questions about the interrogations, yet they've stood by the report's conclusions.

And again, you can't just throw out the entire report and call for a new investigation. You are merely focusing on the "We call that obstruction" statement to attempt to cast doubt on all of the commission's conclusions. Real investigations simply do not work that way, whether you like it or not.

Yeah what's a little obstruction anyway in an investigation on what caused the deaths of nearly 3,000 people on 9/11? It makes you kind of wonder why Kean and Hamilton even bothered to write their open letter claiming obstruction. Who cares right?

Yeah nothing to see here folks just move along. Pay noooo attention. Back in the sand with your head.

lol priceless

[pomeroo]

Who do you think you're tricking? Everyone here knows that every single view you have on anything and everything comes from right field.

Give it up lackey.


No, I am a free man because my mind is free. Your lack of intelligence consigns you to the worst form of slavery.

We note that you clumsily attempted to dodge the question. As usual, you were caught. The 9/11 Commission did not conduct the original massive investigation. You can never hope to slip your crude deceptions past that roadblock.

[pomeroo]

Yeah what's a little obstruction anyway in an investigation on what caused the deaths of nearly 3,000 people on 9/11? It makes you kind of wonder why Kean and Hamilton even bothered to write their open letter claiming obstruction. Who cares right?

Yeah nothing to see here folks just move along. Pay noooo attention. Back in the sand with your head.

lol priceless


Kean and Hamilton are not twoofers, liar.

[Pardalis]

Which is it Debunkers? Building content fire or steel melting jet fuel fire?

The steel didn't melt, and the office content probably did.

Building content fire or 10 story gashes?

I'm going to have to wait for the final report on WTC7

Buckling or pancake?

As far as the initiation of the collapse goes, I would say buckling.

UBL or KSM?

KSM

Where was Cheney again and when and what exactly was the order?

He was at the Pentagon. He didn't order to shoot the plane down.

The hijackers were identified or did they use fake ID’s? Which ones?

They used seemingly real ID's but doctored them.

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report_Ch7.htm

Was the phone call Cheney claimed that stated “Angel is next” an inside job?

I don't know about that.

Was it even true?

See above.

What did Dubya claim to see on the TV before he went into the classroom?

He probably misspoke.

What TV?

Dunno.

How many seconds did the towers fall in?

Hard to tell, about 13 seconds I guess.

Why did the news report WTC-7 falling before it fell and how did they know again?

They knew the building was in jeopardy, they probably got confused.

How hot did the steel get and just how do you know?

You can find that out in the NIST report.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/

Fireproofing sheered off or shaken off, and how much,

Dislodged.

and how do you know again?

The NIST report, read it.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/

How many core columns were damaged and is that just a guess?

Three were severed, four others were damaged

NIST report (NISTNCSTAR1-2 (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-2Draft.pdf))

How often does a high-rise suffer global collapse from anything other then explosives?

Dunno.

Plane parts and serial numbers are where?

Dunno

Thread about it here:
http://www.randi.org/forumlive/showthread.php?t=109172

Are they with the steel?

Wouldn't think so.

Where are the other two black boxes again?

The black boxes of flights 77 and 175 were not found. I think only the ones from flight93 were.

Box-cutters or short knives?

Box cutters.

No pepper spray, bombs, or guns, on the planes, and how do you know,

Dunno

and just how did you know about the box-cutters again?

9/11 Commission Report.

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report_Ch1.htm

How many lawsuits against the airlines have gone to trial?

Dunno

Who is poor Larry suing and why?

Right now, I think he's suing airlines and airport security companies, don't know which ones exactly. Probably to recover the costs of the disaster.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/27/nyregion/27rebuild.html?ref=nyregion
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=110000

Where is the hard evidence against UBL?

The Commission report is very clear that it was members of AQ, funded by his network who committed these acts. UBL even acknowledged it.

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/12/13/ret.bin.laden.videotape/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6363306/

In fact where the hell is UBL

I wish I knew. Probably in northern Pakistan.

and who how many is keeping it a secret all of these years?

Dunno

Who mailed that Anthrax from a Government lab and is keeping
that a secret all theses years?

Dunno

What’s that you claim about the impossibility of keeping secrets?

It's very hard, especially for conspiracies on a large scale, involving thousands of people.

Who chartered the flights after 9/11?

Dunno

How many victims’ remains are still missing

Dunno, probably alot. These people were disintegrated remember?

and you want to know where the explosives evidence is?

If there is evidence I'd like to see it, yes.

Where is the WTC-7 report?

Awaiting completion.

Who and how many planned and financed the mission?

What mission? If you mean 9/11 read the Commission report.

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report_Ch7.htm
http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report_Ch8.htm

Got any names?

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report_Ch7.htm
http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report_Ch8.htm

Have any confessions that weren’t the product of torture?

Dunno

The administration had no idea someone would attempt to fly planes into the WTC or they had a pretty good idea?

I don't think they knew planes would be used this way, and specifically on the WTC.

What did that folder say on Dubya’s desk when he had better things to do like build a nature walk down on the ranch?

I don't know what you are talking about. Besides, how would I know what folders are on the president of the USA's desk?

Dubya wanted a limited investigation into 9/11 why?

To cover his ass.

Dubya wouldn’t talk to the commission separate from Cheney and under oath why?

Dunno

Kean and Hamilton said the investigation was obstructed and you claim to know what and based on what?

Please rephrase the question.

Your general expert consensus and their personal quotes supporting the official theory are where?

The 9/11 Commission Report, the NIST and FEMA reports mostly.

Is 9/11 the only thing this administration has told the truth about or is it really more like the fables they told about, WMD’s, Valerie Plame, Pat Tillman, attorney firings, torture, wire tapping, the elections, etc. etc. etc….

Loaded question.

You’re not getting angry that I’m asking questions are you?

I'm not angry

Why?

See above.

[pomeroo]

Careful you don't wind up in AAH with the rest of the so-call demolishers.

Pretend demolishing

Pretend debunking

yawn

zzzzzzzzzzzz



Hmmm. That demolishing you took when you moronically attempted to convert your America-hatred into a concrete charge about the Iraqi oil industry's problems was "pretend"? It seemed very real. You were exposed as a complete know-nothing.

The debunking that sent you scurrying when you posted inept YouTube videos "proving" that explosives were going off in the Towers was "pretend"? No, you were certainly well and truly debunked!

[LastChild]

The steel didn't melt, and the office content probably did.



I'm going to have to wait for the final report on WTC7



As far as the initiation of the collapse goes, I would say buckling.



KSM



He was at the Pentagon. He didn't order to shoot the plane down.



They used seemingly real ID's but doctored them.

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report_Ch7.htm



I don't know about that.



See above.



He probably misspoke.



Dunno.



Hard to tell, about 13 seconds I guess.



They knew the building was in jeopardy, they probably got confused.



You can find that out in the NIST report.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/



Dislodged.



The NIST report, read it.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/



Three were severed, four others were damaged

NIST report (NISTNCSTAR1-2 (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-2Draft.pdf))



Dunno.



Dunno

Thread about it here:
http://www.randi.org/forumlive/showthread.php?t=109172



Wouldn't think so.



The black boxes of flights 77 and 175 were not found. I think only the ones from flight93 were.



Box cutters.



Dunno



9/11 Commission Report.

