[Vote] Who did 911?

[BADecker]

@BADecker,

Understand the nature of cognitive dissonance and ego dishonesty. There is no shortage of zombified media consumers who will swallow whatever the "official" narrative is of whatever event is being "reported" on. The conspirators don't rely on covert operators who spend their time on some not-directly-related forum such as this one; they rely on the ability to control (and filter) sources of information, an ability which they had been consolidating for thousands of years... until the Internet came along and undid all their efforts! I would suggest to you that the "conspiracy theories" are in a sense just one layer (call it the first layer), of which anarchy is the logical extension (for this see especially: Larken Rose). The realization of self-ownership and sovereignty (internal monarchy, external anarchy) is itself the prelude to a metaphysical awakening. The rabbit hole doesn't end where you currently seem to think it ends, I would suggest from my perspective. Why "waste your time" with someone who is "more asleep" than yourself, instead of expanding the extent of your awakening? Unless it's VERY fun, LOL, in that case by all means keep trying!

Does that make sense?

Thank you. It makes sense.

I have a toothache. So I took a few days off from the office. Being bored, I am like-trolling with my own brand of limited logic, hoping to take my mind off the toothache till I can get the thing fixed.

While I am totally aware of the fact of the inside job, Spendulus is an intelligent guy. I am trying to figure out how he can miss the fact of the cover-up. So, I am shooting around with the like-trolling to see what I can get him to reveal. I mean, I don't think he is an agent or anything.

I seem to detect a softening of his stance. Maybe I am wrong, and maybe if he were asked bluntly what he thinks, he would express no wavering. I'm just curious as to why he feels this way, in the light of all the evidence to the opposite.

In my pride, once in a while, I will stick to my guns even though I know I am wrong. But it doesn't seem like that with Spendy in this case.

Thanks for your post.

[Spendulus]

@BADecker,

Understand the nature of cognitive dissonance and ego dishonesty. There is no shortage of zombified media consumers who will swallow whatever the "official" narrative is of whatever event is being "reported" on. The conspirators don't rely on covert operators who spend their time on some not-directly-related forum such as this one; they rely on the ability to control (and filter) sources of information, an ability which they had been consolidating for thousands of years... until the Internet came along and undid all their efforts! I would suggest to you that the "conspiracy theories" are in a sense just one layer (call it the first layer), of which anarchy is the logical extension (for this see especially: Larken Rose). The realization of self-ownership and sovereignty (internal monarchy, external anarchy) is itself the prelude to a metaphysical awakening. The rabbit hole doesn't end where you currently seem to think it ends, I would suggest from my perspective. Why "waste your time" with someone who is "more asleep" than yourself, instead of expanding the extent of your awakening? Unless it's VERY fun, LOL, in that case by all means keep trying!

Does that make sense?

Thank you. It makes sense.

I have a toothache. So I took a few days off from the office. Being bored, I am like-trolling with my own brand of limited logic, hoping to take my mind off the toothache till I can get the thing fixed.

While I am totally aware of the fact of the inside job, Spendulus is an intelligent guy. I am trying to figure out how he can miss the fact of the cover-up. So, I am shooting around with the like-trolling to see what I can get him to reveal. I mean, I don't think he is an agent or anything.

I seem to detect a softening of his stance. Maybe I am wrong, and maybe if he were asked bluntly what he thinks, he would express no wavering. I'm just curious as to why he feels this way, in the light of all the evidence to the opposite.

In my pride, once in a while, I will stick to my guns even though I know I am wrong. But it doesn't seem like that with Spendy in this case.

Thanks for your post.

The answer to this riddle is that you are somehow trying to understand a person, while I am only trying to understand the argument.  That's why I simply ask "show me the conspiracy, show me how it happened."   You really don't have much of an answer to this.  Of course, there's nothing wrong with saying "It just looks suspicious, maybe I don't know how but there's something there."

But just dancing around and never stating the plausible alternative theory of cause of the towers coming down is a cop out.  Similarly, not defending the alternative theory when it is debunked is a cop out.  By contrast we can make strong alternative theories of the Kennedy killing, which are more plausible than the Warren Report.

[BADecker]

@BADecker,

Understand the nature of cognitive dissonance and ego dishonesty. There is no shortage of zombified media consumers who will swallow whatever the "official" narrative is of whatever event is being "reported" on. The conspirators don't rely on covert operators who spend their time on some not-directly-related forum such as this one; they rely on the ability to control (and filter) sources of information, an ability which they had been consolidating for thousands of years... until the Internet came along and undid all their efforts! I would suggest to you that the "conspiracy theories" are in a sense just one layer (call it the first layer), of which anarchy is the logical extension (for this see especially: Larken Rose). The realization of self-ownership and sovereignty (internal monarchy, external anarchy) is itself the prelude to a metaphysical awakening. The rabbit hole doesn't end where you currently seem to think it ends, I would suggest from my perspective. Why "waste your time" with someone who is "more asleep" than yourself, instead of expanding the extent of your awakening? Unless it's VERY fun, LOL, in that case by all means keep trying!

Does that make sense?

Thank you. It makes sense.

I have a toothache. So I took a few days off from the office. Being bored, I am like-trolling with my own brand of limited logic, hoping to take my mind off the toothache till I can get the thing fixed.

While I am totally aware of the fact of the inside job, Spendulus is an intelligent guy. I am trying to figure out how he can miss the fact of the cover-up. So, I am shooting around with the like-trolling to see what I can get him to reveal. I mean, I don't think he is an agent or anything.

I seem to detect a softening of his stance. Maybe I am wrong, and maybe if he were asked bluntly what he thinks, he would express no wavering. I'm just curious as to why he feels this way, in the light of all the evidence to the opposite.

In my pride, once in a while, I will stick to my guns even though I know I am wrong. But it doesn't seem like that with Spendy in this case.

Thanks for your post.

