Would a new 9/11 investigation really accomplish anything?, page 2

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 4 times

reply posted on 20-3-2010 @ 01:13 PM by bsbray11

reply to post by jthomas

I already offered you an unanswered question: what was causing the explosions at the WTC complex? I asked if you have evidence to prove what was causing these. I asked that two posts ago and you haven't answered, and don't appear to have any intention of trying to answer.

I already know where you are trying to take this discussion and all the rhetorical questions in the world do not answer the question. So I will let you keep asking rhetorical questions now. This thread will show you were unable to address the question. Again, that is why we want a more thorough investigation.

reply posted on 20-3-2010 @ 08:59 PM by jthomas

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by jthomas

I already offered you an unanswered question: what was causing the explosions at the WTC complex? I asked if you have evidence to prove what was causing these. I asked that two posts ago and you haven't answered, and don't appear to have any intention of trying to answer.

You never even bothered to read and understand my response.

I already know where you are trying to take this discussion and all the rhetorical questions in the world do not answer the question. So I will let you keep asking rhetorical questions now. This thread will show you were unable to address the question. Again, that is why we want a more thorough investigation.

I suspect you didn't like my answer but that doesn't matter.

Nonetheless, if you cannot convince even me that you have any valid refutation of the largest, multi-layered, multi-discipline investigation in history, much less be able to convey why anyone in the world should doubt the evidence, methodology, and conclusions, then who in the world do you think you would EVER convince -- those experts who would want YOU to demonstrate WHY there should be another investigation?

I really don't think you understand that the burden of proof falls squarely on your shoulders to demonstrate a cogent reason for another investigation. That you don't like my answer is hardly grounds for yet another investigation.

reply posted on 20-3-2010 @ 11:50 PM by bsbray11

reply to post by jthomas

Yeah, the other thing you didn't answer was what all of this evidence is exactly.

I asked for evidence of what was causing the explosions, because many people would like to know.

I understand exactly what you are saying. You are trying to close the case on the government story as reported by the Kean Commission (and we have all seen what the people behind that report have said about it since then), FEMA and NIST, by repeating over and over that it's such an unbelievably massive amount of evidence that we don't even need to question it. And to ask for a reason just to for why we choose to question it at all? Because it's healthy to question your beliefs regularly, jthomas, and see what evidence exactly they are or are not based on.

And I asked you what yours are based on, specifically. And I asked for an evidence-based answer to one example of a question for a better investigation to answer. But you are unable to provide that. The fact that you and no one else can show me what exactly was proven in the first place is also a damned good reason to question everything that happened.

reply posted on 21-3-2010 @ 09:45 AM by jthomas

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by jthomas

I understand exactly what you are saying. You are trying to close the case on the government story as reported by the Kean Commission (and we have all seen what the people behind that report have said about it since then), FEMA and NIST, by repeating over and over that it's such an unbelievably massive amount of evidence that we don't even need to question it.

On the contrary. I wrote specifically:
"That's certainly your right to doubt the preponderance of evidence..."

And to ask for a reason just to for why we choose to question it at all? Because it's healthy to question your beliefs regularly, jthomas, and see what evidence exactly they are or are not based on.

And I wrote:
"The fact that I, and most of us, have no doubts and have never been given valid evidence by you or the 9/11 Truth Movement and no valid reasons to have any doubt whatsoever, does not work in your favor in getting anyone to consider WHY we would need yet another investigation."

And I asked you what yours are based on, specifically. And I asked for an evidence-based answer to one example of a question for a better investigation to answer. But you are unable to provide that. The fact that you and no one else can show me what exactly was proven in the first place is also a damned good reason to question everything that happened.

And I wrote:
"Nonetheless, if you cannot convince even me that you have any valid refutation of the largest, multi-layered, multi-discipline investigation in history, much less be able to convey why anyone in the world should doubt the evidence, methodology, and conclusions, then who in the world do you think you would EVER convince -- those experts who would want YOU to demonstrate WHY there should be another investigation?

"I really don't think you understand that the burden of proof falls squarely on your shoulders to demonstrate a cogent reason for another investigation. That you don't like my answer is hardly grounds for yet another investigation."

To wit, it matters NOT that I think "explosive sounds" did not come from explosives but came from crashing elevators, fuel ignitions, shifting girders, SOUNDS that none of us ever hear routinely. Unless you can provide positive evidence that explosives were present and used, or raise enough concern that your "doubts" warrant anyone listening to you, you will NOT get another investigation. I have nothing to prove - YOU do. And you haven't brought anything to the table that we skeptics of 9/11 Truth consider valid. That's just the way it is.

But we are listening and waiting, as we have done for the last 8 1/2 years.