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report_Ch1.htm



Dunno



Right now, I think he's suing airlines and airport security companies, don't know which ones exactly. Probably to recover the costs of the disaster.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/27/nyregion/27rebuild.html?ref=nyregion
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=110000



The Commission report is very clear that it was members of AQ, funded by his network who committed these acts. UBL even acknowledged it.

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/12/13/ret.bin.laden.videotape/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6363306/



I wish I knew. Probably in northern Pakistan.



Dunno



Dunno



It's very hard, especially for conspiracies on a large scale, involving thousands of people.



Dunno



Dunno, probably alot. These people were disintegrated remember?



If there is evidence I'd like to see it, yes.



Awaiting completion.



What mission? If you mean 9/11 read the Commission report.

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report_Ch7.htm
http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report_Ch8.htm



http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report_Ch7.htm
http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report_Ch8.htm



Dunno



I don't think they knew planes would be used this way, and specifically on the WTC.



I don't know what you are talking about. Besides, how would I know what folders are on the president of the USA's desk?



To cover his ass.



Dunno



Please rephrase the question.



The 9/11 Commission Report, the NIST and FEMA reports mostly.



Loaded question.



I'm not angry



See above.

Well thanks for trying. You should go look a couple of what you did answer up. If you want to support the official theory that is.

[pomeroo]

Well thanks for trying. You should go look a couple of what you did answer up. If you want to support the official theory that is.


I was wondering. You ran away after being soundly drubbed. You were exposed as vacuous and totally uninformed. Now, you return to do nothing more than wiggle your ears and bray loudly. Seriously, what is it with you? Do you enjoy pain?

[Dr Adequate]

Who do you think you're tricking? Everyone here knows that every single view you have on anything and everything comes from right field. Everyone does indeed know that. Whereas I am a "lefty" who despises all of pomeroo's political views, including the ones I haven't heard yet, and yet I can still agree with him that there has been an investigation, because that's a fact. Remember facts? Those things you occasionally paid attention to before you discovered Da Twoof?

There's no point in accusing pomeroo of right-wing bias in those cases where almost everyone on the left agrees with him, just as there'd be no point in accusing you of left-wing bias when you find yourself in agreement with foaming Nazis and halfwitted Holocaust deniers.

[pomeroo]

Yeah what's a little obstruction anyway in an investigation on what caused the deaths of nearly 3,000 people on 9/11? It makes you kind of wonder why Kean and Hamilton even bothered to write their open letter claiming obstruction. Who cares right?

Yeah nothing to see here folks just move along. Pay noooo attention. Back in the sand with your head.

lol priceless



Let's keep track of the number of times this hopeless fraud will pretend that the 9/11 Commission was trying to determine what caused the deaths of nearly 3,000 people.

[Pardalis]

Well thanks for trying. You should go look a couple of what you did answer up. If you want to support the official theory that is.

All your questions that have to do with the meat of the 9/11 story are answered in the different reports. The question to which I answered "dunno" are mostly about details that are by themselves meaningless, and do not point necessarily to an "inside job".

[pomeroo]

Everyone does indeed know that. Whereas I am a "lefty" who despises all of pomeroo's political views, including the ones I haven't heard yet, and yet I can still agree with him that there has been an investigation, because that's a fact. Remember facts? Those things you occasionally paid attention to before you discovered Da Twoof?

There's no point in accusing pomeroo of right-wing bias in those cases where almost everyone on the left agrees with him, just as there'd be no point in accusing you of left-wing bias when you find yourself in agreement with foaming Nazis and halfwitted Holocaust deniers.



Dr. Adequate and I will never agree on purely political matters, but we share an inability to look at a bright full moon in a star-filled sky and insist that it's a blazing noonday sun.

[SpitfireIX]

Yeah what's a little obstruction anyway in an investigation on what caused the deaths of nearly 3,000 people on 9/11?


Appeal to pity fallacy.

It makes you kind of wonder why Kean and Hamilton even bothered to write their open letter claiming obstruction. Who cares right?


Yes, of course, that's why they called for a completely new investigation. :rolleyes:

Yeah nothing to see here folks just move along. Pay noooo attention. Back in the sand with your head.

lol priceless


As I mentioned in an earlier post, the alleged obstruction is being investigated, both by the Justice Department and by Congress.

[fuelair]

[yawn] or is this too dismissive?
Nope! Not too dismissive at all!!@ I'm tired- YAAAWWWWNNNN-ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.........

[fuelair]

Everybody run! I think this truther is about to blow!
Who? (or is that Whom?):D

[Pardalis]

Forgot about WTC 2

Three were severed, four others were damaged

NIST report (NISTNCSTAR1-2 (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-2Draft.pdf))

That was for WTC1, if you look for the results of their analysis for WTC2, five core columns were severed there.

[johnny karate]

You’re not getting angry that I’m asking questions are you? Why?

Why am I not getting angry that you're asking questions? Because I find your questions to be rather silly and amusing.

I'll tell you what LastChild, let's see if you, or anyone else in your marginalized "movement", can get a single, legitimate MSM outlet, investigative body, or law enforcement agency on the planet to believe you, and maybe I'll pay attention to your rantings.

Until then, I'll just stand over here with the rest of the sane and rational people, pointing and laughing.

[westprog]

I would gladly suffer anything to rid the world of your nonsense.

I wouldn't subject myself to a bad hangnail.

There's a card game called Cheat, where you have a hand of cards and put down up to four cards claiming that they're a particular number. "Four sevens" or "two kings". If someone doesn't believe you, they call "cheat" and you have to take back the entire pile of cards. Sometimes people throw all their cards in and shout "one six" and hope it will work. It never does.

LC has tried playing his cards one by one, and he's been called on them one at a time. He's now throwing them all in at once. He's including things that he's had explained in detail many times. This shows a number of things -


He might be asking questions, but he's not interested in the answers.
He's not worried about putting forward ideas that he knows aren't true.
He isn't interested in persuading other people.
He is interested in persuading himself that he has special insights denied to others.If he really wanted to investigate 9/11, he'd pick one topic and delve really deeply into it. But he's tried that and all that's happened is that his fond delusions have been shattered. Now it's throw it at the wall and hope something sticks.

[tuc0]

Well thanks for trying. You should go look a couple of what you did answer up. If you want to support the official theory that is.

/delurk

He answered all your questions and this all you have to say? That is pathetic.

I don't want to read any more of your posts. You are the first person ever anywhere I will put on "ignore".

Bye.

/lurk

[Childlike Empress]

Oh, he puts you on "ignore", LastChild. Thank "Bob" that you are touching the right nerves with your "mirroring" threads, otherwise you couldn't accomplish that all of them have more replies and more hits than the original - before they are moved to AAH. Good work.

[twinstead]

Yes, CE. Idiocy has a habit of touching nerves. Congratulations, LC.

[beachnut]

Why are you pretending that there "hasn't been a real investigation"? Whom do you hope to deceive?
I can not find his answer, did he pm it?

[Lynx2174]

You wouldn't like me when I'm angry...

[Childlike Empress]

You wouldn't like me when I'm angry...


I don't like you when you're not angry either.

[fuelair]

I don't like you when you're not angry either.

Still very boring , very ignorant, not impressive - and I loathe Shrub and his puppeteer B'Boys.

[Childlike Empress]

Still very boring , very ignorant, not impressive - and I loathe Shrub and his puppeteer B'Boys.


