New 9/11 footage shows visible explosions in building 7

davoxx

King Mob wrote: »

so it doesn't bother you that these Patriotic Americans are making a provably false claim?

well then you should be able to prove it ...

King Mob wrote: »

How can you logically see anything when these guys aren't even showing you half of the collapse?

because the other half has lasers and thousands of tons of explosive like you said ... :pac:

meglome

Ramocc wrote: »

I have plenty of points I'm sticking to, just no single theory. Like I said, I don't need a theory. What do I keep dodging around? You are the stereotypical "non-conspiracy" theorist... who knows everything is right.

To quote you ...

(1) Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
(2) The collection of evidence can be steered heavily by the nature of an investigation.
(3) The interpretion of evidence can be influenced by preconceptions.
(4) Evidence can be fabricated, modified or withheld.

1. A way of saying you have no evidence for what it is you do think.
2. We assume hundreds of top professionals are incompetent or in on it.
3. We assume hundreds of top professionals are incompetent or in on it.
4. We assume hundreds of top professionals are incompetent or in on it.

So as as long as everyone on the investigation was blind, inept, corrupt, willing to cover up the mass murder of their own people then tell no one. Can you guess why I don't take your speculation seriously?

Ramocc wrote: »

If you think evidence is so important ...

... why didn't you give me any for a claim you made about me?

Everything I thought I know about you is wrong. There, feel any better?
Now getting back to the point do you have any evidence for anything to do think about 911? Any at all?

Ramocc wrote: »

Okie dokie then. Doesn't say anything about the initial investigation, but okie dokie then anyway.

No it doesn't. They went out an hired top professionals to do the investigations, how many have said they didn't think the investigation of the site was up to scratch? What evidence of any kind do you have to suggest the investigation was flawed? (of course other than your opinion they must check for explosives which they know cannot be there.)

Ramocc wrote: »

Can you prove this?

Well try and supply the slightest bit of evidence, for the first time. That would be the obvious starting point.

davoxx

meglome wrote: »

So as as long as everyone on the investigation was blind, inept, corrupt, willing to cover up the mass murder of their own people then tell no one. Can you guess why I don't take your speculation seriously?

coz you can't grasp simple concepts like thousands of tons of explosives vs a couple of kilos of explosives?

meglome wrote: »

Everything I thought I know about you is wrong. There, feel any better?

you'll have to explain that at first you thought he was a crazy CT who you could rubbish ..
but know you know he rubbished your NCT claims piece by piece.
i'm sure you feel better now that the truth is coming out.

meglome wrote: »

Now getting back to the point do you have any evidence for anything to do think about 911? Any at all?

were you not meant to be providing evidence? or have you forgotten?

meglome wrote: »

No it doesn't. They went out an hired top professionals to do the investigations, how many have said they didn't think the investigation of the site was up to scratch? What evidence of any kind do you have to suggest the investigation was flawed? (of course other than your opinion they must check for explosives which they know cannot be there.)

they never said that they knew there was no explosives there, quote please.

meglome wrote: »

Well try and supply the slightest bit of evidence, for the first time. That would be the obvious starting point.

then why don't you do it rather than dancing around ...

why are you looking for evidence when you don't provide any?

Ramocc

meglome wrote: »

To quote you ...

Yup, you're quoting me all right ...

meglome wrote: »

1. A way of saying you have no evidence for what it is you do think.
2. We assume hundreds of top professionals are incompetent or in on it.
3. We assume hundreds of top professionals are incompetent or in on it.
4. We assume hundreds of top professionals are incompetent or in on it.

1. Nope, I was trying to explain something to you. Not that you noticed.
2. Nope, I was trying to explain something to you. Not that you noticed.
3. Nope, I was trying to explain something to you. Not that you noticed.
4. Nope, I was trying to explain something to you. Not that you noticed.

You remember that dictionary that you almost threw away ... use it to look up the word steer ... and preconception while you're at it.

