Reply #26

In the discussion thread: Here is the problem with the 911 conspiracy theory's...... [View all]

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 09:45 AM

26. Thank you for that. At some point, I am going to have to make time

Last edited Wed Dec 14, 2011, 10:50 AM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

to read the 9/11 Commission Report.

FWIW, I count myself 'agnostic' on the question of whether a conspiracy (other, that is, than the one alleged by the Official Narrative) was behind 9-11. My agnosticism and desire for a new investigation were triggered by an intense dislike and distrust of Philip Zelikow, who was the Executive Director of the 9-11 Commission and may not have been the most honest of brokers. But it is mere supposition on my part and nothing specific I could allege, hence agnosticism.

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

146 replies	Author	Time	Post
Here is the problem with the 911 conspiracy theory's...... [View all]	Logical	Dec 2011	OP
I don't have an answer to your question, but one has to look at the evidence	teddy51	Dec 2011	#1
The cracking of the Enigma Code was not leaked until the 1970s after it was offiically announced.	JDPriestly	Dec 2011	#2
And that allso goes for the capture of a German sub with the enignama machien	zeemike	Dec 2011	#28
If you were asked to participate in either operation, what would you do?	cpwm17	Dec 2011	#29
Well that is a fair question and a fair point.	zeemike	Dec 2011	#30
There's no way that there's the expertise to pull it off	cpwm17	Dec 2011	#31
Well then how does the mob and other organized crime do it?	zeemike	Dec 2011	#32
Since mob informers are the key to most police investigations	hack89	Feb 2012	#39
But that is because their are police and law enforcement.	zeemike	Feb 2012	#40
You are naive if you believe that.	zeemike	Feb 2012	#41
you would have to be a sociopath	BobbyBoring	Feb 2012	#37
Well I would know only what I needed to know to do my part of the plan	zeemike	Feb 2012	#46
You've been watching too many movies	Confusious	Feb 2012	#43
And you perhaps not enough history.	zeemike	Feb 2012	#45
Nope, not me	Confusious	Feb 2012	#47
Well I never saw it in the movies	zeemike	Feb 2012	#49
do I detect some contempt from you about people that you consider CTers?	Confusious	Feb 2012	#50
Do you know what disinformation is?	zeemike	Feb 2012	#53
So you're spreading disinformation?	Confusious	Feb 2012	#55
Well it is astounding to me that people can buy that .	zeemike	Feb 2012	#56
"that is just basic science"	William Seger	Feb 2012	#57
The first frame is before the impact.of the head shot.	zeemike	Feb 2012	#59
Nope	William Seger	Feb 2012	#61
No that is the frame where the bullet struck	zeemike	Feb 2012	#64
Utter nonsense	William Seger	Feb 2012	#68
Well look this is not nonsense	zeemike	Feb 2012	#69
If the Zapruder film is REALLY what made you believe that Oswald didn't shoot JFK,	William Seger	Feb 2012	#71
You mean to tell me	zeemike	Feb 2012	#72
in what sense do you "see" that?	OnTheOtherHand	Feb 2012	#73
Because if the bullet did not strike in 312	zeemike	Feb 2012	#74
didn't you just say yourself...	OnTheOtherHand	Feb 2012	#75
Well let me try again to explain.	zeemike	Feb 2012	#76
OK, let's think about this	OnTheOtherHand	Feb 2012	#77
Some good points	zeemike	Feb 2012	#78
meh	OnTheOtherHand	Feb 2012	#79
Well how about we just declare you the winner	zeemike	Feb 2012	#80
This is NOT a "small point"	William Seger	Feb 2012	#81
Now this is how you control the discussion...	zeemike	Feb 2012	#84
yo, if you're so free from fear, get the heck out of fetal position	OnTheOtherHand	Feb 2012	#82
We are discussing it on your terms.	zeemike	Feb 2012	#83