Let's be honest, fuelair. Who cares? If you wanna read a not-so-boring post by me, attent the politics forum. Of course, you wouldn't touch that with a ten-foot pole. Who can blame you - clueless as you are.

[Good Lt]

Has the 9-11 Troof revolution started yet?

I'm getting tired of waiting.

[Dr Adequate]

Thank "Bob" that you are touching the right nerves with your "mirroring" threads, otherwise you couldn't accomplish that all of them have more replies and more hits than the original ... Well duh. This is because twoofers can't find any answers to our questions and run away from them, whereas debunkers, as you can see, get a great deal of fun out of taking the piss out of LastChild's silly ravings. The "right nerves" appear to be those proximate to the funny bone.

By the way, do you have any evidence against the usual version of what actually happened, or any evidence in favor of twoofer fantasies? If so, please start a thread and tell us all about it.

[gc051360]

Lastchild, what exactly do you want investigated? Who exactly do you want investigating it? And why do you want a new investigation?

eta: How much do you think it would cost? How would you pay for it?

~the follow up question would be, do you really think it is worth the tax payers money, and the government's time, to investigate a few parts of the "official story" that you find difficult to comprehend, or simply choose to ignore?

I mean. In order to want a new investigation, obviously you have a problem with the substance of the original. What specific part of the original investigation do you have a problem with? One quote from Hamilton?

[aggle-rithm]

Why are you pretending that there "hasn't been a real investigation"? Whom do you hope to deceive?

He's just playing a friendly game of "Hide the Cognitive Dissonance".

[A W Smith]

He's just playing a friendly game of "Hide the Cognitive Dissonance".


But shouldn't he be playing that with a person of the opposite sex like Fraulein fruitless up there?

[Drudgewire]

Nope! Not too dismissive at all!!@ I'm tired- YAAAWWWWNNNN-ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.........
No really, he brings up some interesting and fresh points. Like the one where hzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

[HENTAI DOUKYUSEI JP]

Which is it Debunkers?
You’re not getting angry that I’m asking questions are you? Why?
I am angry you forgot to ask me about the Tennessee Williams' book before going on vacation!!!!

[chillzero]

Keep it civil, and on topic please.

[gumboot]

It's funny how Conspiracy Theorists routinely ignore the FBI's criminal investigation into 9/11.

Personally, of all the many investigations into 9/11, I fell the 9/11 Commission is the very least important one.

[LastChild]

It's funny how Conspiracy Theorists routinely ignore the FBI's criminal investigation into 9/11.

Personally, of all the many investigations into 9/11, I fell the 9/11 Commission is the very least important one.


http://www.whistleblowers.org/html/fbi_whistleblowers.html
Media Coverage of FBI Whistleblower/Accountibility Issues
Daily Show: Headlines - Get Smarter
Is hummus a terrorist organization, or a delicious chick pea dish?


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4116316.stm
Terror skills 'not FBI priority'
Lack of knowledge
Mr Mueller said that when he took over as director of the FBI in 2001, just a week before the 11 September attacks, his knowledge of Middle Eastern terrorism had been "relatively limited".
The FBI's executive assistant director in charge of terrorism, Gary Bald, also testified recently, telling Mr Youssef's employment lawsuit that he had got his training in fighting terrorism when he took on the job two years ago.
He also admitted that he had little or no knowledge of Middle East affairs.
"I wish that I had it. It would be nice," he said.


The following Veteran National Security experts were turned away, ignored, or censored by the 9/11 Commission, even though they had direct and relevant information related to the Commission’s investigation
http://www.nswbc.org/Reports%20-%20Documents/Veteran%20National%20Security%20Experts.pdf


Coleen Rowley's Memo to FBI Director Robert Mueller
An edited version of the agent's 13-page letter
I feel that certain facts, including the following, have, up to now, been omitted, downplayed, glossed over and/or mis-characterized in an effort to avoid or minimize personal and/or institutional embarrassment on the part of the FBI and/or perhaps even for improper political reasons:
http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101020603/memo.html


Now who is it that's really doing all the ignoring? So far I've shown that the 9/11 commission investigation was limited in scope and obstructed. Some of that obstruction came right from the CIA. Now I've also shown the FBI to be nothing more then an incompetent joke as far as terrorism goes both before and since 9/11.

What else would any of you debunkers like to point to on how you pieced your version of events together regarding 9/11?

[applecorped]

Yawn.

[Good Lt]

Now who is it that's really doing all the ignoring? So far I've shown that the 9/11 commission investigation was limited in scope and obstructed. Some of that obstruction came right from the CIA. Now I've also shown the FBI to be nothing more then an incompetent joke as far as terrorism goes both before and since 9/11.

What else would any of you debunkers like to point to on how you pieced your version of events together regarding 9/11?

So logically, then, you can now answer the great question with a yes or no.

Was 9-11 an inside job or not?

[LastChild]

So logically, then, you can now answer the great question with a yes or no.

Was 9-11 an inside job or not?

But I have answered you.
Understand?
Many times.
Please try to comprehend.

I don't know. It hasn't been investigated.

[Good Lt]

But I have answered you.
Understand?
Many times.
Please try to comprehend.

I don't know. It hasn't been investigated.


Yes, it has been investigated.

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/linkstoterrorism%2Calqaedainfo
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/the911commissionreportandhearings%2Ccongre
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/nist%2Cfemareports%2C911structuralengineerin

Just because you didn't like the conclusions of these multiple investigations doesn't mean it wasn't investigated.

Try to keep up.

So, based on the investigation that took place, was it an inside job or not?

"I don't know" means "yes" in this instance, because there is no room for ambiguity. Either you believe it was TEH CONSPIRACY or you don't.

So I take it that you, who so vigorously defends 9-11 conspiracy fantasies no matter how stupid or implausible or , that you believe it was an inside job.

And therefore, nothing else you say needs to be taken seriously.

[Alareth]

But I have answered you.
Understand?
Many times.
Please try to comprehend.

I don't know. It hasn't been investigated.

We comprehend completely.

You have zero commitment to your self professed cause.

I put more effort into deciding which pair of socks to wear in the morning than you do in trying to get anything done to get the answers to your ultimately pointless questions.

Your claims to not knowing what happened or not having a theory are a cop out.

[HeyLeroy]

Which is it Debunkers? Building content fire or steel melting jet fuel fire? Building content fire or 10 story gashes? Buckling or pancake? UBL or KSM? Where was Cheney again and when and what exactly was the order? The hijackers were identified or did they use fake ID’s? Which ones? Was the phone call Cheney claimed that stated “Angel is next” an inside job? Was it even true? What did Dubya claim to see on the TV before he went into the classroom? What TV? How many seconds did the towers fall in? Why did the news report WTC-7 falling before it fell and how did they know again? How hot did the steel get and just how do you know? Fireproofing sheered off or shaken off, and how much, and how do you know again? How many core columns were damaged and is that just a guess? How often does a high-rise suffer global collapse from anything other then explosives? Plane parts and serial numbers are where? Are they with the steel? Where are the other two black boxes again? Box-cutters or short knives? No pepper spray, bombs, or guns, on the planes, and how do you know, and just how did you know about the box-cutters again? How many lawsuits against the airlines have gone to trial? Who is poor Larry suing and why? Where is the hard evidence against UBL? In fact where the hell is UBL and who how many is keeping it a secret all of these years? Who mailed that Anthrax from a Government lab and is keeping that a secret all theses years? What’s that you claim about the impossibility of keeping secrets? Who chartered the flights after 9/11? How many victims’ remains are still missing and you want to know where the explosives evidence is? Where is the WTC-7 report? Who and how many planned and financed the mission? Got any names? Have any confessions that weren’t the product of torture? The administration had no idea someone would attempt to fly planes into the WTC or they had a pretty good idea? What did that folder say on Dubya’s desk when he had better things to do like build a nature walk down on the ranch? Dubya wanted a limited investigation into 9/11 why? Dubya wouldn’t talk to the commission separate from Cheney and under oath why? Kean and Hamilton said the investigation was obstructed and you claim to know what and based on what? Your general expert consensus and their personal quotes supporting the official theory are where? Is 9/11 the only thing this administration has told the truth about or is it really more like the fables they told about, WMD’s, Valerie Plame, Pat Tillman, attorney firings, torture, wire tapping, the elections, etc. etc. etc….