The answer to this riddle is that you are somehow trying to understand a person, while I am only trying to understand the argument.  That's why I simply ask "show me the conspiracy, show me how it happened."   You really don't have much of an answer to this.  Of course, there's nothing wrong with saying "It just looks suspicious, maybe I don't know how but there's something there."

But just dancing around and never stating the plausible alternative theory of cause of the towers coming down is a cop out.  Similarly, not defending the alternative theory when it is debunked is a cop out.  By contrast we can make strong alternative theories of the Kennedy killing, which are more plausible than the Warren Report.

As an example, lets say a primitive native of a remote ocean island where nothing modern has ever existed, finds a nice shiny car outside his front door one morning. Never saw a car before. Never heard of such a thing as a car. Never even saw a ship or airplane. Never heard of electronics, radios or anything modern.

Where did that car come from? What is it? We don't know. We can't tell.

But it didn't come from doing a rain dance. We have done lots of rain dances and no car ever showed up before.

It didn't come from the mountain volcano smoke. That mountain smoked for many years and no car ever showed up before.

It's too big and heavy for somebody to have fished it out of the ocean.

Fantastic as it seems, some people might have built the car, even though that has to be impossible. Nobody could build something like that car thing.

----------

Who in the world knows the whys and the wherefores behind the 9/11 disaster? We don't know. But we all would like to know.

This conspiracy theory and that conspiracy theory don't make any sense at all. However, a few of them might make sense.

The official report makes less sense than any of the conspiracy theories to the extent that it is almost pure rubbish.

[Spendulus]

@BADecker,

Understand the nature of cognitive dissonance and ego dishonesty. There is no shortage of zombified media consumers who will swallow whatever the "official" narrative is of whatever event is being "reported" on. The conspirators don't rely on covert operators who spend their time on some not-directly-related forum such as this one; they rely on the ability to control (and filter) sources of information, an ability which they had been consolidating for thousands of years... until the Internet came along and undid all their efforts! I would suggest to you that the "conspiracy theories" are in a sense just one layer (call it the first layer), of which anarchy is the logical extension (for this see especially: Larken Rose). The realization of self-ownership and sovereignty (internal monarchy, external anarchy) is itself the prelude to a metaphysical awakening. The rabbit hole doesn't end where you currently seem to think it ends, I would suggest from my perspective. Why "waste your time" with someone who is "more asleep" than yourself, instead of expanding the extent of your awakening? Unless it's VERY fun, LOL, in that case by all means keep trying!

Does that make sense?

Thank you. It makes sense.

I have a toothache. So I took a few days off from the office. Being bored, I am like-trolling with my own brand of limited logic, hoping to take my mind off the toothache till I can get the thing fixed.

While I am totally aware of the fact of the inside job, Spendulus is an intelligent guy. I am trying to figure out how he can miss the fact of the cover-up. So, I am shooting around with the like-trolling to see what I can get him to reveal. I mean, I don't think he is an agent or anything.

I seem to detect a softening of his stance. Maybe I am wrong, and maybe if he were asked bluntly what he thinks, he would express no wavering. I'm just curious as to why he feels this way, in the light of all the evidence to the opposite.

In my pride, once in a while, I will stick to my guns even though I know I am wrong. But it doesn't seem like that with Spendy in this case.

Thanks for your post.

The answer to this riddle is that you are somehow trying to understand a person, while I am only trying to understand the argument.  That's why I simply ask "show me the conspiracy, show me how it happened."   You really don't have much of an answer to this.  Of course, there's nothing wrong with saying "It just looks suspicious, maybe I don't know how but there's something there."

But just dancing around and never stating the plausible alternative theory of cause of the towers coming down is a cop out.  Similarly, not defending the alternative theory when it is debunked is a cop out.  By contrast we can make strong alternative theories of the Kennedy killing, which are more plausible than the Warren Report.

As an example, lets say a primitive native of a remote ocean island where nothing modern has ever existed, finds a nice shiny car outside his front door one morning. Never saw a car before. Never heard of such a thing as a car. Never even saw a ship or airplane. Never heard of electronics, radios or anything modern.

Where did that car come from? What is it? We don't know. We can't tell.

But it didn't come from doing a rain dance. We have done lots of rain dances and no car ever showed up before.

It didn't come from the mountain volcano smoke. That mountain smoked for many years and no car ever showed up before.

It's too big and heavy for somebody to have fished it out of the ocean.

Fantastic as it seems, some people might have built the car, even though that has to be impossible. Nobody could build something like that car thing.

----------

Who in the world knows the whys and the wherefores behind the 9/11 disaster? We don't know. But we all would like to know.

This conspiracy theory and that conspiracy theory don't make any sense at all. However, a few of them might make sense.

The official report makes less sense than any of the conspiracy theories to the extent that it is almost pure rubbish.

So would you say there are "leaders of 911 conspiracies" that have a clear idea of how the evil people did the job, and you are in the cult of 911 conspiracy believers?  Then who are these people?  They need to produce clear, logical explanations, right?  I mean, otherwise they are just bullshit artists.  What are the theories that are even somewhat reasonably articulated?

So far I haven't heard any.

[BADecker]

@BADecker,

Understand the nature of cognitive dissonance and ego dishonesty. There is no shortage of zombified media consumers who will swallow whatever the "official" narrative is of whatever event is being "reported" on. The conspirators don't rely on covert operators who spend their time on some not-directly-related forum such as this one; they rely on the ability to control (and filter) sources of information, an ability which they had been consolidating for thousands of years... until the Internet came along and undid all their efforts! I would suggest to you that the "conspiracy theories" are in a sense just one layer (call it the first layer), of which anarchy is the logical extension (for this see especially: Larken Rose). The realization of self-ownership and sovereignty (internal monarchy, external anarchy) is itself the prelude to a metaphysical awakening. The rabbit hole doesn't end where you currently seem to think it ends, I would suggest from my perspective. Why "waste your time" with someone who is "more asleep" than yourself, instead of expanding the extent of your awakening? Unless it's VERY fun, LOL, in that case by all means keep trying!

