Conspiracy Theory 9/11 - Part 2

[Glacier]

Not interpreted as rude at all mate! Just passionate is all I suspect. That's a good thing.


Here are some pics I found. http://www.911review.com/errors/pentagon/smallhole.html

Again- definitely SOME damage on either side of the hole. Even some "gaps" that I presume shouldn't be there. But a cardboard cut out of a plane it certainly ain't. My contention is: why should it be??

Haha, no shouldn't be a cardboard cut out of a plane, but I laughed at the way you put it, gold
Anyway, if I ( and as I said this is what I see) look closely I see intact furniture and offices where a wing impact zone should be, also no damage above where the rear wing should have hit
I see no debris outside except, granted, some small pieces
No wings, no damage from engine strike areas, no marks on the ground
I see a whole, and not a big one
As for the plane vapourising, this is the official account
The heat from the fire Vapourised the plane
Yet we have passengers identified through DNA !!
You couldn't make this up, surely

Passionate about this subject, yes I am
Pls don't take it as rude what I post, not my intention, nor to Kelly either
A good debate is what I'm after, and regardless of what Kelly says, my mind is open to any explanations
It's the scorn for questioning that I find intolerable

 

[BustedWing]

Haha, no shouldn't be a cardboard cut out of a plane, but I laughed at the way you put it, gold
Anyway, if I ( and as I said this is what I see) look closely I see intact furniture and offices where a wing impact zone should be, also no damage above where the rear wing should have hit
I see no debris outside except, granted, some small pieces
No wings, no damage from engine strike areas, no marks on the ground
I see a whole, and not a big one
As for the plane vapourising, this is the official account
The heat from the fire Vapourised the plane
Yet we have passengers identified through DNA !!
You couldn't make this up, surely

Passionate about this subject, yes I am
Pls don't take it as rude what I post, not my intention, nor to Kelly either
A good debate is what I'm after, and regardless of what Kelly says, my mind is open to any explanations
It's the scorn for questioning that I find intolerable

Are we looking at the same pictures?
Here is one from the link I offered.


http://www.911review.com/errors/pentagon/imgs/hole11.jpg

I don't know how long after impact this was taken, but it looks like prior to collapse. Looks like a whole lot of damage across a massive chunk of building to me, much much more than 18 feet.

So back to one of my important questions: if not a plane, what in your opinion hit the pentagon?

 

[BustedWing]

Haha, no shouldn't be a cardboard cut out of a plane, but I laughed at the way you put it, gold
Anyway, if I ( and as I said this is what I see) look closely I see intact furniture and offices where a wing impact zone should be, also no damage above where the rear wing should have hit
I see no debris outside except, granted, some small pieces
No wings, no damage from engine strike areas, no marks on the ground
I see a whole, and not a big one
As for the plane vapourising, this is the official account
The heat from the fire Vapourised the plane
Yet we have passengers identified through DNA !!
You couldn't make this up, surely

Passionate about this subject, yes I am
Pls don't take it as rude what I post, not my intention, nor to Kelly either
A good debate is what I'm after, and regardless of what Kelly says, my mind is open to any explanations
It's the scorn for questioning that I find intolerable

Do you mind showing me a link saying the entire plane was vaporized? If it exists, I wonder if it was to be taken with totalitarian literalism, and not just as a descriptive phrase.

Kinda like the phrase: "I ate the entire cake". Well, not literally the entire cake, there we're some crumbs left, but you get the idea.

 

[Glacier]

Do you mind showing me a link saying the entire plane was vaporized? If it exists, I wonder if it was to be taken with totalitarian literalism, and not just as a descriptive phrase.

Kinda like the phrase: "I ate the entire cake". Well, not literally the entire cake, there we're some crumbs left, but you get the idea.

I have no link to that Vapourised comment, however I have paper articles at home ( haha, yep paper!!!)
I will quote the reports to you first chance I get

 

[Glacier]

Are we looking at the same pictures?
Here is one from the link I offered.


http://www.911review.com/errors/pentagon/imgs/hole11.jpg

I don't know how long after impact this was taken, but it looks like prior to collapse. Looks like a whole lot of damage across a massive chunk of building to me, much much more than 18 feet.

So back to one of my important questions: if not a plane, what in your opinion hit the pentagon?