You’re not getting angry that I’m asking questions are you? Why?

That's quite a list of questions, and i'll admit, I haven't read the entire thread to see responses.

You can begin researching the answers yourself, or look here (http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=64) where all of these questions have been dealt with, in-depth.

[CptColumbo]

Will there ever be a point when the pragmatism of the "twoof" movement is justified?

[pomeroo]

http://www.whistleblowers.org/html/fbi_whistleblowers.html
Media Coverage of FBI Whistleblower/Accountibility Issues
Daily Show: Headlines - Get Smarter
Is hummus a terrorist organization, or a delicious chick pea dish?


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4116316.stm
Terror skills 'not FBI priority'
Lack of knowledge
Mr Mueller said that when he took over as director of the FBI in 2001, just a week before the 11 September attacks, his knowledge of Middle Eastern terrorism had been "relatively limited".
The FBI's executive assistant director in charge of terrorism, Gary Bald, also testified recently, telling Mr Youssef's employment lawsuit that he had got his training in fighting terrorism when he took on the job two years ago.
He also admitted that he had little or no knowledge of Middle East affairs.
"I wish that I had it. It would be nice," he said.


The following Veteran National Security experts were turned away, ignored, or censored by the 9/11 Commission, even though they had direct and relevant information related to the Commission’s investigation
http://www.nswbc.org/Reports%20-%20Documents/Veteran%20National%20Security%20Experts.pdf


Coleen Rowley's Memo to FBI Director Robert Mueller
An edited version of the agent's 13-page letter
I feel that certain facts, including the following, have, up to now, been omitted, downplayed, glossed over and/or mis-characterized in an effort to avoid or minimize personal and/or institutional embarrassment on the part of the FBI and/or perhaps even for improper political reasons:
http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101020603/memo.html


Now who is it that's really doing all the ignoring? So far I've shown that the 9/11 commission investigation was limited in scope and obstructed. Some of that obstruction came right from the CIA. Now I've also shown the FBI to be nothing more then an incompetent joke as far as terrorism goes both before and since 9/11.

What else would any of you debunkers like to point to on how you pieced your version of events together regarding 9/11?



Uh, yes, conservatives have been complaining for years about the artificial barriers inhibiting cooperation between intelligence-gathering agencies. This is a real issue, and as such, it doesn't concern you. Now, you tell us that the FBI is not overflowing with Middle East specialists. Duh!

Rationalists get the idea that the FBI and the CIA let America down. Both agencies failed to protect us. Again, that is a real-world issue that can't concern you.

How does it support the mindless fantasies you promote to raise questions that have been raised by honest researchers such as Gerald Posner? You don't care about improving America's intelligence services. You are hopelessly wedded to a deranged fantasy that holds that nothing went wrong--it was all a masterful scheme devised by omnisicent super-villains to...to...to do something!

Tell us if the FBI was complicit in your imaginary conspiracy.

[pomeroo]

But I have answered you.
Understand?
Many times.
Please try to comprehend.

I don't know. It hasn't been investigated.


Really? Before you vanish again, tell us what the most comprehensive investigation in history overlooked. Tell us if the FBI is part of your imaginary conspiracy.

By the way, you were caught--as usual-- when you dishonestly cited Coleen Rowley:

http://911myths.com/html/coleen_rowley.html

[1337m4n]

LastChild:


Was the government complicit in the 9/11 attacks?

Yes or No?

[LastChild]

LastChild:


Was the government complicit in the 9/11 attacks?

Yes or No?

But I have answered you.
Understand?
Many times.
Please try to comprehend.



don't you get it?

[Dog Town]

But I have answered you.
Understand?
Many times.
Please try to comprehend.



don't you get it?

Excuse me, but I have not kept track. What dodge number, is LC on, now?

[Good Lt]

Just answer the question, LC.

If you've done it so clearly and so convincingly, you should have no trouble doing it again.

What are you afraid of?

[Travis]

Argumentum Ad Populum or Argumentum Ad Hominem? Cookies or Cake? Dismissive ignorance or feverish arrogance? Star Wars or Star Trek?

I'm just asking.

[HENTAI DOUKYUSEI JP]

This so-called revolution is really taking over...............
How long will it take for the twoofer bucks to be in circulation and take over the U.S. Dollar and the Euro?
lastchild?

[peteweaver]

No offence last child, but if you used sentences, and stuck to one specific issue at a time it would be a heck of a lot easier to discuss things with you.

[TheRedWorm]

Lastchild, what exactly do you want investigated? Who exactly do you want investigating it? And why do you want a new investigation?

eta: How much do you think it would cost? How would you pay for it?

~the follow up question would be, do you really think it is worth the tax payers money, and the government's time, to investigate a few parts of the "official story" that you find difficult to comprehend, or simply choose to ignore?

I mean. In order to want a new investigation, obviously you have a problem with the substance of the original. What specific part of the original investigation do you have a problem with? One quote from Hamilton?


If you genuinely want a new investigation, LC, you will answer all of the above questions honestly, and without handwaving. I don't expect you will, but there it is.

[Kage]

A question for LC:

If the government was powerful enough and had the desire you ascribe to it to pull off 9/11 in any manner with any methodology, how did this same evil and corrupt government willing to do whatever necessary for war, oil and the political life of the Bush administration not find WMD in Iraq? 9/11 would have taken hundreds of millions if not billions to pull off as an inside job and even more to keep secret, yet there was no money or knowhow or willingness to buy or steal a vial of anthrax and an arabic typewriter? The government is all powerful entity or seriously flawed and incompetent? Which is it?

[Swing Dangler]

Forgot about WTC 2
That was for WTC1, if you look for the results of their analysis for WTC2, five core columns were severed there.

What pictures or film showed these severed columns?

[Pardalis]

What pictures or film showed these severed columns?

Engineers have a good imagination. They can figure it out without video or pictures.

We've never seen a black hole or an electron (until recently), and yet we know they exist.

[aggle-rithm]

What pictures or film showed these severed columns?

I would say you're off-topic, but the topic is so convoluted that it's impossible to say with certainty whether you are or not.

[pomeroo]

Another tiresome thread featuring the vacuous Child prancing and dancing and using his armpit to make disgusting sounds. His avoidance of the reality that destroys his fantasy suggests that--oops!--maybe it really wasn't the 9/11 Commission, which hadn't been formed yet, that conducted the original massive investigation. So far out on a limb, with so little to say.