Here's an hypothetical anecdote for you (since you've given plenty yourself): remember my idea about the mobile phones? If an investigator found a molten phone in the wreckage (not that there would've been any of chance of that, given the temperatures given by the NIST report), he'd probably think it was just a phone, nothing suspicious, since you know, it's just a phone. Now, if he was told to keep an eye out for mobile phones since they might have been used to trigger explosives/incendiaries/etc, it would've been bagged, tagged and examined closely. Not that I claiming this did or did not happen. It's just an example. And no, it doesn't prove anything.

meglome wrote: »

So as as long as everyone on the investigation was blind, inept, corrupt, willing to cover up the mass murder of their own people then tell no one. Can you guess why I don't take your speculation seriously?

If you can't get over the assumption that any alternative theory would certainly leave large quantities of unambiguous, undisputable evidence with a 100% detection rate, you'll never even able to consider any other ideas.

meglome wrote: »

Everything I thought I know about you is wrong. There, feel any better?
Now getting back to the point do you have any evidence for anything to do think about 911? Any at all?

After such a humble and genuine apology? Sure why not. How about you, do you feel any better?

I'd like to point out an important change in your stance:

Before: NO EVIDENCE OF EXPLOSIVES WAS REPORTED, hence no explosives could have possibly been involved.
Now: You want to speculate? You MUST HAVE CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE first.

See what happened there?

If you want to eliminate any of my speculative ideas, give me physical proof of their impossibility, or following the EVIDENCE route, prove to me that they would've left evidence that was not found.

meglome wrote: »

No it doesn't. They went out an hired top professionals to do the investigations, how many have said they didn't think the investigation of the site was up to scratch? What evidence of any kind do you have to suggest the investigation was flawed? (of course other than your opinion they must check for explosives which they know cannot be there.)

Are these the same explosives that they know can't be there based on simulations carried out years later?

meglome wrote: »

Well try and supply the slightest bit of evidence, for the first time. That would be the obvious starting point.

See my discussion above regarding your demand for evidence.

How about you provide some physical facts, for the first time. Whatever happened to the space lasers and nuclear bombs? Do you finally accept that the argument involving them is invalid? I can only assume that you have, since you didn't say anything about those pesky physical facts (see my last post ... the one you quoted here).

Btw, you mentioned history earlier. It's interesting you say that. True, there may not be any previous recorded instances of any of my crazy ideas like mobile phone triggered incendiaries, (or planes flying into skyscrapers). But there have been plenty of recorded instances of intelligence agencies misleading the public, think WMD in Iraq. And conspiring for the sake of oil, think Iran in the 50's, the details of which were only released in 2003, 50 years later. I can imagine you saying at the time, "show me the evidence, show me the evidence" and then 50 years later, "Fine, I was wrong. Wars were started, countries were invaded, people were killed, but I was wrong. There, feel any better?"

meglome

Ramocc wrote: »

Yup, you're quoting me all right ...

1. Nope, I was trying to explain something to you. Not that you noticed.
2. Nope, I was trying to explain something to you. Not that you noticed.
3. Nope, I was trying to explain something to you. Not that you noticed.
4. Nope, I was trying to explain something to you. Not that you noticed.

Actually I got exactly what you're trying to say. You however keep trying to avoid the fact you have nothing but speculation.

Ramocc wrote: »

You remember that dictionary that you almost threw away ... use it to look up the word steer ... and preconception while you're at it.

Here's an hypothetical anecdote for you (since you've given plenty yourself): remember my idea about the mobile phones? If an investigator found a molten phone in the wreckage (not that there would've been any of chance of that, given the temperatures given by the NIST report), he'd probably think it was just a phone, nothing suspicious, since you know, it's just a phone. Now, if he was told to keep an eye out for mobile phones since they might have been used to trigger explosives/incendiaries/etc, it would've been bagged, tagged and examined closely. Not that I claiming this did or did not happen. It's just an example. And no, it doesn't prove anything.

So as I keep saying a nice fictional story... I'm reading one from Iain Banks at the moment with as much fact backing it up.

You have no regard for the professionals that NIST hired, fine. But let's not pretend you have any actual evidence for that other than your opinion. As I said before speculation is great but you are choosing to believe it and looking for others to believe it too.

Ramocc wrote: »

If you can't get over the assumption that any alternative theory would certainly leave large quantities of unambiguous, undisputable evidence with a 100% detection rate, you'll never even able to consider any other ideas.

