TimmyG wrote:A coherent insider account.
A theory which is actually plausible and doesn't rely on the cruel torture of facts and logic. i.e. a theory which actually makes sense. Something less than 1000x more complicated and far fetched than the official theory.
Expert opinions from actual experts who have actually studied the event and actually submitted something serious for peer review (and no you can't submit a youtube video for peer review).
An alive hijacker or passenger
is the theory that a passport fell out of one of the jets as it hit the wtc, where it was promptly found on the street intact a plausible theory?
Yes, as it was not the only such item to do so.
TimmyG wrote:is the theory that fires in steel framed buildings should cause them to collapse at free fall speed plausible?
The buildings did NOT fall at free fall speed I can't believe truthers are still telling themselves this.
TimmyG wrote:is the theory that larry silverstein should refer to a group of firefighters as 'it' and their removal from a building they weren't in as 'pulling', plausible?
Oh dear, you truly are pedaling some very old and debunked claims here. By it Larry Silverstein ment the contingent of Firemen in building 7, a contingent is a thing, and thus an it. What else could Silverstein have meant by "Pull It" oh right thats right "Pull it" is used in CD all the time! Actually no sorry it isn't, in demolition it refers to strapping cables to a building and pulling it down using these cables, of course even if it did relate to CD, how would Silverstein have known that? He is not in that line of work...
TimmyG wrote:its only more plausible than some of the alternate theories, to you, because it comes from an establishment body. It's entirely likely that any establishment body (NIST, FEMA, mainstream media) would form its idea of the truth based on an outcome which is more favorable to their own existence. If anyone within the establishment did a truly independent and critical analysis of the evidence, and concluded that branches of goverment/establishment/ linked corporations were responsible for 9/11, they would obviously be out of a job very quickly. as people like kevin ryan have been for asking questions.
Of course, thats right, these people who are all in on it are so afraid of losing their desk jobs that they won't go to Al Jazeera or another iunfriendly TV network and blow the conspiracy wide open? Then make millions out of selling their story. But Kevin Ryan is a brave freedom fighter, we should honour him with a statue or something. (My understanding is that he quit due to personal problems, but whatever you want to believe)
TimmyG wrote:this statement on its own is obviously not proof of an 'inside job', but until critics are willing to think about the nature of the system we live in, any debate between us is fairly pointless.
Why don't you try debating rather than saying something, having it debunked, then moving on to your next lie only to come back to the original debunked lie later when you think everybody has forgotten about it?
TimmyG wrote:
Expert opinions from actual experts who have actually studied the event and actually submitted something serious for peer review (and no you can't submit a youtube video for peer review).
what's an 'actual expert'? are there some special requirements? personally i think we've got quite a few on our side but i never went to actual expert school so maybe i'm wrong.
Name 5
TimmyG wrote:what's youtube got to do with anything? if NIST hosted a flash video file on their site as evidence for peer review would you consider it to be that? i get the impression you turn-your-nose up at youtube because anyone can put a video on there.
We turn our nose up at youtube because it is from poorly made youtube videos where Truthers do their "research"