jeepers	OnTheOtherHand	Feb 2012	#85
Again we are back to math.	zeemike	Feb 2012	#86
so you don't think the head changes position from 312 to 313?	OnTheOtherHand	Feb 2012	#87
Well let me try to be clear.	zeemike	Feb 2012	#89
well, no	OnTheOtherHand	Feb 2012	#91
Really?	zeemike	Feb 2012	#95
"And you cannot explain that backward movement with any thing that makes sense"	William Seger	Feb 2012	#97
Well you can't prove a negative	zeemike	Feb 2012	#100
Another myth. Actually, it IS sometimes possible to prove a negative	William Seger	Feb 2012	#105
This is getting kinda bizarre	William Seger	Feb 2012	#93
OK...so the ejected material is several feet away	zeemike	Feb 2012	#96
In other words, you've got nothing	William Seger	Feb 2012	#98
Now with the ridicule.	zeemike	Feb 2012	#101
Your theory is all assumption and no fact.	zappaman	Feb 2012	#102
The facts presented is what we see in the film.	zeemike	Feb 2012	#107
Here's what's ridiculous about it, by the way	William Seger	Feb 2012	#108
No that is not what I said.	zeemike	Feb 2012	#109
"The shutter on frame 313 was open for 1/30 of a second"	zappaman	Feb 2012	#110
Frames per second is different from shutter speed.	zeemike	Feb 2012	#115
The camera's manual says a nominal 16 fps and 1/35th sec exposure	William Seger	Feb 2012	#119
Well thanks for looking that up	zeemike	Feb 2012	#120
WTF?	William Seger	Feb 2012	#112
No sir the shutter speed is all that is relevant.	zeemike	Feb 2012	#116
I seriously doubt that a timeline is going to unconfuse you, but let's try:	William Seger	Feb 2012	#118
I get what you are claiming.	zeemike	Feb 2012	#121
So you have no explanation for the forward head snap	William Seger	Feb 2012	#122
Can't let it end when you say inertia is imaginary physics	zeemike	Feb 2012	#123
No, it's your claimed "DELAY due to inertia" that's imaginary	William Seger	Feb 2012	#124
Well I can't compete with that	zeemike	Feb 2012	#125
Hopeless	William Seger	Feb 2012	#126
You are right it is hopeless	zeemike	Feb 2012	#127
This may be the most ridiculous thing I've read about the JFK assassination in some time.	zappaman	Feb 2012	#99
there is only one reason I am still here	zeemike	Feb 2012	#103
"this is like a case study in how debunking CTs work"	William Seger	Feb 2012	#106
it's kind of hilarious-- if a "conspiracy theorist" had presented this as proof he'd be laughed at.	NoMoreWarNow	Apr 2012	#137
It's motion blur caused by camera motion	William Seger	Apr 2012	#139
that may be, but your data is still inconclusive	NoMoreWarNow	Apr 2012	#141
Neither	William Seger	Apr 2012	#142
Frame 313 is not an instant, it is a duration. And during that duration the head may have travelled	eomer	Feb 2012	#88
OK, where does that get us?	OnTheOtherHand	Feb 2012	#90
Back to square one.	eomer	Feb 2012	#92
See gif in post #93. There was no forward motion before frame 312	William Seger	Feb 2012	#94
"square one" was trash talk about "the power of fear"	OnTheOtherHand	Feb 2012	#104
Well, you've just proved my point	Confusious	Feb 2012	#58
I want to listen and have been listening.	zeemike	Feb 2012	#60
I've seen IN PLANE SITE	zappaman	Feb 2012	#62
Well a 757 is consistent with what I saw	zeemike	Feb 2012	#66
Really	Confusious	Feb 2012	#63
You present questions that are easy to answer	zeemike	Feb 2012	#65
Well if you make up stuff	Confusious	Feb 2012	#67
Well I don't have all the answers...and no one could	zeemike	Feb 2012	#70
Two other things	Confusious	Feb 2012	#51
Have you seen the original movie The Day The Earth Stood Still?	zeemike	Feb 2012	#54
A brief visit to one secure in their findings.....	AlwaysQuestion	Apr 2012	#132
Well thanks for that vote of confidence.	zeemike	Apr 2012	#133
