"100 Critical Points About 9/11 "

Status
Not open for further replies.

Nope...

"...Rumsfeld reported unaccounted for the day before 911." = accurate

True. It would be hard to do anything with the unaccounted for money/debt because there is still some "accountability"* there (depending on the estimate, etc.). Kind of ironic to see Rumsfeld using such a high "according to some estimates" and then have a statement that was tailored toward boosting budgets for new computer systems be used against him by conspiracy theorists.

*After all... that's why Obama's hopium trade exists, etc.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The official government explanation of what happened on 9/11 is what they want people to believe... you can be sure of that.

I still say that Zelikow should probably ask for a refund on his public myth making courses.

He was put in charge of the investigation and found what seems to be the mythology that was presented within hours of the attacks to be the truth and not a myth. Imagine that.
 
Yup... I think that your main problem with me comes from the fact that you apparently began with it's "obvious" that debris and fires brought the building down.

That seems like a failure of imagination to me. Important, because the only way to falsify your "obvious" hypothesis is with a different hypothesis. Therefore, the only way to verify or build up your hypothesis is investigating all possibilities that allow for its falsification. That's why the first thing I tried to do was to get you to imagine things, etc.

I can imagine, in great and wondrous detail, WTC7 being eaten from the inside by Langoliers. I can imagine elves transmuting columns into water. I can imagine ninjas disguised as elevator repairmen painting nano-thermite onto columns. I can imagine firemen running in at the last minute to wrap explosives around a few key columns Failure of imagination is not the issue.

One does not randomly create hypotheses. One creates hypotheses based on observations.

I've considered the controlled demolition hypothesis in great detail, and at great length. It is lacking supporting evidence, and has much evidence that contradicts it. The fire hypothesis is not lacking supporting evidence. I've weighed "controlled demolition against "fire", and fire is by far the best fit of the two. I've weighted "something else unknown" against "fire", and fire comes out far ahead.
 
I've weighed "controlled demolition against "fire", and fire is by far the best fit of the two. I've weighted "something else unknown" against "fire", and fire comes out far ahead.

Of course they chose fire to be the best fit... there isn't much to choose when investigating physical evidence.
 
I've considered the controlled demolition hypothesis in great detail, and at great length. It is lacking supporting evidence...

I'm beginning to agree with you. No more time to think about this right now, not when there's paper ponzi to be traded.
 
But it was not accurate to suggest it was missing, or that it could be spent.

It's accurate to suggest that some of it was missing or could be spent.

It would seem that it doesn't really matter when other groups of people have apparently maintained the ability to create money/debt out of nothing anyway.
 
I suppose it was hardly surprising that a thread that starts with "100 critical points" should not really make much progress.

Debunking is about looking at individual claims of evidence and determining if they contain errors, then exposing that. It's about stripping away bunk, and increasing the amount of factual knowledge.

This thread is not helping.

If you want to discuss a point of evidence, then please start a thread on that point.

If you think there are valuable discussion here that need to be continued, then continue them in their own threads.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top