Any further questions on this matter, bsbray11?

reply posted on 21-3-2010 @ 12:00 PM by bsbray11

Originally posted by jthomas
On the contrary. I wrote specifically:
"That's certainly your right to doubt the preponderance of evidence..."

You really think this is a legitimate response to me asking what the evidence is? Let me be clear: I'm asking you what you are basing these statements on.

What "preponderance of evidence" are you talking about?

I even asked a more specific question, "What evidence is there of what was causing all of the explosions?", if the first question is too broad for you. You didn't answer that, either.

Please don't make me repeatedly point out that you are not answering the questions, and stop diverting and obfuscating the fact that you cannot answer them.

reply posted on 21-3-2010 @ 12:24 PM by jthomas

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by jthomas
On the contrary. I wrote specifically:
"That's certainly your right to doubt the preponderance of evidence..."

You really think this is a legitimate response to me asking what the evidence is?

Yes, I was quite clear in my multiple responses to you.

Let me be clear: I'm asking you what you are basing these statements on.

You already confirmed that you believe "that the reports, papers, investigations, forensic scientists, structural engineers, chemists, physicists, architects, firemen, FBI, etc. etc, did not rely on evidence." Since you don't believe there is any evidence that forms the basis of the conclusions of what happened on 9/11, then it makes no sense for me or anyone else to spend the time on it, correct?

I even asked a more specific question, "What evidence is there of what was causing all of the explosions?", if the first question is too broad for you. You didn't answer that, either.

I answered it directly. I repeat:

"To wit, it matters NOT that I think "explosive sounds" did not come from explosives but came from crashing elevators, fuel ignitions, shifting girders, SOUNDS that none of us ever hear routinely. Unless you can provide positive evidence that explosives were present and used, or raise enough concern that your "doubts" warrant anyone listening to you, you will NOT get another investigation. I have nothing to prove - YOU do. And you haven't brought anything to the table that we skeptics of 9/11 Truth consider valid. That's just the way it is.

"But we are listening and waiting, as we have done for the last 8 1/2 years.

"Any further questions on this matter, bsbray11?" I don't think you are getting anywhere by ignoring my answers.

reply posted on 21-3-2010 @ 01:25 PM by Faiol

Click here to learn more about this warning.

reply posted on 21-3-2010 @ 01:28 PM by Faiol

reply posted on 21-3-2010 @ 01:29 PM by semperfortis

Note:

Any Staff Actions are NOT the topic of the thread and therefor Off Topic

Thank you

Semper

reply posted on 21-3-2010 @ 01:43 PM by Faiol

reply posted on 21-3-2010 @ 01:52 PM by watcher2

reply to post by WWu777

Last week, one of my friends who knows a lot about conspiracies said that since those behind 9/11 own the system, you can never use the system to beat them. Therefore a new 9/11 investigation panel cannot accomplish anything. So, he said, it's best to just enjoy your life and forget about this.

so those behind the 9/11 own the system, does this include Bin Laden or George Bush.
just read somewhere that 6 out of the 10 on the 9/11 commission say ' it was a cover-up'. wish I could find and post it (sorry), but I did read it and it was a reputable source. the only true fact behind 9/11 is that there is only one person in the world that can tell our military to stand down and that isn't some guy in a cave.
didn't have any friends or family killed on 9/11, but it's kind of hard to forget and enjoy your life when you know that this could be done to any one of us at any time and people would just forget about it because it's too much troubler to think about it.
that attitude just scares the hell out of me.

reply posted on 21-3-2010 @ 01:58 PM by Faiol

reply to post by jthomas

it seems that you know a lot about 911 right?

read this link www.infowars.com...

before trying to show you understand what this thread is all about, thanx, good read!

is this offensive enough?

reply posted on 21-3-2010 @ 02:03 PM by SphinxMontreal

"Nonetheless, if you cannot convince even me that you have any valid refutation of the largest, multi-layered, multi-discipline investigation in history"

Are you talking about the investigation which quickly discarded key evidence (such as WTC debris) and refused to include the vital testimony of many on scene witnesses and first responders? Yeah, great investigation.

Or...are you talking about the biased investigation where certain key Government Officials were excluded from having to provide open and transparent testimony?

Or...are you talking about the treasonous disreputable media's investigation, which consisted of being a fanboy of the official narrative and not questioning any of the numerous inconsistencies in the official whitewash?

Or...are you talking about the tedious and in depth lightning quick investigation which unequivocally pinned the blame on Muslim extremists within a few hours after the attacks?

The more time passes, the more difficult it will be to have a thorough and proper investigation. There is no great mystery as to why officials have no interest in taking a competent, thorough and objective look at 9/11.