[pomeroo]

What pictures or film showed these severed columns?


Swing, your reputation as one of the fantasy movement's silliest and most desperate liars requires you to explain your signature. Stacey Loizeaux admits that the demolition industry has never confronted a challenge quite so daunting as bringing down the Twin Towers. She opines that the task might be accomplished with months of planning to solve unprecedented logistical problems. So, if we grant that Skilling's quote might conceivably be accurate, how exactly does it support the insane nonsense you peddle? Why are you quoting Skilling as opposed to, say, Voltaire or Groucho Marx?

[dudalb]

a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

--William Shakespeare, Macbeth, Act V, Scene 5

Shakespeare was a true genius. 400 years before it was invented, he knew the Internet would happen.

[Kage]

Again, truthers never answer questions, only ask them. It is like postmodern socratic discourse, without that fun part where the city kills the obnoxious person who has no point and only asks the same question over and over again.

[Par]

Another tiresome thread featuring the vacuous Child prancing and dancing and using his armpit to make disgusting sounds.


Just occasionally, Pomeroo, you have a way of describing things with laser-like precision.

[Par]

What pictures or film showed these severed columns?


I don’t know why you bother writing things like that. No one’s going to fall for it.

[Dr Adequate]

BTW, did John Skilling explain how this "top expert" would go about "bringing these buildings down with explosives" without the explosives explosively exploding and making explodey noises?

My guess is that he didn't, 'cos he was talking about reality, not twoof.

[aggle-rithm]

BTW, did John Skilling explain how this "top expert" would go about "bringing these buildings down with explosives" without the explosives explosively exploding and making explodey noises?

My guess is that he didn't, 'cos he was talking about reality, not twoof.

I still want to know how they "pulled" building 7 down with explosives and/or thermite.

Wouldn't cables, or something even remotely cable-like, have been easier?

[pomeroo]

Just occasionally, Pomeroo, you have a way of describing things with laser-like precision.



Yes, I see myself as a blind, aged pig who once in a great while roots up a truffle. Some people have suggested that I may have a self-image problem.

[Travis]

What pictures or film showed these severed columns?

Well there all those photos from all those photographers that ignored all common sense and the advice of.....everyone, and rushed up to the WTC impact floors where they snapped photos of the severed columns then parachuted the cameras to the ground as they inevitably died. The FBI then confiscated the cameras of course.

I mean who in their right mind would believe that no one would brave thousand degree heat and climb through twisted sharp wreckage a hundred floors in the sky just to get pictures of a building's core structural elements?

[Pardalis]

Besides, even if there were photos or video of the interior, we all know what the response would be (see Horatius' quote in my sig).

[Par]

BTW, did John Skilling explain how this "top expert" would go about "bringing these buildings down with explosives" without the explosives explosively exploding and making explodey noises? My guess is that he didn't, 'cos he was talking about reality, not twoof.


I took up the issue of his signature with him once before.

For the sake of clarity, you should probably parenthetically add the following to your signature:


Skilling is a structural engineer and not a demolition expert.
He is indulging in off-the-cuff speculation.
No one has claimed that World Trade Center buildings were simply impervious to demolition.



His only reply was to ask me to adduce evidence (actually “proof”) for the second point. He ignored the others. He is an extremely deceitful person. I don’t think he realises how clearly other people can see that.

[TheRedWorm]

Lastchild, what exactly do you want investigated? Who exactly do you want investigating it? And why do you want a new investigation?

eta: How much do you think it would cost? How would you pay for it?

~the follow up question would be, do you really think it is worth the tax payers money, and the government's time, to investigate a few parts of the "official story" that you find difficult to comprehend, or simply choose to ignore?

I mean. In order to want a new investigation, obviously you have a problem with the substance of the original. What specific part of the original investigation do you have a problem with? One quote from Hamilton?

If you genuinely want a new investigation, LC, you will answer all of the above questions honestly, and without handwaving.

Bump for LC

[LastChild]

Bump for LC

Lastchild, what exactly do you want investigated?

9/11. All of it. Leading up to, on, and since.

Who exactly do you want investigating it? And why do you want a new investigation?

In general as many people as possible. Officially another commission with their hands untied and their blindfolds off might be sufficient under a new administration.

eta: How much do you think it would cost?

Less then a war.


How would you pay for it?

We can start with a war profiteer tax. That alone would give us plenty.

~the follow up question would be, do you really think it is worth the tax payers money,

Yes.

and the government's time,

Yes. but not to just investigate a few parts of the "official story" that I find difficult. That's your dumbed down version not mine. There are plenty of people who know for a fact that the 9/11 commission investigation was handicapped. Starting with these two...

"What we do know is that government officials decided not to inform a lawfully constituted body, created by Congress and the president, to investigate one the greatest tragedies to confront this country. We call that obstruction." - Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton served as chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of the 9/11 commission.

I mean. In order to want a new investigation, obviously you have a problem with the substance of the original. What specific part of the original investigation do you have a problem with? One quote from Hamilton?

I just gave you one.

If you genuinely want a new investigation, LC, you will answer all of the above questions honestly, and without handwaving.

Answered whether you like the answers or not.

[pomeroo]

9/11. All of it. Leading up to, on, and since.


So, were you lying when you pretended that the 9/11 Commission conducted the original investigation or are you really sufficiently clueless and obtuse to believe it?





In general as many people as possible. Officially another commission with their hands untied and their blindfolds off might be sufficient under a new administration.

No, your mindless, empty generalities just won't do. As you must exclude all the real researchers--physicists, structural engineers, seismologists, metallurgists, fire-safety specialists, demolition professionals, air traffic controllers, pilots, avionics techs, forensic examiners, firefighters, military personnel, etc.--to get your preconceived result, WHO SHOULD CONDUCT YOUR INVESTIGATION?



Less then a war.


Less than socialized medicine, too.




We can start with a war profiteer tax. That alone would give us plenty.


Really? I suspect you are babbling mindlessly again. What do you mean?



Yes.



But, you don't work. What do you suppose people who have jobs think?





Yes. but not to just investigate a few parts of the "official story" that I find difficult. That's your dumbed down version not mine. There are plenty of people who know for a fact that the 9/11 commission investigation was handicapped. Starting with these two...

"What we do know is that government officials decided not to inform a lawfully constituted body, created by Congress and the president, to investigate one the greatest tragedies to confront this country. We call that obstruction." - Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton served as chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of the 9/11 commission.


Tell us why Kean and Hamilton don't support your call for a new investigation. Explain why they reject your conspiracy fantasies.



I just gave you one.


Answered whether you like the answers or not.


Actually, you have never acknowledged your blunder. You ludicrously pretended that the most comprehensive investigation of its kind was superficial. You were exposed as a liar. You have been repeatedly asked who should lead your lynch mob: you refuse to respond.

[MIKILLINI]

Please try to comprehend.

I don't know. It hasn't been investigated.

You haven't shown anything valid and extraordinary to dispute or overshadow the official investigation LC.
Have Kean and Hamilton ever claimed there were very serious issues remaining that would implicate Americans "as part of an inside job" and demand a criminal investigation?
No, they haven't. So LC, is da twoof movement (or your movement) ever going to start truthing?
No need to get angry, I'm just asking.