Does that make sense?

Thank you. It makes sense.

I have a toothache. So I took a few days off from the office. Being bored, I am like-trolling with my own brand of limited logic, hoping to take my mind off the toothache till I can get the thing fixed.

While I am totally aware of the fact of the inside job, Spendulus is an intelligent guy. I am trying to figure out how he can miss the fact of the cover-up. So, I am shooting around with the like-trolling to see what I can get him to reveal. I mean, I don't think he is an agent or anything.

I seem to detect a softening of his stance. Maybe I am wrong, and maybe if he were asked bluntly what he thinks, he would express no wavering. I'm just curious as to why he feels this way, in the light of all the evidence to the opposite.

In my pride, once in a while, I will stick to my guns even though I know I am wrong. But it doesn't seem like that with Spendy in this case.

Thanks for your post.

The answer to this riddle is that you are somehow trying to understand a person, while I am only trying to understand the argument.  That's why I simply ask "show me the conspiracy, show me how it happened."   You really don't have much of an answer to this.  Of course, there's nothing wrong with saying "It just looks suspicious, maybe I don't know how but there's something there."

But just dancing around and never stating the plausible alternative theory of cause of the towers coming down is a cop out.  Similarly, not defending the alternative theory when it is debunked is a cop out.  By contrast we can make strong alternative theories of the Kennedy killing, which are more plausible than the Warren Report.

As an example, lets say a primitive native of a remote ocean island where nothing modern has ever existed, finds a nice shiny car outside his front door one morning. Never saw a car before. Never heard of such a thing as a car. Never even saw a ship or airplane. Never heard of electronics, radios or anything modern.

Where did that car come from? What is it? We don't know. We can't tell.

But it didn't come from doing a rain dance. We have done lots of rain dances and no car ever showed up before.

It didn't come from the mountain volcano smoke. That mountain smoked for many years and no car ever showed up before.

It's too big and heavy for somebody to have fished it out of the ocean.

Fantastic as it seems, some people might have built the car, even though that has to be impossible. Nobody could build something like that car thing.

----------

Who in the world knows the whys and the wherefores behind the 9/11 disaster? We don't know. But we all would like to know.

This conspiracy theory and that conspiracy theory don't make any sense at all. However, a few of them might make sense.

The official report makes less sense than any of the conspiracy theories to the extent that it is almost pure rubbish.

So would you say there are "leaders of 911 conspiracies" that have a clear idea of how the evil people did the job, and you are in the cult of 911 conspiracy believers?  Then who are these people?  They need to produce clear, logical explanations, right?  I mean, otherwise they are just bullshit artists.  What are the theories that are even somewhat reasonably articulated?

So far I haven't heard any.

You are basically saying the same thing you did before. The answer is, nobody has a clear idea of how the evil people did their dastardly deed except for the people who did it.

We all would like answers. IF some Arabs really did 9/11 all without any help, there were at least several of them working together. This makes it a conspiracy, just the same as it would be if it were an inside job. So, we have that settled. It definitely was a conspiracy. We can throw out all the BS where the media is calling people who don't believe the official story conspiracy theorists.

It seems that the bullshit artists are the makers of the official story, since many parts of their story have been debunked.

You want answers? So do we all. The official story isn't the answers.

[BADecker]

From http://tvnewslies.org/tvnl/index.php/editorial/jesse-richards-commentary/25260-you-only-believe-the-official-911-story-because-you-dont-know-the-official-911-story-.html.

...

To give you some kind of idea as to why the "findings" of this commission can NOT be used to back up any talking points on the topic of 9/11, let me remind you what the official task of this commission was. The Kean Commissions was told to document the official story and make national security recommendations based on that story. The only information that was to be included in the official report had to match the official story. If any one member of the committee objected to any testimony or finding, that piece of information was to be left out of the report  For some examples of this you can talk to the thousands of people who became 9/11 truthers as a result of their testimony being omitted from and contradicted by the final report.

...

To document something doesn't mean to investigate it. It means to put to document what has been given for documentation.

[Spendulus]

@BADecker,

Understand the nature of cognitive dissonance and ego dishonesty. There is no shortage of zombified media consumers who will swallow whatever the "official" narrative is of whatever event is being "reported" on. The conspirators don't rely on covert operators who spend their time on some not-directly-related forum such as this one; they rely on the ability to control (and filter) sources of information, an ability which they had been consolidating for thousands of years... until the Internet came along and undid all their efforts! I would suggest to you that the "conspiracy theories" are in a sense just one layer (call it the first layer), of which anarchy is the logical extension (for this see especially: Larken Rose). The realization of self-ownership and sovereignty (internal monarchy, external anarchy) is itself the prelude to a metaphysical awakening. The rabbit hole doesn't end where you currently seem to think it ends, I would suggest from my perspective. Why "waste your time" with someone who is "more asleep" than yourself, instead of expanding the extent of your awakening? Unless it's VERY fun, LOL, in that case by all means keep trying!

Does that make sense?

Thank you. It makes sense.

I have a toothache. So I took a few days off from the office. Being bored, I am like-trolling with my own brand of limited logic, hoping to take my mind off the toothache till I can get the thing fixed.

While I am totally aware of the fact of the inside job, Spendulus is an intelligent guy. I am trying to figure out how he can miss the fact of the cover-up. So, I am shooting around with the like-trolling to see what I can get him to reveal. I mean, I don't think he is an agent or anything.

I seem to detect a softening of his stance. Maybe I am wrong, and maybe if he were asked bluntly what he thinks, he would express no wavering. I'm just curious as to why he feels this way, in the light of all the evidence to the opposite.

In my pride, once in a while, I will stick to my guns even though I know I am wrong. But it doesn't seem like that with Spendy in this case.

Thanks for your post.

The answer to this riddle is that you are somehow trying to understand a person, while I am only trying to understand the argument.  That's why I simply ask "show me the conspiracy, show me how it happened."   You really don't have much of an answer to this.  Of course, there's nothing wrong with saying "It just looks suspicious, maybe I don't know how but there's something there."

