I don't advance any 'alternative theory' because there needs to be another official investigation, properly funded and with the power to subpena whomever and whichever do ents they need, before any alternative claims can be either ruled out or ruled plausible...this is the largest single coordinated terrorists attack in the history of our nation, maybe people are still 'emotionally involved' to want to look into this attack again, it maybe take another decade or two until people are ready, but the longer we wait, the more evidence gets compromised..
Because you don't believe any of them after a full decade.
Sorry, you've had all the time in the world to decide what you actually believe. You're emotionally involved in being some kind of internets iconoclast, but nothing else. You know that all the alternative theories are bull and you would look like a fool if you espoused any of them, so you don't. You're trying to be a know-it-all without actually believing anything. After ten years, it simply doesn't work anymore.
Just like JFK
You don't believe any alternative theory either.
None of you do.
Judy Wood is a nutbag, but she is better than you because she actually believes something.
You people won't even say what alternative theories you find plausible and worth further investigation.
lmao msm being horrible at researching facts
You're a nut.
"if you would just read the bible, you would see how true it is and how ignorant you are"
"if you would just read the book of mormon you would see how true it is and how ignorant you are"
"if you would just read dianetics, you would see how true it is and how ignorant you are"
"if you would just read truther websites, you would see how true it is and how ignorant you are "
If the best you have is "you just haven't read all the truther websites" you can off and get in the same corner as the creationists, global warming deniers, and moon hoax believers.
It is your burden of proof. The official story best fits the available evidence to any reasonable standard, as the decade of floudering by truthers and people "with questions" like Charlie Sheen proves.
Don't get all pissy if your insanely stupid picking at the edges doesn't meet any reasonable standard of falsification.
The fact you can't put forward a coherent alternative theory supported by any evidence whatsoever is not going to convince anyone that we need to throw more money at the ambiguities to make you happy.
Since this fair question got ignored, I will ask it again.
Except that the only two cell phone calls made were made from places and in a manner consistent with the governments account.
All the other calls were from the seatback phones, again consistant with the governments accounts.
You have not proven your case. You have only "press accounts" to support your claim that many of them were made from cell phone calls, essentially third-hand accounts.
The people receiving the calls would not know if the calls they recieved were from an airphone or a cell phone. You can't use their claims about "cell phone calls" as any kind of definitive proof.
The reporters, dutifully repeating those statements, would be just as wrong.
Is it possible this is the explanation for news reports about "cell phone" calls?
You guys side-stepped that damning bit of argument pretty good.
And if your going to propogate the half-truths and cover ups that we are fed in the official line, then it is YOUR UNMET BURDEN OF PROOF.
And the question of how these hack pilots hit dead on 3 times under such difficult cir stances HAS NEVER BEEN ANSWERED. I found Lear's take on the technical piloting aspect to be a pretty solid and condensed argument from someone who has the experience to address the technical issues (which none of you debunkers has, tmk) IMHO, anyone who believes that these questions are long settled is fos.
Do I believe planes hit the towers? Yes.
Do I believe these hack/terrorist-pilots flew massive and complex airliners into TINY targets, first try, DEAD ON, THREE TIMES OVER, without a hitch, with remarkable and exceptional skill, and most important without any real prior practice at the helm of such a plane?
fuggin no. And you clowns can't pose a single argument to overcome that burden. And have predictably attempted to side-step it completely.
No need to yell.
You were pimping the rants of a no-planer.
We wanted to know if you are a no-planer.
If you aren't a no-planer, why are you using the arguments of a no-planer?
And seriously, for every John Lear (you should really read up on ALL the conspiracies he espouses before using him as your sole expert witness FYI) there are several pilots that say it is well within the realm of possibility and have proved it within realistic reason using simulators and pilots with roughly the same experience as the terrorists.
If you really want to read and/or see these testimonies and experiments, just say so. I truly do not think you are interested.
So, what alternative theories do you want to be investigated, mouse?
John Lear is a kook. But you are dismissing him too early. Because though he is a kook, he is a kooky PILOT. One who worked in countless capacities, private, commercial, government, etc. And his credentials make him a kooky pilot who warrants respect on the topic.
Im sure the passangers care more that he is a good pilot than his belief in UFO conspiracies.
It is very convenient to dismiss him using character assasination, Chump...and his quirks make that an elementary exercise. However, his credibility in the pit cannot be dismissed so easily on unrelated quirks.
FTR, I dont study 9/11 conspiracies, however, this "kook" shares my belief that the terrorists could not have pulled off the flawless execution 3x on 9-11. Thats why he was pimped. I dont know how the event was pulled off, but I dont believe for a sec that the official story is truthful.
We already know you are the type that easily falls for conspiracies because you are lazy to study, but props to you for admitting it.
Lol the towers were wider than a landing strip. You guys suck at conspiracies.
I can't help but notice you didn't request the materials I offered.
I can only conclude you truly are not interesting in hearing anything that may challenge your current line of thought.