I read a lot of the NIST reports and looked at any evidence I could find online. So while I have no problem speculating till the cows come home the 'alternative' theories have nothing backing them up. You can't even begin to explain how explosives were somehow silent (the laws of physics will make that quite difficult I'd imagine) but you want to believe that somehow explosives along with "mobiles phones and stuff" brought down WTC7. Did they bring down WTC 1&2 with explosives as well?

Ramocc wrote: »

I'd like to point out an important change in your stance:

Before: NO EVIDENCE OF EXPLOSIVES WAS REPORTED, hence no explosives could have possibly been involved.
Now: You want to speculate? You MUST HAVE CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE first.

As I said in a previous post, I'm very happy to speculate. Then when I see any evidence for the speculation I can see if I need to change my views of what happened. You it appears have taken your speculation as some kind of fact when you have no evidence backing it up.

Ramocc wrote: »

If you want to eliminate any of my speculative ideas, give me physical proof of their impossibility, or following the EVIDENCE route, prove to me that they would've left evidence that was not found.

So I should prove your theories wrong when you can't prove them right int he first instance. Well I better get straight on to the courts and let them know their doing it all wrong. The mind boggles.

Ramocc wrote: »

How about you provide some physical facts, for the first time. Whatever happened to the space lasers and nuclear bombs? Do you finally accept that the argument involving them is invalid? I can only assume that you have, since you didn't say anything about those pesky physical facts (see my last post ... the one you quoted here).

So evidence for your explosives theory... none. Evidence for space lasers and nukes... none. All of all these are basically not possible just for different reasons. Unless we take your stance and assume that people with incompetent or inept or in on it. Maybe you'll actually provide some evidence, who knows.

Ramocc wrote: »

Btw, you mentioned history earlier. It's interesting you say that. True, there may not be any previous recorded instances of any of my crazy ideas like mobile phone triggered incendiaries, (or planes flying into skyscrapers). But there have been plenty of recorded instances of intelligence agencies misleading the public, think WMD in Iraq. And conspiring for the sake of oil, think Iran in the 50's, the details of which were only released in 2003, 50 years later. I can imagine you saying at the time, "show me the evidence, show me the evidence" and then 50 years later, "Fine, I was wrong. Wars were started, countries were invaded, people were killed, but I was wrong. There, feel any better?"

Again I'm all for the speculation, why not. I'm an avid reader and love a good story. But when, for example, I read the DaVinci Code and he tried to make out what he was saying was fact then I expected he would have some evidence for that. Unfortunately his 'evidence' is bull and has holes all over it.
Maybe people teleported in there and planted bombs, seems very unlikely but what the hell there's no evidence for that either.


So what is it you want here. You say us NTC's or whatever you're calling us won't listen. But I keep listening and listening, it's like drawing blood to even get you to say what you think and at that you've given us no reason whatsoever to believe any of it.

Ramocc

meglome wrote: »

Actually I got exactly what you're trying to say. You however keep trying to avoid the fact you have nothing but speculation.

How am I avoiding anything? I've repeatedly said I'm speculating.

meglome wrote: »

So as I keep saying a nice fictional story... I'm reading one from Iain Banks at the moment with as much fact backing it up.

Well that was wasted on you.

I'm genuinely shocked though, how can you cope with reading a fictional story which clearly has no evidence of happening?!

meglome wrote: »

You have no regard for the professionals that NIST hired, fine. But let's not pretend you have any actual evidence for that other than your opinion. As I said before speculation is great but you are choosing to believe it and looking for others to believe it too.

You're back to not knowing anything about what I'm saying again. It seemed you almost grasped that problem in your last post, alas you've forgotten already.

To reiterate for the, let's say 227th, time: I'm choosing to believe THE POSSIBILITY of other theories. This concept must be really hard for you to understand.
I don't believe that they happened, but I don't believe that they didn't happen either. If you asked me if they happened, my answer would be "I don't know".
Have you ever heard the hypothetical anecdote "Schrödinger's cat"?

(Of course it was just a fictional story with no evidence whatsover so it was immediately dismissed and never had any influence on the study of physics).

meglome wrote: »

I read a lot of the NIST reports and looked at any evidence I could find online. So while I have no problem speculating till the cows come home the 'alternative' theories have nothing backing them up. You can't even begin to explain how explosives were somehow silent (the laws of physics will make that quite difficult I'd imagine) but you want to believe that somehow explosives along with "mobiles phones and stuff" brought down WTC7.