But just dancing around and never stating the plausible alternative theory of cause of the towers coming down is a cop out.  Similarly, not defending the alternative theory when it is debunked is a cop out.  By contrast we can make strong alternative theories of the Kennedy killing, which are more plausible than the Warren Report.

As an example, lets say a primitive native of a remote ocean island where nothing modern has ever existed, finds a nice shiny car outside his front door one morning. Never saw a car before. Never heard of such a thing as a car. Never even saw a ship or airplane. Never heard of electronics, radios or anything modern.

Where did that car come from? What is it? We don't know. We can't tell.

But it didn't come from doing a rain dance. We have done lots of rain dances and no car ever showed up before.

It didn't come from the mountain volcano smoke. That mountain smoked for many years and no car ever showed up before.

It's too big and heavy for somebody to have fished it out of the ocean.

Fantastic as it seems, some people might have built the car, even though that has to be impossible. Nobody could build something like that car thing.

----------

Who in the world knows the whys and the wherefores behind the 9/11 disaster? We don't know. But we all would like to know.

This conspiracy theory and that conspiracy theory don't make any sense at all. However, a few of them might make sense.

The official report makes less sense than any of the conspiracy theories to the extent that it is almost pure rubbish.

So would you say there are "leaders of 911 conspiracies" that have a clear idea of how the evil people did the job, and you are in the cult of 911 conspiracy believers?  Then who are these people?  They need to produce clear, logical explanations, right?  I mean, otherwise they are just bullshit artists.  What are the theories that are even somewhat reasonably articulated?

So far I haven't heard any.

You are basically saying the same thing you did before. The answer is, nobody has a clear idea of how the evil people did their dastardly deed except for the people who did it.

We all would like answers. IF some Arabs really did 9/11 all without any help, there were at least several of them working together. This makes it a conspiracy, just the same as it would be if it were an inside job. So, we have that settled. It definitely was a conspiracy. We can throw out all the BS where the media is calling people who don't believe the official story conspiracy theorists.

It seems that the bullshit artists are the makers of the official story, since many parts of their story have been debunked.

You want answers? So do we all. The official story isn't the answers.

Please don't extend your own confusion or wondering with mine.  I am not "seeking answers," except only to hear the best, most convincing conspiratory theories about 911, and then to see if they withstand simple tests of reasonableness using high school level science and math.

I would remind you that of any historical events such as the Kennedy murder, 911, the Lincoln killing, you name them - nobody ever knows the whole story.  There are always certain questions and issues.  That's expected.   It's a judgement call as to whether those unanswered questions are important to an overall conclusion or immaterial. 

For example, an argument that Oswald was not involved in the Kennedy killing and "evil Jews killed Kennedy" is ridiculous on it's face value.  An argument that John Wilkes Booth didn't kill Lincoln, but Lincoln's own staff killed Lincoln is ridiculous.

Yet these are the caliber of "911 conspiracy theories" that are pushed on gullible and naive people. 

[BADecker]

@BADecker,

Understand the nature of cognitive dissonance and ego dishonesty. There is no shortage of zombified media consumers who will swallow whatever the "official" narrative is of whatever event is being "reported" on. The conspirators don't rely on covert operators who spend their time on some not-directly-related forum such as this one; they rely on the ability to control (and filter) sources of information, an ability which they had been consolidating for thousands of years... until the Internet came along and undid all their efforts! I would suggest to you that the "conspiracy theories" are in a sense just one layer (call it the first layer), of which anarchy is the logical extension (for this see especially: Larken Rose). The realization of self-ownership and sovereignty (internal monarchy, external anarchy) is itself the prelude to a metaphysical awakening. The rabbit hole doesn't end where you currently seem to think it ends, I would suggest from my perspective. Why "waste your time" with someone who is "more asleep" than yourself, instead of expanding the extent of your awakening? Unless it's VERY fun, LOL, in that case by all means keep trying!

Does that make sense?

Thank you. It makes sense.

I have a toothache. So I took a few days off from the office. Being bored, I am like-trolling with my own brand of limited logic, hoping to take my mind off the toothache till I can get the thing fixed.

While I am totally aware of the fact of the inside job, Spendulus is an intelligent guy. I am trying to figure out how he can miss the fact of the cover-up. So, I am shooting around with the like-trolling to see what I can get him to reveal. I mean, I don't think he is an agent or anything.

I seem to detect a softening of his stance. Maybe I am wrong, and maybe if he were asked bluntly what he thinks, he would express no wavering. I'm just curious as to why he feels this way, in the light of all the evidence to the opposite.

In my pride, once in a while, I will stick to my guns even though I know I am wrong. But it doesn't seem like that with Spendy in this case.

Thanks for your post.

The answer to this riddle is that you are somehow trying to understand a person, while I am only trying to understand the argument.  That's why I simply ask "show me the conspiracy, show me how it happened."   You really don't have much of an answer to this.  Of course, there's nothing wrong with saying "It just looks suspicious, maybe I don't know how but there's something there."

But just dancing around and never stating the plausible alternative theory of cause of the towers coming down is a cop out.  Similarly, not defending the alternative theory when it is debunked is a cop out.  By contrast we can make strong alternative theories of the Kennedy killing, which are more plausible than the Warren Report.

As an example, lets say a primitive native of a remote ocean island where nothing modern has ever existed, finds a nice shiny car outside his front door one morning. Never saw a car before. Never heard of such a thing as a car. Never even saw a ship or airplane. Never heard of electronics, radios or anything modern.

Where did that car come from? What is it? We don't know. We can't tell.

But it didn't come from doing a rain dance. We have done lots of rain dances and no car ever showed up before.

It didn't come from the mountain volcano smoke. That mountain smoked for many years and no car ever showed up before.

It's too big and heavy for somebody to have fished it out of the ocean.