Anyone can find dozens of non-kook PILOTS (emphasis yours) who have concluded that inexperienced pilots like the hijackers could have pulled off the attacks with little difficulty flight-wise, and still others who have conducted successful experiments in simulators proving that to a certain degree. I offered to round some up for you. You did not accept.
Thousand foot tall skyscrapers are "TINY targets".
Wow.
I didn't sidestep anything, goober.
You said "look here is an expert pilot who says it was impossible based on [laundry list here]"
Your "expert" is simply not all that credible to begin with, and said no few things that destroy his credibility out of the gate. That goes to the very heart of your argument. If he isn't credible, we can't reasonably rely on his claims.
That pretty much strikes to the heart of addressing what he says.
As has been pointed out, not being an expert pilot I have to evaluate what pilots do say about these things.
On one hand, you have Mr. Lear, who is arguably a kook, make claims that run counter to literally tons of physical evidence, pictures, video footage, and eyewitness accounts. He also makes assertions outside his area of expertise, such as how the liner would interact at speed with the building ('bounced off'...)
On the other hand, there are more than a few non-kooky expert pilots who claim that it can be done, and have actually gone out and tested the "official" story.
Put those both on a scale, and the direction it tips is clear.
I will say that at least you admit you aren't being reasonable here. "no argument you can pose will change my mind".
Clapping your hands over your ears and saying "la-la-la-la-I-can't-hear-you" isn't going to convince anyone of anything, other than to confirm you aren't interested in facts, logic or evidence.
That's ok. No one expects much from dogmatics.
"this kook shares my belief"
"you clowns can't pose a single argument to overcome that burden"
Those aren't the words of someone who is logically evaluating evidence, or drawing reasonable conclusions.
Are you even reading what you are trying to say here?
What about the mountains of evidence that don't support your beliefs?
you suck at facts...the 'pilots' couldn't land planes...not on a landing strip or anywhere else..
Beyond that, they turned off the plane's transponders and made some incredible moves in the air to get to the targets in the first place....all this from amateur pilots, and I use those words loosely, who had trouble even learning the controls to a small single engine plane...the ignorance here is incredible..Do I believe these hack/terrorist-pilots flew massive and complex airliners into TINY targets, first try, DEAD ON, THREE TIMES OVER, without a hitch, with remarkable and exceptional skill, and most important without any real prior practice at the helm of such a plane?
fuggin no. And you clowns can't pose a single argument to overcome that burden. And have predictably attempted to side-step it completely.
EXACTLY like JFK, in fact probably many of the same perpetrators by the time we are all said and done...these guys learned a lot from Nixon and have been in complete control since LBJ...
Why would a suicide pilot need to know how to land a plane?
Is turning off a transponder beyond the capacity of a novice pilot?
Incredible moves? They flew like bad pilots. No one said they were good pilots.
You're full of , dan. Tell us who you think was piloting the planes and what happened to the planes you think didn't crash and all the people on them.
We know you won't. You'll just whine about something else.
Everything is a conspiracy to you guys.
Start at page one.
If it was an inside job... and you believe all the stupid , what does that say about you?Let the flaming begin.
Either the conspiracy theorists are right about a massive organized evil conspiracy, or they are wrong.
If they are right about 9-11 being planned by an evil government conspiracy willing and capable of killing thousand of their own citizens, they would be just as motivated to keep that fact a secret.
An easy method of doing this is to do a disinformation campaign. All it takes is one or two paid evil guys willing to lie, a computer and some time.
The best way to do such a disinformation campaign is, as the conspiracy theorists themselves point out in my previous post is as follows:
- Think of the stupidest possible
- Present it in such a blatantly false and easily debunked manner that anybody with any common sense at all would recognize it immediately as stupid bull
- This would then lead normal pepole to then associate all the real conspiracy evidence with this obvious quackery to discredit the whole movement to expose the grand evil conspiracy
IF there is a grand evil conspiracy, THEN at least SOME of the conspiracy "evidence" has been manufactured to be obviously stupid to put people off the trail.
THEREFORE:
IF the evil conpiracy exists AND you say you believe all of the conspiracy "evidence/theories" you MUST either:
1) Be one of those paid disinformation agents, and be lying and evil
or
2) Be too stupid to not recognize the obviously fake stuff that has been planted by the paid disinformation agents.
If there is no massive evil conspiracy then anybody who believes in ALL of the conspiracy theories is definitely too stupid to realize the conspiracy doesn't really exist.
Since no one can be part of something that doesn't exist, if you believe all the conspiracy theories/evidence, and the conspiracy doesn't exist you can't be lying and evil.
In either case it boils down to this:
If you say you believe in all of the conspiracy evidence, you MUST either be
1) A lying evil agent of the conspiracy
or
2) Too stupid to recognize obviously false information when you see it.
There are no other possibilities.
Which is it mouse/galileo/whoever?
If you can't tell me what the stupid is, and what is valid, then get in the corner.
There are currently 5 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 5 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
