Everyone must watch this video..

honeto wrote: the answer to your first question: It is in the video, watch it, and then tell me if that's not science.

If what is not science?  No, a video is not science.  If you think the video contains science, then tell me what.  Don't expect me to go hunting for it.

Government not killing its own people, a separate issue but you did not answer my question, does our or any Government ever lies to its people?

Of course it does, when there is a strong motivation to do so and and fair probability that they might get away with it.  But neither of those contingencies applies here.  Calling them a "separate issue" does not answer them.

And I am not presenting any theories as I stated before, I am only questioning official theories. Hasan

And that's the problem.  Whatever nitpicking objections you might want to suggest, the "official" theory remains the most likely explanation unless/until you can offer a better one.

honeto wrote: Ron, fact is something science can prove, in this video science is proving that what happened could not have happened with what was available there according to the official statement.

If there is any actual science in this video, I wish you would tell me about it.  So far all you've told me are a number of unsubstantiated claims.  I'm still waiting for you to offer the name and credentials of a single one of the so-called "experts" in this video.  Without that, it's not science, just hearsay.

You are telling me the governments don't lie to their people? Our government never lied to us?

I'm saying that our/your government never killed thousands of its own citizens simply to score some kind of cheap propaganda victory, and even if it did there is no way such a thing could be kept secret.  What you are suggesting is not only enormously evil, but as far as I can tell pretty much pointless and not worth the risk.

I'm also saying that in order to present a convincing alternative theory, you need to show that it is more plausible the conventional explanation.  So far all you have done is to nitpick tiny details of the official version, while totally ignoring the huge logical and logistical improbabilities of your own.

Ron,
fact is something science can prove, in this video science is proving that what happened could not have happened with what was available there according to the official statement.
You are telling me the governments don't lie to their people? Our government never lied to us?
There is more to it, and to get to that truth, we need to reopen this case and find the truth independently without any influences for any side except the truth.
Hasan


Edited by honeto - 18 October 2012 at 3:34pm

honeto wrote: Ron, there were no fact you offered that were not part of the official version of the event.

Facts are facts, Hasan.  Why should a fact be disqualified simply because it is cited by the authorities?

They are called "conspiracy theories" because the underlying assumption is that hundreds or perhaps thousands of people in a dozen different organizations and at various levels of authority all secretly conspired together to commit a horrendous crime that killed thousands of people.  This just doesn't happen in real life.  It is hard enough to find even one such cold-blooded killer.  For hundreds of them to identify and contact one another, while keeping the plan secret from anyone else, is inconceivable.

I you know the process of how one becomes a jet pilot let alone a passenger jet pilot, it is pretty interesting that these must be the smartest people on the planet to achieve such perfection in a very short time, while it takes a long time and a lot of sophisticated training for our pilots to achieve, to steer one of these. Your mind can fathom that, mine still questions it.

Where are you getting this strange idea that one needs to be some kind of genius to steer a plane into a building?  Takeoff and landing are the hard parts, but frankly anyone with a basic familiarity with the controls plus a couple of hours' practice on Flight Simulator could probably hit a target without much trouble.  (I've played with Flight Simulator.  It's not that hard, really it's not.)

About building seven I am the one asking question, if you don;t have the answer, leave it there.

Sorry, I won't accept that.  If you want to convince anyone of your theory, you have to show that it is more probable than the "official" theory.  You can't just pick holes in your opponent's position while totally ignoring the gaping chasms in your own.  If you can't explain why on earth the conspirators would plan in advance to blow up Building 7, which wasn't even supposed to be a target of the airplanes, then I don't see how anyone could find your theory more credible than the obvious explanation.