Fantastic as it seems, some people might have built the car, even though that has to be impossible. Nobody could build something like that car thing.

----------

Who in the world knows the whys and the wherefores behind the 9/11 disaster? We don't know. But we all would like to know.

This conspiracy theory and that conspiracy theory don't make any sense at all. However, a few of them might make sense.

The official report makes less sense than any of the conspiracy theories to the extent that it is almost pure rubbish.

So would you say there are "leaders of 911 conspiracies" that have a clear idea of how the evil people did the job, and you are in the cult of 911 conspiracy believers?  Then who are these people?  They need to produce clear, logical explanations, right?  I mean, otherwise they are just bullshit artists.  What are the theories that are even somewhat reasonably articulated?

So far I haven't heard any.

You are basically saying the same thing you did before. The answer is, nobody has a clear idea of how the evil people did their dastardly deed except for the people who did it.

We all would like answers. IF some Arabs really did 9/11 all without any help, there were at least several of them working together. This makes it a conspiracy, just the same as it would be if it were an inside job. So, we have that settled. It definitely was a conspiracy. We can throw out all the BS where the media is calling people who don't believe the official story conspiracy theorists.

It seems that the bullshit artists are the makers of the official story, since many parts of their story have been debunked.

You want answers? So do we all. The official story isn't the answers.

Please don't extend your own confusion or wondering with mine.  I am not "seeking answers," except only to hear the best, most convincing conspiratory theories about 911, and then to see if they withstand simple tests of reasonableness using high school level science and math.

I would remind you that of any historical events such as the Kennedy murder, 911, the Lincoln killing, you name them - nobody ever knows the whole story.  There are always certain questions and issues.  That's expected.   It's a judgement call as to whether those unanswered questions are important to an overall conclusion or immaterial. 

For example, an argument that Oswald was not involved in the Kennedy killing and "evil Jews killed Kennedy" is ridiculous on it's face value.  An argument that John Wilkes Booth didn't kill Lincoln, but Lincoln's own staff killed Lincoln is ridiculous.

Yet these are the caliber of "911 conspiracy theories" that are pushed on gullible and naive people. 

Ah, that's it. You aren't seeking answers. You are seeking the best conspiracy theories.

My mistake. I had understood that you believed the official story... which is a conspiracy theory in itself. Here, all along, you were simply looking for conspiracy theories that might be better than the official story.

So, what makes a conspiracy theory a good one for you? Are you looking for the best plausibility along with a point that makes it impossible? Is it better if it has more emotion involved? Does it need really clever intrigue, like many of Isaac Asimov's sci-fi stories? What makes a good conspiracy theory for you? And why didn't you simply say in the first place that all you were interested in was the theories? We could have avoided a whole lot of misunderstanding.

[BADecker]

From http://tvnewslies.org/tvnl/index.php/editorial/jesse-richards-commentary/25260-you-only-believe-the-official-911-story-because-you-dont-know-the-official-911-story-.html

1. Why did the news agencies report that WTC 7 collapsed almost 1/2 hour before it did, even though it was not hit by a plane, only had a few floors on fire, and gave no indication that it was in any serious danger?

2. Why do we still believe the tale of the 19 hijackers when so many of the accused hijackers showed up ALIVE within days? And why do we still believe the fable of the 19 hijackers when the FBI admitted that they are not sure about either the identity of the hijackers or if there were any hijackers at all?

3.  Why was WTC 7 rebuilt, reopened and reoccupied with no press attention? Wouldn't this be an important victory in American resolve and perseverance?

4. Why were the NORAD rules changed for the first time several weeks prior to 9/11, taking responsibility/authority for shooting down hijacked planes away from NORAD military command for the first time in its history, and given to a civilian, Donald Rumsfeld, and then returned to NORAD the day after 9/11?

5.  Why would hijackers planning on attacking NY and Washington DC drive from Florida, pass both DC and NY,  and drive all the way to Maine and hinge this huge operation on a connecting flight from Maine to Boston, where we are told they hijacked their plane? Why wouldn't they fly out of any of the airports that are visible from their targets, like Newark, La Guardia or JFK...or even some of the smaller local airports that would have given them a clear easy path to their target and reduce the amount of time that our air defense systems would have to stop them?

6. Who placed all of those put options on the airlines just prior to the event, as if they knew that the stock prices on those specific airlines would lose  a huge amount of value?

7. Why  did George W. Bush's Secret Service detail not rush the president to safety when it was evident that the nation was under attack? If the nation was under attack, and they did not know the scope of the attack, and the president's location was known, how did they not worry about being attacked in Florida?. Why did they act as if they knew that there was no threat? And why, when our nation was under attack, did the president not rush into action? If you say he was concerned about upsetting the children, you are the ultimate apologist. He could have told them that his mommy was on the phone and he had to see what she wanted. Our county was supposedly being attacked and he/they waited 20 minutes before they moved. This is the smoking gun of smoking guns.

8. Why did the FBI never list Osama bin Laden as being wanted for 9/11? Actually, we know this one...because they admitted that they had no evidence linking him to the event.

9.  Why was their molten metal flowing under the wreckage of the WTC for months? No jet fuel can melt metal, and nothing explainable could melt that much metal and keep it hot enough to remain molten for a month.

10. How did a passport of one of the so called hijackers make it through the huge fireball and end up on the street?

11. Why have photos from the 80+ cameras confiscated at the Pentagon never been released?
Why did the airplane that supposedly crashed at Shanksville vaporize so that nothing remained, not bodies, not luggage, not metal, - nothing - for the first time in aviation history? However, we are told that even though the plane vaporized at Shanksville, a hand-written note from a hijacker was found.

[BADecker]

When you hear about the nano-thermite modules found in the powder of the Twin Towers' concrete dust, you might wonder if thermite hasn't been built into the concrete of many of the high-rise buildings of the area, right in their construction. Somebody should do an analysis of the concrete walls of other WTC buildings, especially those built around the same time that the Twin Towers were built, to see if there is thermite built right into them.