You clearly do have a problem with speculating, you can't even understand the concept. The first stage to overcoming this is admitting you have a problem.
I did suggest (and I've looked at some evidence online too) the possible use of incendiaries instead of explosives. But never mind, you have addressed it thoroughly as "stuff".

You're doing it again, believing that I want to believe.

meglome wrote: »

Did they bring down WTC 1&2 with explosives as well?

I don't know.

meglome wrote: »

As I said in a previous post, I'm very happy to speculate. Then when I see any evidence for the speculation I can see if I need to change my views of what happened. You it appears have taken your speculation as some kind of fact when you have no evidence backing it up.

You're right, you're speculating right there. Can you provide EVIDENCE that I consider my speculation as any sort of fact? We played this game before, remember. You admitted you were wrong amidst a veil of sarcasm, but at least you admitted you were wrong. Only now you've forgetten.

meglome wrote: »

So I should prove your theories wrong when you can't prove them right int he first instance. Well I better get straight on to the courts and let them know their doing it all wrong. The mind boggles.

Amazing ... you were finally on to something with the first sentence. You finally understood what I was asking. You were finally about to embark on an adventure of science and discovery. And then just as I get my hopes up to see your proof ... you ruin it by bringing up courts.

As an aside: You should know that presenting a plausible, and not necessarily provable, alternative explanation to an event is actually a valid and widely used defence in courts?

meglome wrote: »

So evidence for your explosives theory... none. Evidence for space lasers and nukes... none. All of all these are basically not possible just for different reasons. Unless we take your stance and assume that people with incompetent or inept or in on it. Maybe you'll actually provide some evidence, who knows.

As I've said before, ARGUMENTS and CONCLUSIONS are different. The ARGUMENT involving space lasers and nuclear bombs, applied to the issue of TESTING FOR EXPLOSIVES was wrong. How is it that you can't get that? It's like the moment someone even mentions the word explosives, you immediately think "you MUST be claiming that explosives WERE used. Show me the evidence. SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE!!!" (I'm imagining a Jerry Maguire parody here).

meglome wrote: »

Again I'm all for the speculation, why not. I'm an avid reader and love a good story. But when, for example, I read the DaVinci Code and he tried to make out what he was saying was fact then I expected he would have some evidence for that. Unfortunately his 'evidence' is bull and has holes all over it.
Maybe people teleported in there and planted bombs, seems very unlikely but what the hell there's no evidence for that either.

Once again, I hope you still have that dictionary so you can look up the word speculation. Something is a speculation precisely because it has not been proved. But it hasn't been disproved either. It seems your argument is:

Theorem 1 If no evidence of theory A was reported, then theory A could not have happened.
Proof Let B be another theory that is implicitly impossible, but not explicitly impossible. (This distinction will be used later to twist counter arguments against the validity of this proof.)

Now, there's no evidence that A happened. Also, there's no evidence that B happened.

Therefore, since A and B are exactly the same, A is explicitly impossible.

Theorem 2 If someone thinks that Theorem 1 is invalid, then they are claiming that A actually happened
Proof You must be claiming that A happened (proof omitted).
Therefore since A must have generated large quantities of unambiguous, undisputable evidence with a 100% detection rate (proof omitted), "SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE!"

meglome wrote: »

So what is it you want here. You say us NTC's or whatever you're calling us won't listen. But I keep listening and listening, it's like drawing blood to even get you to say what you think and at that you've given us no reason whatsoever to believe any of it.

Ramocc wrote: »

If you want to eliminate any of my speculative ideas, give me physical proof of their impossibility, or following the EVIDENCE route, prove to me that they would've left evidence that was not found.

What ever happened to this question? You asked for evidence, I asked for proof that evidence would be left behind, or physical proof that mobile phone triggered incendiaries are physically impossible. Oh yeah, I believe there was also a history lesson?

davoxx

meglome wrote: »

But I keep listening and listening, it's like drawing blood to even get you to say what you think and at that you've given us no reason whatsoever to believe any of it.

so what do you think cause the collapse of WTC7 and what evidence do you have to support it?