I have absolutely no idea what hit the Pentagon, but I don't believe it was a Jetliner of the size that it was supposed to be
And this is the point, as a sceptic, am I supposed or expected to validate my scepticism with an alternate theory or does it suffice that my reasons are because of this this and this
Legitimate question, not being a smart arse
From the damage and reports I've seen and read and coming to a conclusion based on such, I lean toward a missile hitting the Pentagon
Eye witness reports differ from a plane to a small plane to a missile, shit I remember one guy on tv at the time saying he saw a helicopter hit!!
As such eyewitness reports are the least valuable
Put it this way, a lot of people write and think things about that day that I don't agree with. , from both sides in fact
I see what I see and and very scepticle of much of it
Do I think the US government ordered the attack and covered it up
No I don't
Do I lean toward insider foreknowledge and manipulation in order to insure the attacks successful
Yes I do
And if there were ever a president on who's watch this could be accomplished, George W fits it perfectly

 

[Kellythatsit]

I have absolutely no idea what hit the Pentagon, but I don't believe it was a Jetliner of the size that it was supposed to be
And this is the point, as a sceptic, am I supposed or expected to validate my scepticism with an alternate theory or does it suffice that my reasons are because of this this and this
Legitimate question, not being a smart arse
From the damage and reports I've seen and read and coming to a conclusion based on such, I lean toward a missile hitting the Pentagon
Eye witness reports differ from a plane to a small plane to a missile, shit I remember one guy on tv at the time saying he saw a helicopter hit!!
As such eyewitness reports are the least valuable
Put it this way, a lot of people write and think things about that day that I don't agree with. , from both sides in fact
I see what I see and and very scepticle of much of it
Do I think the US government ordered the attack and covered it up
No I don't
Do I lean toward insider foreknowledge and manipulation in order to insure the attacks successful
Yes I do
And if there were ever a president on who's watch this could be accomplished, George W fits it perfectly

Glacier mate, I can see your heart is in the right place but to truly think with scepticism it is critical that you have an alternative theory. That alternative theory must be more plausible, at least in your mind, than the null hypothesis. It is the only way you can sort the chaff from the wheat.

Let's take for example the hypothesis that a missile created the damage at the pentagon. First you need to explain why the damage is inconsistent with a missile strike, then you need to explain why there is debris from a commercial airliner at all, then you need to explain why the majority of the witnesses claim to have seen a commercial airliner, then you have to explain what actually happened to flight 77 and all it's passengers, then you have to explain where the missile was fired from ... That doesn't even get to the who and the why.

You say you don't think the us government was involved but this is inconsistent with a lot of your arguments. How could the us government not be involved if there was truly a missile strike and the details have been hidden from us. Not only that, the evidence altered to be consistent with a 757.

Then you have to look at your hypothesis and ask yourself if this is really likely to have happened and whether there is sufficient evidence to back it up.

You see then how you are beginning to think critically not just of the evidence at hand, but also the arguments against it. It is an essential part of the scientific method and allows us to falsify and refine into a cohesive and credible theory.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BustedWing]

I have absolutely no idea what hit the Pentagon, but I don't believe it was a Jetliner of the size that it was supposed to be
And this is the point, as a sceptic, am I supposed or expected to validate my scepticism with an alternate theory or does it suffice that my reasons are because of this this and this
Legitimate question, not being a smart arse
From the damage and reports I've seen and read and coming to a conclusion based on such, I lean toward a missile hitting the Pentagon
Eye witness reports differ from a plane to a small plane to a missile, shit I remember one guy on tv at the time saying he saw a helicopter hit!!
As such eyewitness reports are the least valuable
Put it this way, a lot of people write and think things about that day that I don't agree with. , from both sides in fact
I see what I see and and very scepticle of much of it
Do I think the US government ordered the attack and covered it up
No I don't
Do I lean toward insider foreknowledge and manipulation in order to insure the attacks successful
Yes I do
And if there were ever a president on who's watch this could be accomplished, George W fits it perfectly

Sorry Glacier, I have to pick apart this post mate.

“I have absolutely no idea what hit the Pentagon, but I don't believe it was a Jetliner of the size that it was supposed to be “
You don’t know what hit the Pentagon, but you are sure it was NOT an AA Jet. Based on what? You need to explain why you believe this.