[Spendulus]

.....

Ah, that's it. You aren't seeking answers. You are seeking the best conspiracy theories.

My mistake. I had understood that you believed the official story... which is a conspiracy theory in itself. Here, all along, you were simply looking for conspiracy theories that might be better than the official story.

So, what makes a conspiracy theory a good one for you? Are you looking for the best plausibility along with a point that makes it impossible? Is it better if it has more emotion involved? Does it need really clever intrigue, like many of Isaac Asimov's sci-fi stories? What makes a good conspiracy theory for you? And why didn't you simply say in the first place that all you were interested in was the theories? We could have avoided a whole lot of misunderstanding.

I did say that - repeatedly.  I had the impression that believers in one or another theory who responded were terribly quick to stereotype anyone who questioned them as a government agent or something of the like.  Basically, still just a way to avoid articulating a working hypothesis on the conspiracy.

It's true, though, that "raising questions" does not refute the official story and does not articulate another working theory.  It's also true that ALL of the "Alternative Explanations" mentioned in this thread were very easy to debunk.

I guess one reason for that is that most people don't know much about materials science, but still, that addresses more the doubt about the official story than the provision of a decent alternative.

As just one example one of your "Questions" is concerning "no known method molten metal could remain" at the bottom of a pile of rubble.  This isn't true - studies have been made on this very subject.  If concentrated, focused sunlight was used to melt Lunar soil, what sized pit of molten soil formed during the 300+ hour Lunar day would hold it's temperature over the 300+ hour Lunar night?

You can see this would be an important question for a manned base of several months or years duration.  You can also see the fact that these types of questions have been studied.  Moreover they can be answered with partial differential methods of heat transfer used in second and third year college engineering curriculums.

[btcusury]

@BADecker,

Spendulus doesn't believe anything except what he already believes, unless it comes from a perceived authority figure. It's pretty obvious if you ask me.

I am not "seeking answers,"

What more do you need?

[no-ice-please]

...The conspirators don't rely on covert operators who spend their time on some not-directly-related forum such as this one; they rely on the ability to control (and filter) sources of information, an ability which they had been consolidating for thousands of years... until the Internet came along and undid all their efforts! I would suggest to you that the "conspiracy theories" are in a sense just one layer (call it the first layer), of which anarchy is the logical extension ...

One of the interesting aspects of 911 is that there are so many legitimate indications of inaccuracy in the 'official' story, as well, of course, as red herrings added to discredit 'conspiracy theorists'.

A person could ask "is it possible for some group to make so many mistakes in such a short period of time"?

In other words, "is it possible the mistakes were deliberate"?

One constant in human actions is the tendency to justify misdeeds by framing them as benevolent acts. If a person has a murderous streak they do not say "I feel murderous, I think I'll commit violence", they say "Wow, the army / whatever / etc will let me protect my country and cancel evildoers from other countries. I think I'll do that."

The perfect response to this of course is the Christian saying "sufficient unto the world is the evil thereof".

But anyway, suppose that to some extent the stunning ineptness of the operators, the mind boggling incompetent stupidity in so many aspects of the crime, was deliberate, rather than simple incompetence. What would the motives be? Why would someone deliberately kill so many people in such a way that no clear fingerprint was left but rather numerous disparate fingerprints?

[Spendulus]

@BADecker,

Spendulus doesn't believe anything except what he already believes, unless it comes from a perceived authority figure. It's pretty obvious if you ask me.

I am not "seeking answers,"

What more do you need?

Don't know what you may consider "perceived authority." Not sure I care.  Baddecker posted one of the "questions" about molten metal at bottom of rubble pile.  I answered it with peer reviewed science - unrelated field - related impact.  If you want, I can provide the reference article.

Certainly beats concocting a "mystery magical NanoThermite" which somehow has physical properties which "explains mysterious happenings of 911."

[BADecker]

@BADecker,

Spendulus doesn't believe anything except what he already believes, unless it comes from a perceived authority figure. It's pretty obvious if you ask me.

I am not "seeking answers,"

What more do you need?

What are you really asking? And why are you asking it? I sure hope you are not in pain of some kind because of our back and forth discussion.

[BADecker]

.....

Ah, that's it. You aren't seeking answers. You are seeking the best conspiracy theories.

My mistake. I had understood that you believed the official story... which is a conspiracy theory in itself. Here, all along, you were simply looking for conspiracy theories that might be better than the official story.

So, what makes a conspiracy theory a good one for you? Are you looking for the best plausibility along with a point that makes it impossible? Is it better if it has more emotion involved? Does it need really clever intrigue, like many of Isaac Asimov's sci-fi stories? What makes a good conspiracy theory for you? And why didn't you simply say in the first place that all you were interested in was the theories? We could have avoided a whole lot of misunderstanding.

I did say that - repeatedly.  I had the impression that believers in one or another theory who responded were terribly quick to stereotype anyone who questioned them as a government agent or something of the like.  Basically, still just a way to avoid articulating a working hypothesis on the conspiracy.

It's true, though, that "raising questions" does not refute the official story and does not articulate another working theory.  It's also true that ALL of the "Alternative Explanations" mentioned in this thread were very easy to debunk.

I guess one reason for that is that most people don't know much about materials science, but still, that addresses more the doubt about the official story than the provision of a decent alternative.

As just one example one of your "Questions" is concerning "no known method molten metal could remain" at the bottom of a pile of rubble.  This isn't true - studies have been made on this very subject.  If concentrated, focused sunlight was used to melt Lunar soil, what sized pit of molten soil formed during the 300+ hour Lunar day would hold it's temperature over the 300+ hour Lunar night?

You can see this would be an important question for a manned base of several months or years duration.  You can also see the fact that these types of questions have been studied.  Moreover they can be answered with partial differential methods of heat transfer used in second and third year college engineering curriculums.