Jeez, what a pantload	William Seger	Apr 2012	#134
Do you believe?	AlwaysQuestion	Apr 2012	#136
Ohmygawd, do you actually READ what I write?	William Seger	Apr 2012	#138
Then why the cover up?	tblue	Dec 2011	#3
Plenty of reasons for a coverup without positing guilt in the 9/11 attack	Bolo Boffin	Dec 2011	#6
I remember people telling me....	lib2DaBone	Dec 2011	#4
We have no idea what happened to that drone	hack89	Dec 2011	#19
Regardless of what happened to that drone, there's no connection to 9-11	cpwm17	Dec 2011	#20
You seem to ignore	terrafirma	Dec 2011	#27
You need to read "JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters,"	Peace Patriot	Dec 2011	#5
That's the problem with EVERY conspiracy theory	RZM	Dec 2011	#7
But if the conspirators know that someone will eventually talk....	Richard Charnin	Dec 2011	#9
Exactly	RZM	Dec 2011	#10
Not quite. You miss the point.	Richard Charnin	Dec 2011	#11
Of course there have been conspiracies	RZM	Dec 2011	#12
Compelling evidence? You want it; you got it.	Richard Charnin	Dec 2011	#13
Wow. Ed Asner and some random blogger	RZM	Dec 2011	#14
15 unnatural deaths within a year!	Bolo Boffin	Dec 2011	#15
Nope	zappaman	Dec 2011	#16
You mean like the 9/11 Commission conspiracy to not talk about Building 7 in their Report?	Richard Charnin	Dec 2011	#8
The 9/11 Commission Report was not meant to be an exhaustive examination of all aspects	Bolo Boffin	Dec 2011	#17
theories	Tunkamerica	Dec 2011	#18
You're conflating and collapsing all conspiracy theories into a single monolith (npi),	coalition_unwilling	Dec 2011	#21
Truthers rarely correct other truthers when they promote total nonsense	cpwm17	Dec 2011	#23
I grant you a lot of it is nonsense, but there are some troubling	coalition_unwilling	Dec 2011	#24
The put options on United and American were explained.	Bolo Boffin	Dec 2011	#25
Thank you for that. At some point, I am going to have to make time	coalition_unwilling	Dec 2011	#26
Oh, please. You believe THAT?	Remember Me	Dec 2011	#33
Thanks for your opinion.	Bolo Boffin	Dec 2011	#34
Yeah, you'd think	Remember Me	Dec 2011	#35
One major airline (Ansett Australia) was folding at the time	KDLarsen	Dec 2011	#36
"So it is fair to criticize almost all truthers for any truther nonsense."	ocpagu	Apr 2012	#140
It's called COMPARTMENTALIZATION, dude!	Uranus Needs Men	Dec 2011	#22
I want to know who is behind the Unwarranted Apostrophe Conspiracy.	Codeine	Feb 2012	#38
Hasn't stopped the UK	libodem	Feb 2012	#42
It had to be hundreds but couldn't have been hundreds? Why couldn't it have been a few or a dozen?	eomer	Feb 2012	#44
What would the scenario be in which only a few know?	Ohio Joe	Feb 2012	#48
That would be the scenario in which only a few were part of the consipiracy.	eomer	Feb 2012	#52
... which really just demonstrates the pointlessness of idle speculation.	William Seger	Feb 2012	#114
Leads that the "investigation" didn't follow; additional parties surely were involved.	eomer	Feb 2012	#117
WT7 didn't have enough damage to fall like that in my opinion	deadinsider	Feb 2012	#111
"Damage" was not the reason for WTC7's collapse	William Seger	Feb 2012	#113
Heck, we might as well argue here too right?	cbrer	Feb 2012	#128
Nope	William Seger	Feb 2012	#129
That actually	cbrer	Feb 2012	#130
NIST simulation	deadinsider	May 2012	#144
Finally getting back 2 u...	deadinsider	May 2012	#145
Oh, well, nothing else going on around here, so...	William Seger	Jun 2012	#146
The steel portions of the Madrid tower collapsed due to fire.	hack89	Apr 2012	#135
People who haven't mastered the difference between plural and possessive...	JackRiddler	Apr 2012	#131
911?	dukie	Apr 2012	#143

Edit History

Please login to view edit histories.