As for the reason why many regular people are not interested in taking a hard look in 9/11 is because they are living in a state of denial. By looking at 9/11 objectively, it will burst their little bubble and they will have to come to grips with some harsh realities with respect to the world they are living in.

What they do not realize is this same denial does nothing to correct the injustices which plague the world and only serves to favor the interests of the perpetrators. Ignorance my be bliss, but it comes with a huge price.

reply posted on 21-3-2010 @ 07:22 PM by bsbray11

Originally posted by jthomas
You already confirmed that you believe "that the reports, papers, investigations, forensic scientists, structural engineers, chemists, physicists, architects, firemen, FBI, etc. etc, did not rely on evidence." Since you don't believe there is any evidence that forms the basis of the conclusions of what happened on 9/11, then it makes no sense for me or anyone else to spend the time on it, correct?

I even asked a more specific question, "What evidence is there of what was causing all of the explosions?", if the first question is too broad for you. You didn't answer that, either.

I answered it directly. I repeat:

"To wit, it matters NOT...

And so admitted there is no definitive answer to that question, only your speculation based entirely on believing what you were told from the very beginning.

So then you must understand logically, that I personally am not satisfied with speculation like that, when you admittedly have no evidence to support that speculation. I am not aware of conclusive evidence of anything but planes hitting buildings in the Kean Commission report, FEMA, or any of NIST's. You have no business telling anyone they don't have legitimate concerns to be addressed with these unanswered questions, just because you personally are satisfied speculating.

reply posted on 21-3-2010 @ 09:56 PM by jthomas

Originally posted by bsbray11

You have no business telling anyone they don't have legitimate concerns to be addressed with these unanswered questions, just because you personally are satisfied speculating.

I find it remarkable that you still don't understand that you don't get to decide what are "legitimate" concerns or not until, and unless, you demonstrate them. You can go on making claims and assertions all you want and pretend that somehow I am supposed to address your "concerns", and ignore everything I have written.

But you won't answer the question which is on the table and you ignore: just how do you think you are going to get yet another investigation on the basis that you think you have "legitimate" concerns?

reply posted on 21-3-2010 @ 10:05 PM by jthomas

SphinxMontreal, you certainly make a lot of claims and assertions I've heard before, but you will have to accept that I and other skeptics have never accepted those claims, often made, firmly believed by you and other Truthers, but nonetheless not convincing to us at all.

It's also particularly interesting how, after 8 1/2 years of such preaching, you deem those who don't accept your notions as in "denial" and use that as an excuse why you have never achieved your goal of getting another investigation. After all these years.

You have your work cut out for you. I am really curious how you all expect to move forward on this. What is your plan of action?

reply posted on 21-3-2010 @ 10:06 PM by bsbray11

Originally posted by jthomas
just how do you think you are going to get yet another investigation on the basis that you think you have "legitimate" concerns?

Because enough people agree that blind speculation is not good enough when it comes to questions like what was causing all of the explosions in all 3 buildings that day.

reply posted on 21-3-2010 @ 10:09 PM by vicen

reply to post by WWu777

I think your friend is 100% correct. If 9/11 was an inside job, something I don't believe, it seems almost impossible that there would ever be any new investigation. Even an administration other than Bush/Cheney, and not just the current or the next one, but 15/20 years down the line, - they would realise what a nightmare it would be, and would never go for it.

One thing I don't understand about this desired new investigation, is what exactly will be investigated? Say, for example, the structural engineers who were at the scene on 9/11 & warned that the Towers were severely compromised & in danger of collapse. Are they to be questioned? The same applies to the witnesses who saw the plane crash into the Pentagon.

I can't picture to myself some attorney saying to a witness, - You SAY that you saw a plane. But can you be sure?

As for scientific evidence, for every expert saying that the towers couldn't have fallen the way they did, there'll be a hundred others saying that they could.

reply posted on 21-3-2010 @ 10:10 PM by jthomas

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by jthomas
just how do you think you are going to get yet another investigation on the basis that you think you have "legitimate" concerns?

Because enough people agree that blind speculation is not good enough when it comes to questions like what was causing all of the explosions in all 3 buildings that day.

If you have evidence of explosives, present it. But if you intend to get a new investigation by claiming that those professionals didn't rely on any evidence but just "blind speculation", well, good luck with that strategy.

reply posted on 21-3-2010 @ 10:13 PM by bsbray11

reply to post by jthomas

"Those professionals" never commented on all the explosions coming from all 3 buildings to begin with, especially with any evidence for any of the numerous different things you claim must have been causing them. That is blind speculation. Like I said, enough people will agree that this is totally unacceptable.

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 >> ^^TOP^^