Toxic7

Ill just leave this here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8VAsoVuShM

enno99

Toxic7 wrote: »

Ill just leave this here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8VAsoVuShM

Good to know he can edit videos
If he was relying on comedy for a living he would starve to death

davoxx

Toxic7 wrote: »

Ill just leave this here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8VAsoVuShM

but still a good video ... i like the part when we invaded iraq for 911 ...

meglome

Ramocc wrote: »

What ever happened to this question? You asked for evidence, I asked for proof that evidence would be left behind, or physical proof that mobile phone triggered incendiaries are physically impossible. Oh yeah, I believe there was also a history lesson?

Again we go around and around in the little dance. You really don't seem to get it, you are making claims.... YOU. You are saying that the NIST investigators were blind, incompetent or in on it. You are saying that incendiaries or some explosives were planted using "mobiles phones and stuff".

What I believe is backed by some very detailed reports and carried out by hundreds of top professionals, i.e. NIST et al.

So we can dance all you want but everyone can see your failure to post any evidence for what you actually believe (whatever that is exactly). The problem here is you've gone way past speculating and have come to some decisions on the performance of NIST and what is possible - without any evidence or any historical precedent. Oh you'll dodge the issue by saying you are only speculating but it's clear to me you believe these things.

It's simple... DO YOU HAVE ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER FOR WHAT YOU ARE SPECULATING/CLAIMING/BELIEVE?

davoxx

meglome wrote: »

It's simple... DO YOU HAVE ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER FOR WHAT YOU ARE SPECULATING/CLAIMING/BELIEVE?

if it's so simple why can't you answer?
DO YOU HAVE ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER FOR WHAT YOU ARE SPECULATING/CLAIMING/BELIEVE?

Ramocc

meglome wrote: »

Again we go around and around in the little dance. You really don't seem to get it, you are making claims.... YOU. You are saying that the NIST investigators were blind, incompetent or in on it. You are saying that incendiaries or some explosives were planted using "mobiles phones and stuff".

Again we go around and around. You really don't seem to get it, you are making claims.... YOU. I NEVER SAID INCENDIARIES OR ANY EXPLOSIVES WERE PLANTED USING "MOBILES PHONES AND STUFF". I SAID IT MAY HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE. WHY OH WHY CAN YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THIS SIMPLE STATEMENT. USE YOUR DICTIONARY!!!!

meglome wrote: »

What I believe is backed by some very detailed reports and carried out by hundreds of top professionals, i.e. NIST et al.

I never asked what you believe, I really don't care. I asked for any scientific arguments about some speculative ideas, or proof that they would leave evidence in the first place. This is quite important, if you think about it, since explosives were ruled out in first place based on an assumption that unambiguous ..., evidence would have been left. I find it funny that you've never even considered that idea, despite being so obsessed with evidence.

Actually the NIST report wasn't very detailed. You only have to read the argument above trying to figure out if it even stated 4kg of explosives was enough to buckle a column or not.

meglome wrote: »

So we can dance all you want but everyone can see your failure to post any evidence for what you actually believe (whatever that is exactly). The problem here is you've gone way past speculating and have come to some decisions on the performance of NIST and what is possible - without any evidence or any historical precedent.

I think I've made it very clear what I believe. Everyone can see that you have no intention in understanding, or even considering other ideas. You bring up history again, I made a point about that earlier, did I not? I'm not expecting an answer though, since there's no historical precedent.

meglome wrote: »

Oh you'll dodge the issue by saying you are only speculating but it's clear to me you believe these things.

Oh, but it's even clearer to me that I don't believe these things. Do you have any EVIDENCE that I believe these things? Even a single quote from a single post that remotely suggests I believe these things? Do you really not remember your previous sarcastic apology? For all you know, I could just be saying these things just to wind you up Seriously, you're so delusional, it's scary.

meglome wrote: »

It's simple... DO YOU HAVE ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER FOR WHAT YOU ARE SPECULATING/CLAIMING/BELIEVE?

DO YOU HAVE ANY PROOF THAT WHAT I AM SPECULATING/CLAIMING/BELIEVE IS IMPOSSIBLE OR ANY PROOF THAT WHAT I AM SPECULATING/CLAIMING/BELIEVE WOULD HAVE LEFT EVIDENCE BEHIND?

meglome

Ramocc wrote: »

blah blah blah

Yup you keeping saying a lot of things and maybe some time you'll show some evidence for any of them.