When a statement is made, it is considered true until a counter-statement shows that it is false. Questions don't change the statement. Questions exist to get the statement maker to check into his own statement to see if he made a mistake. If the statement maker won't answer, especially in things of government, a counter-statement maker will make a counter-statement that is considered true until it can be refuted. In the face of many unanswered questions, the counter-statement becomes evident without being made directly.

Where was the mirror or lens that concentrated the sun's light to make the pools of molten metal in the basement darkness of the Towers?

[Spendulus]

.....

Ah, that's it. You aren't seeking answers. You are seeking the best conspiracy theories.

My mistake. I had understood that you believed the official story... which is a conspiracy theory in itself. Here, all along, you were simply looking for conspiracy theories that might be better than the official story.

So, what makes a conspiracy theory a good one for you? Are you looking for the best plausibility along with a point that makes it impossible? Is it better if it has more emotion involved? Does it need really clever intrigue, like many of Isaac Asimov's sci-fi stories? What makes a good conspiracy theory for you? And why didn't you simply say in the first place that all you were interested in was the theories? We could have avoided a whole lot of misunderstanding.

I did say that - repeatedly.  I had the impression that believers in one or another theory who responded were terribly quick to stereotype anyone who questioned them as a government agent or something of the like.  Basically, still just a way to avoid articulating a working hypothesis on the conspiracy.

It's true, though, that "raising questions" does not refute the official story and does not articulate another working theory.  It's also true that ALL of the "Alternative Explanations" mentioned in this thread were very easy to debunk.

I guess one reason for that is that most people don't know much about materials science, but still, that addresses more the doubt about the official story than the provision of a decent alternative.

As just one example one of your "Questions" is concerning "no known method molten metal could remain" at the bottom of a pile of rubble.  This isn't true - studies have been made on this very subject.  If concentrated, focused sunlight was used to melt Lunar soil, what sized pit of molten soil formed during the 300+ hour Lunar day would hold it's temperature over the 300+ hour Lunar night?

You can see this would be an important question for a manned base of several months or years duration.  You can also see the fact that these types of questions have been studied.  Moreover they can be answered with partial differential methods of heat transfer used in second and third year college engineering curriculums.

When a statement is made, it is considered true until a counter-statement shows that it is false. Questions don't change the statement. Questions exist to get the statement maker to check into his own statement to see if he made a mistake. If the statement maker won't answer, especially in things of government, a counter-statement maker will make a counter-statement that is considered true until it can be refuted. In the face of many unanswered questions, the counter-statement becomes evident without being made directly.

Where was the mirror or lens that concentrated the sun's light to make the pools of molten metal in the basement darkness of the Towers?

I don't think you need to lecture me on formal debate, or what is considered true and by whom.

Not that what you've said (bolded) is true in any case.

For example, things can be ignored because they are ridiculous.  Like asking "where was the mirror" when your question should have been "where originated the necessary joules or btus of energy." 

[BADecker]

.....

Ah, that's it. You aren't seeking answers. You are seeking the best conspiracy theories.

My mistake. I had understood that you believed the official story... which is a conspiracy theory in itself. Here, all along, you were simply looking for conspiracy theories that might be better than the official story.

So, what makes a conspiracy theory a good one for you? Are you looking for the best plausibility along with a point that makes it impossible? Is it better if it has more emotion involved? Does it need really clever intrigue, like many of Isaac Asimov's sci-fi stories? What makes a good conspiracy theory for you? And why didn't you simply say in the first place that all you were interested in was the theories? We could have avoided a whole lot of misunderstanding.

I did say that - repeatedly.  I had the impression that believers in one or another theory who responded were terribly quick to stereotype anyone who questioned them as a government agent or something of the like.  Basically, still just a way to avoid articulating a working hypothesis on the conspiracy.

It's true, though, that "raising questions" does not refute the official story and does not articulate another working theory.  It's also true that ALL of the "Alternative Explanations" mentioned in this thread were very easy to debunk.

I guess one reason for that is that most people don't know much about materials science, but still, that addresses more the doubt about the official story than the provision of a decent alternative.

As just one example one of your "Questions" is concerning "no known method molten metal could remain" at the bottom of a pile of rubble.  This isn't true - studies have been made on this very subject.  If concentrated, focused sunlight was used to melt Lunar soil, what sized pit of molten soil formed during the 300+ hour Lunar day would hold it's temperature over the 300+ hour Lunar night?

You can see this would be an important question for a manned base of several months or years duration.  You can also see the fact that these types of questions have been studied.  Moreover they can be answered with partial differential methods of heat transfer used in second and third year college engineering curriculums.

When a statement is made, it is considered true until a counter-statement shows that it is false. Questions don't change the statement. Questions exist to get the statement maker to check into his own statement to see if he made a mistake. If the statement maker won't answer, especially in things of government, a counter-statement maker will make a counter-statement that is considered true until it can be refuted. In the face of many unanswered questions, the counter-statement becomes evident without being made directly.

Where was the mirror or lens that concentrated the sun's light to make the pools of molten metal in the basement darkness of the Towers?

I don't think you need to lecture me on formal debate, or what is considered true and by whom.

Not that what you've said (bolded) is true in any case.

For example, things can be ignored because they are ridiculous.  Like asking "where was the mirror" when your question should have been "where originated the necessary joules or btus of energy." 

What's the matter? You feel like you are being lectured? 

You were the one who talked about molten metal being made that way by focusing the sun's rays. Solomon says in Proverbs 26:4,5:

Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him yourself.

Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes.

So, at the very least I knew you would come back with something like this.

[Spendulus]

.....

Ah, that's it. You aren't seeking answers. You are seeking the best conspiracy theories.

My mistake. I had understood that you believed the official story... which is a conspiracy theory in itself. Here, all along, you were simply looking for conspiracy theories that might be better than the official story.