[LastChild]

A question for LC:

If the government was powerful enough and had the desire you ascribe to it to pull off 9/11 in any manner with any methodology, how did this same evil and corrupt government willing to do whatever necessary for war, oil and the political life of the Bush administration not find WMD in Iraq? 9/11 would have taken hundreds of millions if not billions to pull off as an inside job and even more to keep secret, yet there was no money or knowhow or willingness to buy or steal a vial of anthrax and an arabic typewriter? The government is all powerful entity or seriously flawed and incompetent? Which is it?

Did they need to find them? Last I looked we're still in Iraq and some idiots have their eye on Iran.

Next.

[LastChild]

You haven't shown anything valid and extraordinary to dispute or overshadow the official investigation LC.
Have Kean and Hamilton ever claimed there were very serious issues remaining that would implicate Americans "as part of an inside job" and demand a criminal investigation?
No, they haven't. So LC, is da twoof movement (or your movement) ever going to start truthing?
No need to get angry, I'm just asking.

Who decides what's valid and extraordinary? You? Stop being delusional you make me laugh.

What time does the debunking start?

[applecorped]

Wow, what a thorough rebuttal. Typical of troothers, a hand wave at anything that they can't explain. And so it goes, endlessly...

[pomeroo]

Did they need to find them? Last I looked we're still in Iraq and some idiots have their eye on Iran.

Next.


No, your imaginary conspiracy did not need to find WMD if the goal was to transfer control of both houses of Congress to the Democrats. Right?

[pomeroo]

Who decides what's valid and extraordinary? You? Stop being delusional you make me laugh.

What time does the debunking start?



The debunking steamroller has, as usual, squashed you like a bug.

[MIKILLINI]

Who decides what's valid and extraordinary? You? Stop being delusional you make me laugh.

What time does the debunking start?

Who decides? You have already by virtue of uncertainty. This is what moves you to become irrational and delusional in your approach to ignore all other investigations that were not part of the 9/11 Commission. The debunking has started and passed you a long time ago.

[LastChild]

The debunking steamroller has, as usual, squashed you like a bug.

Steamroller? Yeah right. More like a bunch of clowns in the circus falling off their tricycles. Stupid but funny.

[LastChild]

Who decides? You have already by virtue of uncertainty. This is what moves you to become irrational and delusional in your approach to ignore all other investigations that were not part of the 9/11 Commission. The debunking has started and passed you a long time ago.

Pretend doesn't count silly.

[pomeroo]

Steamroller? Yeah right. More like a bunch of clowns in the circus falling off their tricycles. Stupid but funny.




Yawn.

You made a horses's ass of yourself trying to pretend that the 9/11 Commission conducted the original massive investigation. What did those thousands of agents overlook? Don't be shy--we keep asking the same question. It's almost as though you don't want to answer.


Kean and Hamilton reject your conspiracy fantasies. Why would a conspiracy liar invoke people who regard him as a delusional fool?

[CHF]

LastChild, have you ever done anything remotely useful for your cause?

Have you contacted media or local engineers? Have you showed your evidence to anyone in a position to do something with it?

Or are you just a full time troll?

[pomeroo]

LastChild, have you ever done anything remotely useful for your cause?

Have you contacted media or local engineers? Have you showed your evidence to anyone in a position to do something with it?

Or are you just a full time troll?


He's just asking questions.

[MIKILLINI]

Pretend doesn't count silly.

So when are you going to move out of that pretend reality you continue to reside in?

[Jonnyclueless]

Once again, insults coming from a kid who doesn't even know the difference between a polar pattern and a mechanism in a microphone? My God, if I had made that big a fool of myself like he did, I wouldn't bother showing my face here let alone call other people clowns. It's like a midget calling a pro basket baller short.

Yet here we are 7 years later and no one has been able to prove a controlled demolition yet.

[Dr Adequate]

Did they need to find them? Last I looked we're still in Iraq and some idiots have their eye on Iran. And zillions of people, including me, think that because they didn't find them, they're fools and liars at best and war criminals at worst. So yes, they needed to find them.

So, why didn't they fake that like truthers claim they faked 9/11?

[LastChild]

And zillions of people, including me, think that because they didn't find them, they're fools and liars at best and war criminals at worst. So yes, they needed to find them.

So, why didn't they fake that like truthers claim they faked 9/11?

Because they didn't have to?

[Dr Adequate]

Who decides what's valid and extraordinary? You? Stop being delusional you make me laugh. Well, who should decide?

Maybe we should leave it up to the general public --- you know, those guys who turn up to Furry conventions and dress up as fluffy animals in greater numbers than they can be bothered to turn up to Truther rallies?

What time does the debunking start? When does the childish whining about your opponents stop? Assuming that you then move on to arguments for twoofism, rather than something equally irrelevant, such as recipies for cabbage soup, that's when it'll start.

BTW, are you planning to respond to this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=111364)?

[LastChild]

Well, who should decide?

Maybe we should leave it up to the general public --- you know, those guys who turn up to Furry conventions and dress up as fluffy animals in greater numbers than they can be bothered to turn up to Truther rallies?

BTW, are you planning to respond to this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=111364)?



I did. (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3619956&postcount=15)

[Kage]

Because they didn't have to?

If the Bush administration was at all complicit in 9/11, why wouldn't they plant WMDs in Iraq? Planting WMDs in Iraq costs nothing and requires a miniscule effort to cover up compared to what the most minimalist theories about 9/11 would need to work. If they are willing to spend billions to create a justification for this war wouldn't they spend thousands to maintain that justification? Are they so insane that they would just not do it?

[pomeroo]

Because they didn't have to?


You ducked my response on the other thread. As you recall, I asked if your imaginary conspiracy's goal was to transfer control of both houses of Congress to the Democratic Party. Understandably, you're utterly flummoxed by a very obvious point that never occurred to you. Here's a suggestion that works for Ace Baker: pretend that there's no difference between conservative Republicans who want to win the war against the jihadists and liberal Democrats who have no interest in fighting it. Granted the notion is insane, but how else do you intend to maintain your fantasy? The failure to find WMD in Iraq nearly cost Bush his re-election and led to his humiliation at the polls in 2006. You need some strong medicine to stand reality on its head. Ace is your man.

[HENTAI DOUKYUSEI JP]

Who decides what's valid and extraordinary? You? Stop being delusional you make me laugh.

What time does the debunking start?
LASTCHILD, HOW COME YOU ARE NOT EVEN PREACHING ABOUT LC:FC AT ALL?
IDIOT TWOOFERS GAVE US A SERMON ABOUT THE REVOLUTION.
I ASK YOU, WHEN DOES IT START?

[fullflavormenthol]

If the Bush administration was at all complicit in 9/11, why wouldn't they plant WMDs in Iraq? Planting WMDs in Iraq costs nothing and requires a miniscule effort to cover up compared to what the most minimalist theories about 9/11 would need to work. If they are willing to spend billions to create a justification for this war wouldn't they spend thousands to maintain that justification? Are they so insane that they would just not do it?
Exactly. How hard would it have been to plant WMD's? My other question is why not also plant documents and evidence of Bin Laden getting funding or create another "fake video" like the truthers claim the Osama confession is. Though this time have Bin Laden and Hussien meeting about 9-11. Why not fake hours of phone and e-mail communications between Iraq and AQ?

I mean if we are to believe the government can and will fake things than why not go all out? If they were this good it would be just like 1984, and we would never see loses in Iraq. Only victories and constant proof of involvment of other countries and even private citizens against the war effort.