It's actually funny that you think I should prove what you're speculating isn't possible. In many fields people hypothesize (speculate) on lots of things, whether it be in science or the courts or wherever. But to be taken remotely seriously you have to prove it, provide evidence. You can't prove anything, not a damn thing so unsurprisingly some of us are not taking you seriously.

Put up or shut-up. Show some honesty and admit your theories have nothing behind them other than your feeling or opinion.

davoxx

meglome wrote: »

Put up or shut-up. Show some honesty and admit your theories have nothing behind them other than your feeling or opinion.

ok, your theories have nothing behind them other than your feeling or opinion

but seriously, meglome there is no need to get angry,
we understand how you NCTs get frustrated when asked to provide evidence,
if only that pesky government had released all of it you could show what every they wanted you to believe.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74551819&postcount=428

Ramocc

meglome wrote: »

Yup you keeping saying a lot of things and maybe some time you'll show some evidence for any of them.

It's actually funny that you think I should prove what you're speculating isn't possible. In many fields people hypothesize (speculate) on lots of things, whether it be in science or the courts or wherever. But to be taken remotely seriously you have to prove it, provide evidence. You can't prove anything, not a damn thing so unsurprisingly some of us are not taking you seriously.

Put up or shut-up. Show some honesty and admit your theories have nothing behind them other than your feeling or opinion.

Awww, did I confuse you with my logical thinking and seasoned reasoning? Did my correction of your misuse of the English language upset you?

I've explained the use of speculation in courts, you seem to have ignored that, along with everything else I've said.

You're not taking me seriously because you can't. You can't pigeon-hole me into the crazy conspiracy believe cook and it scares you, plain and simple.

meglome

Ramocc wrote: »

Awww, did I confuse you with my logical thinking and seasoned reasoning? Did my correction of your misuse of the English language upset you?

I've explained the use of speculation in courts, you seem to have ignored that, along with everything else I've said.

You're not taking me seriously because you can't. You can't pigeon-hole me into the crazy conspiracy believe cook and it scares you, plain and simple.

Let's look at it this way then...
1. you go into court
2. speculate lots
3. can provide no evidence whatsoever other than your opinion
4. court ignores the speculation and follows whatever evidence is available.

See how that would work?

Let's focus on the core lack of any evidence shall we.

davoxx

meglome wrote: »

<<crap>>

can we stay on topic on how you can't provide evidence and keep hiding?

shall we count out the times we've asked you for your evidence and theory and yet you ignore it ... again and again??

Ramocc

meglome wrote: »

Let's look at it this way then...
1. you go into court
2. speculate lots
3. can provide no evidence whatsoever other than your opinion
4. court ignores the speculation and follows whatever evidence is available.

See how that would work?

Let's focus on the core lack of any evidence shall we.

But that's a fictional story. You can't use fictional stories to make a point since they have no evidence.

But it's ok, unlike you I can understand the use of a story to make a point.

Now, let's look at it the correct way instead ...

1. You go to court to prosecute someone.
2. You present a theory based on evidence from an investigation that did not explore all possibilities.
3. The defence presents a plausible alternative theory that was not investigated.
4. You fail to provide any proof that this alternative theory is impossible (including any proof that it would have left evidence that should have been found and was not).
5. The court decides that there is now reasonable doubt and acquits the defendant.

And that is how it would work.

Let's focus on proving the alternative theory is impossible and/or there should have been evidence left shall we.

And I think you mentioned something about history before, ah well, I guess that's all in the past now.

To be honest, I'm tired of this. I know I'm speculating, I've said it repeatedly. I believe an explosives/incendiaries theory was possible and I'm not convinced of the official theory either.

However, not every event in the world leaves evidence, and evidence can point to false events too. Evidence gathered and disseminated by people can never be considered absolute. If you can't let go of this unhealthy misconception that a lack of evidence implies falsehood, then I just can't take you seriously.

meglome

Ramocc wrote: »

But that's a fictional story. You can't use fictional stories to make a point since they have no evidence.

I can't make a comparison now. Okay.

Ramocc wrote: »

Now, let's look at it the correct way instead ...