"And this is the point, as a sceptic, am I supposed or expected to validate my scepticism with an alternate theory or does it suffice that my reasons are because of this this and this
Legitimate question, not being a smart arse"

You DO need to back up your position with evidence, if you want to have any credibility. If you state that the OS is a lie, then you need to justify your version of events. You need to explain HOW things that look to be A, are in fact B. Simply saying that A "doesnt look right to me" doesnt cut it.
For me, or anyone else to believe that a missile hit the pentagon, you need to clearly explain:
* Where the actual AA jet went
* Why there are literally scores of witnesses stating they saw aforementioned jet
* Why NO ONE, yup, not a single witness, have said they saw a missile. Some said they saw a plane other than the AA jet, but not one missile was spotted.
* Why there was any wreckage at all inside and outside the pentagon of aforementioned jet, if in fact no jet hit the Pentagon.
* How did AA jet passengers get inside the pentagon
* And, of course, my personal favourite, why the "real" perpetrators would go to all these lengths to make it look like a plane (sounds really really elaborate) when in fact it was a missile, and not just actually fly a plane into the pentagon. Why would a missile be an easier/better/more effective way to carry out this crime?

"Eye witness reports differ from a plane to a small plane to a missile, shit I remember one guy on tv at the time saying he saw a helicopter hit!!"

Nope - not one witness saw a missile. I don’t believe there is one quote from a witness that says "it wasn’t a plane, it was a missile!". I could believe that some might have said “it looked like a missile”: but that’s a turn of phrase used to describe something they have just seen, not a literal representation. People do this all the time. Why would 9/11 be any different? Some say they saw a commuter jet, other say they saw a cargo plane, but the overwhelming majority saw an AA jet. Not a s mall majority, an OVERWHELMING majority.

"As such eyewitness reports are the least valuable"

Agreed, eyewitness testimony is certainly not the be all and end all. In the heat of the moment, people can claim to see all sorts of things that deviate from reality. This is especially the case moments after a chaotic and traumatic event. What experts do is take weight of numbers to determine authenticity. If 50 people saw a plane, and 2 people saw a missile, then it almost certainly was a plane. Whats nuts about this argument, though, is NOT A SINGLE PERSON has been quotes saying the saw a missile.

Why those who believe in the conspiracy theory say “eyewitness reports can’t be trusted” yet then hinge their entire position based on one single person saying something in the heat of the moment, with a microphone jammed up their nose? Use weight of numbers, not just a single outlier.

“Do I think the US government ordered the attack and covered it up
No I don't
Do I lean toward insider foreknowledge and manipulation in order to insure the attacks successful
Yes I do”

Wait a second, this contradicts other parts of your argument.
If the government did not order the attack, then how in hell was it a missile, and not a plane? Who shot the missile? Who would have orchestrated the insane task of planting all the evidence of a plane at the pentagon, hiding/disposing of the actual AA jet etc?

“And if there were ever a president on who's watch this could be accomplished, George W fits it perfectly”
Really? This is the same GW Bush who was almost universally canned as being a bumbling fool? He was actually a criminal mastermind?
And, never mind the fact that he and his political party were only elected in late 2000, meaning he devised, planned and executed the greatest conspiracy of all time INSIDE 12 months!
Or are you saying he was so incompenent that the REAL masterminds (are you going with the NWO line?) could only have pulled it off if/when Bush was in power?
That means planning was done under Clinton. Bi-partisan terrorism now is it?

I love a good debate too mate, but you need to (a) give an alternative version of events, and (b), back it up with evidence. Otherwise, your position is meaningless and you opinion worthless.

 

[Glacier]

Wow didn't I cop it last night !!
It's all good though, and yep points taken for sure
However, I don't believe that because one doesn't support the official version then one is compelled to come up with a different version at all, to me this makes no sense
In my defense, I have stated post after post over many years what I believe are glaring holes in the official version so rather than continue to beat my head against a wall I will just say go re read them

However, I will have a go at what I believe happened that day
Feel free to can it if you like, that's no problem, but I have read a lot, watched a lot and even had the privilege of talking to people who were there, trust me ground zero is an amazing place to see, at least it was in 2005 when I was last there and if anyone gets the chance to go, it is worthwhile

Deep breath, here goes !!!