Truthers are suffering from the myth of a competent government.

[Foolmewunz]

Who decides what's valid and extraordinary? You? Stop being delusional you make me laugh.

Yes, since you get to decide what a "real investigation" is, we've claimed the right to decide on "what's valid" and "what's extraordinary". In fact, Fuelair put a deposit down on those terms in the 911 Debating Terms Superstore in Sand Gap, KY back in October when you joined.

So that's that. Your hand-waving dismissal of anything that you don't agree with as not being a "real ________" is now offset of our handwaving dismissal of EVERY WORD YOU'VE EVER UTTERED OR TYPED.

What time does the debunking start?

It started with your first post, and has continued ever since. You can't see it because you are numb from the neck up, however. So you'll just have to take our word for it, because we've also got a deposit on the term "debunking" (that one we bought a long time ago, back in the Delmart Mike Vreeland era). I just renewed the option on the word, and the film rights.

Once again, as long as you think you are able to define right and wrong just by posting snotty opinions, then I'm taking ownership of "true", "false", "debunking", "valid", and "extraordinary". Ergo, I am right and you are wrong. That's already clear. Why is it clear? Because I said so, and evidence isn't necessary in a LastChild thread. All you need is to state someting, state it often, and then make feeble attempts at being derisive to your responders.

How'd I do? Posting according LC rules is really cool.

(Now, you guys are going to have to excuse me. Recess is over. I'm going out to one of the grownup bars.)

ETA: Childlike.... could you and LC wed. Be still my heart! We'd have Last Childlike Empress!

[moon1969]

So OBL and KSM? What about Mullah Omar and Mullah Dadullah? Oh yeah and I bet that Ramzi Yousef can confirm that KSM did plan 9/11.

[LastChild]

If the Bush administration was at all complicit in 9/11, why wouldn't they plant WMDs in Iraq? Planting WMDs in Iraq costs nothing and requires a miniscule effort to cover up compared to what the most minimalist theories about 9/11 would need to work. If they are willing to spend billions to create a justification for this war wouldn't they spend thousands to maintain that justification? Are they so insane that they would just not do it?

Oh cut it out. Evidently some things weren't as simple as the idiots thought it would be. That is obvious. And how do you know they didn't try and fail?

And stop dodging my original answer. They didn't need to. They lied and got their war and we are still there even though there were no WMD's. And the oil isn't paying for the war and the reconstruction like they claimed either is it? In fact much of it is missing everyday for years now. But still there are idiots claiming we need to attack Iran now with even less proof of their nuclear capabilities then we had of Iraq'S WMD capabilities.

Did they need to plant WMD's? Did they get their war? Are we still there? Was anyone held accountable for lying? I believe the traitor Douglas Feith is walking around promoting his book these days when he shouldn’t have even been given a last request before we slipped the rope around his neck for treason.

[Travis]

Your assumption that 9/11 led to the Iraq War and that 9/11 was necessary to get that war is fallacious. If Bush had made it a priority to get that war he could have done it without the need for 9/11. After all Saddam wasn't any more dangerous the day after 9/11 then he was the day before. Besides, many people, myself included, had been pushing for an invasion of Iraq years before 9/11 happened.

[LastChild]

Your assumption that 9/11 led to the Iraq War and that 9/11 was necessary to get that war is fallacious. If Bush had made it a priority to get that war he could have done it without the need for 9/11. After all Saddam wasn't any more dangerous the day after 9/11 then he was the day before. Besides, many people, myself included, had been pushing for an invasion of Iraq years before 9/11 happened.

I was answering a question that asked if the administration had anything to do with 9/11 then why didn't they plant weapons in Iraq? Who is making the assumptions?

[applecorped]

Oh cut it out. Evidently some things weren't as simple as the idiots thought it would be. That is obvious. And how do you know they didn't try and fail?

And stop dodging my original answer. They didn't need to. They lied and got their war and we are still there even though there were no WMD's. And the oil isn't paying for the war and the reconstruction like they claimed either is it? In fact much of it is missing everyday for years now. But still there are idiots claiming we need to attack Iran now with even less proof of their nuclear capabilities then we had of Iraq'S WMD capabilities.

Did they need to plant WMD's? Did they get their war? Are we still there? Was anyone held accountable for lying? I believe the traitor Douglas Feith is walking around promoting his book these days when he shouldn’t have even been given a last request before we slipped the rope around his neck for treason.

From the Wiki article on Douglas Feith:
"He was very arrogant", describing what it was like to work with him. "He doesn't utilize a wide variety of inputs. He seeks information that confirms what he already thinks.

Gee, that sounds like someone we know, don't you think (rhetorical, I know you don't) Lastchild?

[Swing Dangler]

[QUOTE]Here's a suggestion that works for Ace Baker: pretend that there's no difference between conservative Republicans who want to win the war against the jihadists and liberal Democrats who have no interest in fighting it.

Do you have source stating that liberal democrats do not want to fight jihadists?

[Kage]

Oh cut it out. Evidently some things weren't as simple as the idiots thought it would be. That is obvious. And how do you know they didn't try and fail?

This is my point. you can;t have it both ways. Either they are evil masterminds or bumbling idiots. You seem to have them alternating between the two to make your theories work somehow.

Do you have evidence of their trying and failing? How could they try and fail to begin with? Simple evidence of WMD, such as a mobile lab or even some anthrax to plant in a pharmaceutical company would be so easy when compared to the logistical gymnastics involved in LIHOP or MIHOP. How could people with the minimum level of competence for these theories not pull this simple thing off. How could they fail and we not hear about it? What type of failure both prevents WMDs from being faked and then also keeps the attempt unknown to the public.

And stop dodging my original answer. They didn't need to. They lied and got their war and we are still there even though there were no WMD's. And the oil isn't paying for the war and the reconstruction like they claimed either is it? In fact much of it is missing everyday for years now. But still there are idiots claiming we need to attack Iran now with even less proof of their nuclear capabilities then we had of Iraq'S WMD capabilities.

Seems awful shortsighted for a group that managed to coordinate so many moving pieces to make your conspiracy work. How far in advance do you think the bush admin had to start planning 9/11? how do they plan that far ahead and then just not care about foreign policy after their war flops? Also, the biggest hurdle to attacking Iran is the lack of credibility the administration due to the failure to find WMDs in Iraq.

Did they need to plant WMD's? Did they get their war? Are we still there? Was anyone held accountable for lying? I believe the traitor Douglas Feith is walking around promoting his book these days when he shouldn’t have even been given a last request before we slipped the rope around his neck for treason.

they didn't need to have 9/11 happen to justify going after Iraq, they could have gone in without the attack, even though this would be much, much harder. In your conspiracy theory, they chose to stage 9/11 so they could incite fear to go after Iraq, thus making it easier. They didn't need to find WMD in Iraq, but their life would be much, much easier had they found some, given how they lost the house and the senate and how they will loose the white house. You have to assume that the dream of a permanent republican majority, the acceptance of neoconservatism into the political mainstream and the historical legacy of the Bush administration were of no importance to the conspirators to think the way you do, and that makes no sense.

[Slayhamlet]

Do you have source stating that liberal democrats do not want to fight jihadists?

Of course he doesn't.


Edit: Swingie, what is it about the quote function that is so indecipherably difficult for you?