1. You go to court to prosecute someone. - Indeed you do
2. You present a theory based on evidence from an investigation that did not explore all possibilities. - This is your opinion - and to believe it we have to assume the investigator were blind, inept, in on it.
3. The defence presents a plausible alternative theory that was not investigated. - And the court will seek direct evidence for it (you don't have any btw).
4. You fail to provide any proof that this alternative theory is impossible (including any proof that it would have left evidence that should have been found and was not). - He he is that how you think a court works... hahahaha.
5. The court decides that there is now reasonable doubt and acquits the defendant. - Wow you have no idea now a court or investigation works at all.

Filled in some things in bold for you.

Ramocc wrote: »

Let's focus on proving the alternative theory is impossible and/or there should have been evidence left shall we.

Are you okay? In the real world people have to provide evidence for what they claim. You can try to pretend you're not claiming anything but clearly you are. And you have nothing but your opinion.

Ramocc wrote: »

To be honest, I'm tired of this. I know I'm speculating, I've said it repeatedly. I believe an explosives/incendiaries theory was possible and I'm not convinced of the official theory either.

Great you're speculating and can't prove any of it. So why not believe the official reports, you know the ones with all the evidence. You have chosen to believe in explosives or incendiaries and can't even explain the basics of how this would work. And really funnily you're trying to get me prove it's not possible... talk about cart before the horse.

Ramocc wrote: »

However, not every event in the world leaves evidence, and evidence can point to false events too. Evidence gathered and disseminated by people can never be considered absolute. If you can't let go of this unhealthy misconception that a lack of evidence implies falsehood, then I just can't take you seriously.

I have no misconception of anything. It's very very simple... someone tells me Point A is true. I then ask how Point A could be done. I further ask for evidence to prove Point A is true. You have nothing to show your speculation is true, nothing at all. So logic and evidence... you have neither. You can't show it could have happened and you have no evidence for it. Is this getting through?

Your arrogance is amazing.

davoxx

meglome wrote: »

I have no misconception of anything. It's very very simple... someone tells me Point A is true. I then ask how Point A could be done. I further ask for evidence to prove Point A is true.

you mean like me asking you for the proof for thousand of tons of explosives?

or the fact that you did not read the NIST report regarding 4kg of explosives?

or did you say 'ask for' when you meant 'tell me that there is'?

meglome wrote: »

You have nothing to show your speculation is true, nothing at all. So logic and evidence... you have neither.

just because you don't understand them does not mean it is not true.
just because you can't see/visualise them does not mean they don't exist.

meglome wrote: »

You can't show it could have happened and you have no evidence for it. Is this getting through?

i can show you that it could have happened, get me a duplicate of wtc some tons of explosives and space lasers, and i'll show you what did not happen.

Your gullibility is amazing. as is your lack of ability to defend your position, given that you claimed you ask for evidence before believing it.

but yet again, i must ask for your ... actually never-mind, you've proven beyond reasonable doubt that you can't provide it.

you might as well ignore this post, seems like once the NCTs get beaten they go silent.

Ramocc will be back with a good post, you can also ignore his points again, you're very good at ignoring things that don't suit you.

but then why do you come here, is it for the attention?

davoxx

how to point out it is fake.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SObh1b6Xbo

christmas2012

Totally wrong wrong wrong..9/11 did happen i had relatives on WTC that can testify it happened they were there..Its an insult to those who lost their lives and the relatives of those who lost their lives,there was no bomb,how would they have smuggled huge bombs(they would have to be) on to the buildings to cause such catastrophic explosins there were two planes hijacked seen visibly flying puposefully into the world trade center and then the jet fuel igniting killing everyone instantly on those few floors they entered in on..The other plane went purposefully lower as he was intent on killing more people,there was clearly no bomb,if it was the case then the world media would have reported it,the media cannot be seen to report lies as they would be sued..How could all those people read each others minds and think oh i know lets pull off the biggest lie ever..dont think so,and the world media sued,dont think so,all those cops out on that day to waste time on themselves?dont think so.
why make up such ridiculous lies?

Daithi 1

christmas2012 wrote: »

Totally wrong wrong wrong..9/11 did happen...

Are you sure ?

Border-Rat

Mustaine said it best in a recent interview with Alex Jones. Of the two people who 'debate' the obvious (the other type is a shill, who you should ignore anyway), you shouldn't bother with 'believers' as it is "Trying to teach a pig to sing, it won't work and it only irritates the pig".