As we all know the Middle East is a place that has been fought over for a millennia , and also is rich in natural resources
When the Taliban and the US were getting along fine, lets not forget who created the Taliban, plans were put in place for natural gas pipeline from the Caspian Sea across multiple countries
Now some countries gave the go ahead to Enron but not the Taliban
After much threats and postering the Taliban were, in the late 90's , given an ultimatum, either together were create a carpet of gold or we bury you in a carpet of bombs

Now many massive multi national corporations had invested tidy sums in this project, and many of these corporations had powerful backers and shareholders, many high up in the realms of politics

So what happens behind the scenes in all governments ?
Agitators agitate
In my opinion if anyone thinks a Government is truly there to serve the people they are naive
So along comes George W
I would consider George to be amongst the biggest bumbling fools to ever be in a position of power
Now a president like that, in my opinion, is ripe to be manipulated for vested interests of those around him
With many of those around him heavily invested in corporations that themselves are heavily invested in the success of a project such as this, I ask is this situation ripe for manipulation ?
I believe it was
So we have players such as Rumsfeld, Pearl, Ashcroft, Wolfowitz and others who's business and other interests lie in the success of these companies, the same players who are very interested also in the Project for a New American Century , PNAC , the think tank of think tanks
So, would these people wield enough power to pull something off that allows them the outcome that the desire ?
Well, these people wield enormous power , lets face it

So somewhere along the line those high up and those they are involved with get wind of a daring plot by a terrorist cell to fly some planes into targets within the US, and maybe after some behind the scenes discussion come to the conclusion that a calamity such as the success of this plot could turn out for the best in many ways, ie defense budget spending, international support regardless of UN decisions etc etc
Is that far fetched
I don't think so
There is plenty of evidence out there of multiple forewarnings of these events in the years leading up to 9/11
One just has to look for it

So armed with specifics of the attack is it then feasible that events leading up to and during and after the day are manipulated to give this plot every chance to succeed
Because lets face it, in the bigger picture, a bit of collateral damage never hurts for public support in what transpires afterwards

So the events can be done to death and to me they stink of someone allowing these events to happen
Otherwise one, in my view, is forced to believe multiple coincidences and multiple cases of inefficiency all at the same time
Lets think about it a moment

Multiple mistakes in the areas of defence response, hijacking procedures, chain of command and coincidences of evidence trails, ready to go witnesses etc
Are we to believe the coincidence/ incompetence theory in full
For that is what the official version is, is it not ?
So what of the president and the massive task in keeping quiet all those involved you ask ?
Surely this is too big an operation for a small group to handle ?
Is it though?
Is it any bigger operation than nineteen hijackers and small support group on the side?
I don't think so
Simple pay offs would suffice, and elimination of those who don't want to play ball ( remember the so called suicides of special operations Personel in a certain base who witnessed something fishy in Tora Bora and the amazing coincidence of some Saudi Royal family deaths who had opened their gobs )
It's all there, every fishy bit
One just has to, as you guys put it, sort the chaff from the hay

So what of Bush you ask, as the President surely if this was true he also was involved ?

A bumbling fool such as Bush would be easily manipulated, and even as I suspect, he did know, I believe it wasn't until afterwards and he may not even know the full story now
Who knows what threats and back room deals can keep a person quiet
I believe some are or have been close to getting to the murky bits
That worked well for Daniel Pearl, Sibel Edmonds is still alive but gagged and I would assume under threat

So I ask, is this far fetched ?
Does this sound like a novel ?

This is real life, in real life things are far from black and white
I, like many , would love to know the full truth and even though both sides hang a bit of shit on this forum, I don't think there is one person here who in their heart truly believes they know the full truth of what went on that day

Anyway, pick it to bits guys, it's just my theory after all

 

[BustedWing]

Wow didn't I cop it last night !!
It's all good though, and yep points taken for sure
However, I don't believe that because one doesn't support the official version then one is compelled to come up with a different version at all, to me this makes no sense
In my defense, I have stated post after post over many years what I believe are glaring holes in the official version so rather than continue to beat my head against a wall I will just say go re read them

However, I will have a go at what I believe happened that day
Feel free to can it if you like, that's no problem, but I have read a lot, watched a lot and even had the privilege of talking to people who were there, trust me ground zero is an amazing place to see, at least it was in 2005 when I was last there and if anyone gets the chance to go, it is worthwhile

Deep breath, here goes !!!