[LastChild]

This is my point. you can;t have it both ways. Either they are evil masterminds or bumbling idiots. You seem to have them alternating between the two to make your theories work somehow.

Where did I claim someone to be a mastermind? Prison is full of so-called masterminds who turned out to be bumbling idiots when things didn't work out like they planned. It doesn't mean they didn't try though. You can't have everything in absolute black and white just because you want to pretend to win a debate. Go babble your nonsense some place else.

Do you have evidence of their trying and failing? How could they try and fail to begin with? Simple evidence of WMD, such as a mobile lab or even some anthrax to plant in a pharmaceutical company would be so easy when compared to the logistical gymnastics involved in LIHOP or MIHOP. How could people with the minimum level of competence for these theories not pull this simple thing off. How could they fail and we not hear about it? What type of failure both prevents WMDs from being faked and then also keeps the attempt unknown to the public.

Why don't you explain how simple it would have been? Wasn't it going to be simple to get Iraq under control? What happened? BTW did they have to? Are we still there? How do you feel about Iran I wonder?

Seems awful shortsighted for a group that managed to coordinate so many moving pieces to make your conspiracy work.

What's my conspiracy? There has been no real investigation?

How far in advance do you think the bush admin had to start planning 9/11? how do they plan that far ahead and then just not care about foreign policy after their war flops? Also, the biggest hurdle to attacking Iran is the lack of credibility the administration due to the failure to find WMDs in Iraq.

I don't know. Maybe an investigation would find out first if it's true and then how exactly it was done. See you need to have an investigation before you go around claiming to know for a fact what happen or what didn't. But you're a pretend debunker so you don't realize that do you?

they didn't need to have 9/11 happen to justify going after Iraq, they could have gone in without the attack, even though this would be much, much harder. In your conspiracy theory, they chose to stage 9/11 so they could incite fear to go after Iraq, thus making it easier.

My conspiracy theory?

They didn't need to find WMD in Iraq, but their life would be much, much easier had they found some, given how they lost the house and the senate and how they will loose the white house.

Their life would have been easier it what sense? Did they not get something they wanted? Did losing the House and the Senate stop the war?

You have to assume that the dream of a permanent republican majority, the acceptance of neoconservatism into the political mainstream and the historical legacy of the Bush administration were of no importance to the conspirators to think the way you do, and that makes no sense.

I don't have to assume anything to keep up your delusions. See? You know nothing for a fact you only assume because that's all you got.

[Par]

Do you have source stating that liberal democrats do not want to fight jihadists?


Do you have a source for that question?

[Dr Adequate]

I did. (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3619956&postcount=15) Are you planning to respond to that thread in such a way as to answer the question posed in the OP?

[MIKILLINI]

You can't have everything in absolute black and white just because you want to pretend to win a debate.

This is an exact reflection of you LC.

[HENTAI DOUKYUSEI JP]

LASTCHILD, HOW COME YOU ARE NOT EVEN PREACHING ABOUT LC:FC AT ALL?
IDIOT TWOOFERS GAVE US A SERMON ABOUT THE REVOLUTION.
I ASK YOU, WHEN DOES IT START?

well well......

[Corsair 115]

If the government was powerful enough and had the desire you ascribe to it to pull off 9/11 in any manner with any methodology, how did this same evil and corrupt government willing to do whatever necessary for war, oil and the political life of the Bush administration not find WMD in Iraq? Better yet, how was that administration apparently unaware of the plentiful oil reserves in the neighbouring country of Canada just waiting to be developed? And with a trade agreement (NAFTA) which guaranteed American access to that oil?

[Kage]

Where did I claim someone to be a mastermind? Prison is full of so-called masterminds who turned out to be bumbling idiots when things didn't work out like they planned. It doesn't mean they didn't try though. You can't have everything in absolute black and white just because you want to pretend to win a debate. Go babble your nonsense some place else.

I really can't see anything meaningful here. Conspiracies, as I would define anything you hope to find in a new investigation (there were many, btw-but that is beside my point), would have been planned by someone or some group.

Why don't you explain how simple it would have been? Wasn't it going to be simple to get Iraq under control? What happened? BTW did they have to? Are we still there? How do you feel about Iran I wonder?

Simple to plant evidence of WMD in Iraq? Simple. Construct a Mobile Lab as per what we thought Iraq was using, ostensibly to create a training aid for CBW troops. Load this into a C-130 and land it in Iraq. Have one group abandon it in a Base somewhere for another group to find. Very easy compared to CD theories, no plane theories (possible) and easier to cover up when compared to LIHOP theories.

What's my conspiracy? There has been no real investigation?

Well, going back to the torrent of questions you asked in your opening post, I would suspect that you would classify the NIST investigation into the collapse as one of your unreal investigations. Questions such as:
"How many seconds did the towers fall in?"
"How often does a high-rise suffer global collapse from anything other then explosives?"
Lead me to believe that you suspect a failure mode for the WTC that involves something more than a plane crashing into each of the towers. This is the CT I am referring to. Doesn't have to be specific, but the presence of anything designed to make those buildings come down other than the high speed impact of a 757 involves a huge conspiracy that is way harder than planting WMDs in Iraq.

I don't know. Maybe an investigation would find out first if it's true and then how exactly it was done. See you need to have an investigation before you go around claiming to know for a fact what happen or what didn't. But you're a pretend debunker so you don't realize that do you?

See, there were investigations by multiple agencies. Were these perfect in assigning blame for the failures that allowed 9/11 to happen? Nope. Were these sufficient to show that AQ unaided by anything other than incompetence was responsible for the attacks on 9/11? Yes. Would I like to have a better understanding of the anthrax attacks? You bet. Does my lack of understanding of these attacks in any way lead me to believe that anything other than a 757 crashing into each tower flown by a member of AQ was responsible for that tower's collapse? Nope again.

You can't just leave it to some future investigation to justify why we need a another investigation. That really doesn't cut it.

My conspiracy theory?

Any conspiracy theory. The questions you asked all suggest that you believe that the Government or some secret domestic cabal had some hand in 9/11. I am calling this your conspiracy theory.

Their life would have been easier it what sense? Did they not get something they wanted? Did losing the House and the Senate stop the war?

See, you are suggesting that the Bush administration is totally fine with just about anything as long as their war is happening. I guess that this is the least embarrassing way out of the WMD in Iraq paradox, but it still makes little sense. Why do they want this war at the expense of their political power, their legacy, and the possibility of another war with Iran? You might say vast sums of money, but then you would assume that they wouldn't want more. People rarely settle for less money than they could get. I would venture that this is doubly true of shadowy evil cabals.

I don't have to assume anything to keep up your delusions. See? You know nothing for a fact you only assume because that's all you got.

I can see that you are having trouble with the mental gymnastics of all this. I really appreciate the fact that you are at least trying to cope with the problems these paradoxes give your idea that the official theory as to what happened on 9/11 is false. I'm glad you are reciprocating the fact that when confronted with some claim, I always take the step to say, "OK, if I assume this is the case, what follows?" CTs are always mired in details, but lack big picture cohesion.

To pick another ambiguity that comes out of your questions in the OP, how many UBLs are there? 0, 1, 2, more?

[HENTAI DOUKYUSEI JP]

ETA: Childlike.... could you and LC wed. Be still my heart! We'd have Last Childlike Empress!

NOT that there's something wrong with it!