So, what makes a conspiracy theory a good one for you? Are you looking for the best plausibility along with a point that makes it impossible? Is it better if it has more emotion involved? Does it need really clever intrigue, like many of Isaac Asimov's sci-fi stories? What makes a good conspiracy theory for you? And why didn't you simply say in the first place that all you were interested in was the theories? We could have avoided a whole lot of misunderstanding.

I did say that - repeatedly.  I had the impression that believers in one or another theory who responded were terribly quick to stereotype anyone who questioned them as a government agent or something of the like.  Basically, still just a way to avoid articulating a working hypothesis on the conspiracy.

It's true, though, that "raising questions" does not refute the official story and does not articulate another working theory.  It's also true that ALL of the "Alternative Explanations" mentioned in this thread were very easy to debunk.

I guess one reason for that is that most people don't know much about materials science, but still, that addresses more the doubt about the official story than the provision of a decent alternative.

As just one example one of your "Questions" is concerning "no known method molten metal could remain" at the bottom of a pile of rubble.  This isn't true - studies have been made on this very subject.  If concentrated, focused sunlight was used to melt Lunar soil, what sized pit of molten soil formed during the 300+ hour Lunar day would hold it's temperature over the 300+ hour Lunar night?

You can see this would be an important question for a manned base of several months or years duration.  You can also see the fact that these types of questions have been studied.  Moreover they can be answered with partial differential methods of heat transfer used in second and third year college engineering curriculums.

When a statement is made, it is considered true until a counter-statement shows that it is false. Questions don't change the statement. Questions exist to get the statement maker to check into his own statement to see if he made a mistake. If the statement maker won't answer, especially in things of government, a counter-statement maker will make a counter-statement that is considered true until it can be refuted. In the face of many unanswered questions, the counter-statement becomes evident without being made directly.

Where was the mirror or lens that concentrated the sun's light to make the pools of molten metal in the basement darkness of the Towers?

I don't think you need to lecture me on formal debate, or what is considered true and by whom.

Not that what you've said (bolded) is true in any case.

For example, things can be ignored because they are ridiculous.  Like asking "where was the mirror" when your question should have been "where originated the necessary joules or btus of energy."  

What's the matter? You feel like you are being lectured?  

You were the one who talked about molten metal being made that way by focusing the sun's rays. Solomon says in Proverbs 26:4,5:

Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him yourself.

Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes.

So, at the very least I knew you would come back with something like this.

If you are unable to look at a matter such as "keeping a pool of metal molten" as a simple problem of energy in and out, and the amounts of that energy may be calculated based on the heat capacity of the insulative materials and the metal, then you have no business using words such as "folly."

You asked the question about molten metal, you got the answer.  You may have not LIKED the answer, but that's okay.

And no, I am not "seeking answers" about 911, because there isn't any part of what happens that seems a big mystery or unexplained to me.

[popcorn1]

.....

Ah, that's it. You aren't seeking answers. You are seeking the best conspiracy theories.

My mistake. I had understood that you believed the official story... which is a conspiracy theory in itself. Here, all along, you were simply looking for conspiracy theories that might be better than the official story.

So, what makes a conspiracy theory a good one for you? Are you looking for the best plausibility along with a point that makes it impossible? Is it better if it has more emotion involved? Does it need really clever intrigue, like many of Isaac Asimov's sci-fi stories? What makes a good conspiracy theory for you? And why didn't you simply say in the first place that all you were interested in was the theories? We could have avoided a whole lot of misunderstanding.

I did say that - repeatedly.  I had the impression that believers in one or another theory who responded were terribly quick to stereotype anyone who questioned them as a government agent or something of the like.  Basically, still just a way to avoid articulating a working hypothesis on the conspiracy.

It's true, though, that "raising questions" does not refute the official story and does not articulate another working theory.  It's also true that ALL of the "Alternative Explanations" mentioned in this thread were very easy to debunk.

I guess one reason for that is that most people don't know much about materials science, but still, that addresses more the doubt about the official story than the provision of a decent alternative.

As just one example one of your "Questions" is concerning "no known method molten metal could remain" at the bottom of a pile of rubble.  This isn't true - studies have been made on this very subject.  If concentrated, focused sunlight was used to melt Lunar soil, what sized pit of molten soil formed during the 300+ hour Lunar day would hold it's temperature over the 300+ hour Lunar night?

You can see this would be an important question for a manned base of several months or years duration.  You can also see the fact that these types of questions have been studied.  Moreover they can be answered with partial differential methods of heat transfer used in second and third year college engineering curriculums.

When a statement is made, it is considered true until a counter-statement shows that it is false. Questions don't change the statement. Questions exist to get the statement maker to check into his own statement to see if he made a mistake. If the statement maker won't answer, especially in things of government, a counter-statement maker will make a counter-statement that is considered true until it can be refuted. In the face of many unanswered questions, the counter-statement becomes evident without being made directly.

Where was the mirror or lens that concentrated the sun's light to make the pools of molten metal in the basement darkness of the Towers?

I don't think you need to lecture me on formal debate, or what is considered true and by whom.

Not that what you've said (bolded) is true in any case.

For example, things can be ignored because they are ridiculous.  Like asking "where was the mirror" when your question should have been "where originated the necessary joules or btus of energy."  

What's the matter? You feel like you are being lectured?  

You were the one who talked about molten metal being made that way by focusing the sun's rays. Solomon says in Proverbs 26:4,5:

Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him yourself.

Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes.

So, at the very least I knew you would come back with something like this.

If you are unable to look at a matter such as "keeping a pool of metal molten" as a simple problem of energy in and out, and the amounts of that energy may be calculated based on the heat capacity of the insulative materials and the metal, then you have no business using words such as "folly."

You asked the question about molten metal, you got the answer.  You may have not LIKED the answer, but that's okay.

And no, I am not "seeking answers" about 911, because there isn't any part of what happens that seems a big mystery or unexplained to me.

as bush said in his own words MONEY TRUMPS PEACE so there is 9/11 in a nutshell

 spendy i got a good coin for you to check out have a look at a coin called R3D COIN you will love it wont hurt to have a look