As we all know the Middle East is a place that has been fought over for a millennia , and also is rich in natural resources
When the Taliban and the US were getting along fine, lets not forget who created the Taliban, plans were put in place for natural gas pipeline from the Caspian Sea across multiple countries
Now some countries gave the go ahead to Enron but not the Taliban
After much threats and postering the Taliban were, in the late 90's , given an ultimatum, either together were create a carpet of gold or we bury you in a carpet of bombs

Now many massive multi national corporations had invested tidy sums in this project, and many of these corporations had powerful backers and shareholders, many high up in the realms of politics

So what happens behind the scenes in all governments ?
Agitators agitate
In my opinion if anyone thinks a Government is truly there to serve the people they are naive
So along comes George W
I would consider George to be amongst the biggest bumbling fools to ever be in a position of power
Now a president like that, in my opinion, is ripe to be manipulated for vested interests of those around him
With many of those around him heavily invested in corporations that themselves are heavily invested in the success of a project such as this, I ask is this situation ripe for manipulation ?
I believe it was
So we have players such as Rumsfeld, Pearl, Ashcroft, Wolfowitz and others who's business and other interests lie in the success of these companies, the same players who are very interested also in the Project for a New American Century , PNAC , the think tank of think tanks
So, would these people wield enough power to pull something off that allows them the outcome that the desire ?
Well, these people wield enormous power , lets face it

So somewhere along the line those high up and those they are involved with get wind of a daring plot by a terrorist cell to fly some planes into targets within the US, and maybe after some behind the scenes discussion come to the conclusion that a calamity such as the success of this plot could turn out for the best in many ways, ie defense budget spending, international support regardless of UN decisions etc etc
Is that far fetched
I don't think so
There is plenty of evidence out there of multiple forewarnings of these events in the years leading up to 9/11
One just has to look for it

So armed with specifics of the attack is it then feasible that events leading up to and during and after the day are manipulated to give this plot every chance to succeed
Because lets face it, in the bigger picture, a bit of collateral damage never hurts for public support in what transpires afterwards

So the events can be done to death and to me they stink of someone allowing these events to happen
Otherwise one, in my view, is forced to believe multiple coincidences and multiple cases of inefficiency all at the same time
Lets think about it a moment

Multiple mistakes in the areas of defence response, hijacking procedures, chain of command and coincidences of evidence trails, ready to go witnesses etc
Are we to believe the coincidence/ incompetence theory in full
For that is what the official version is, is it not ?
So what of the president and the massive task in keeping quiet all those involved you ask ?
Surely this is too big an operation for a small group to handle ?
Is it though?
Is it any bigger operation than nineteen hijackers and small support group on the side?
I don't think so
Simple pay offs would suffice, and elimination of those who don't want to play ball ( remember the so called suicides of special operations Personel in a certain base who witnessed something fishy in Tora Bora and the amazing coincidence of some Saudi Royal family deaths who had opened their gobs )
It's all there, every fishy bit
One just has to, as you guys put it, sort the chaff from the hay

So what of Bush you ask, as the President surely if this was true he also was involved ?

A bumbling fool such as Bush would be easily manipulated, and even as I suspect, he did know, I believe it wasn't until afterwards and he may not even know the full story now
Who knows what threats and back room deals can keep a person quiet
I believe some are or have been close to getting to the murky bits
That worked well for Daniel Pearl, Sibel Edmonds is still alive but gagged and I would assume under threat

So I ask, is this far fetched ?
Does this sound like a novel ?

This is real life, in real life things are far from black and white
I, like many , would love to know the full truth and even though both sides hang a bit of shit on this forum, I don't think there is one person here who in their heart truly believes they know the full truth of what went on that day

Anyway, pick it to bits guys, it's just my theory after all

Just staggering home from work (I live overseas) and saw your post. First things first. Well done Glacier. I read back through a few pages, and most people on your side of the fence don't have the balls or intelligence to respond in such a coherent, articulate and thought out manner.

Seriously- thank you. It means we can have a legitimate debate, and not a schoolyard argument. This is what this forum needs!

Ok, love fest over, and all those compliments doesn't mean I agree with you!

Once I'm home I'll give it the response it deserves. And I'll do my best to bring my A-Game!

 

[Kellythatsit]

^^^

Well said and whole heartedly agree!

Well done Glacier, you and Eastern Tiger are the only tru ... er... questioners (see what I did there?) to actually have a crack at this.

I haven't forgotten about your earlier questions either - I just need time to sit them down and line them up.

Just wanted to take a moment to say onya, mate!

Of course, this shouldn't be taken as an endorsement of your actual theory though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BustedWing]

Ok - so apologies, it took a little while to respond...work seems to get in the way sometimes!

If I get...conforntational, or agressive in my response, apologies in advance. Love your work in this thread thus far!

Now then...

Wow didn't I cop it last night !!
It's all good though, and yep points taken for sure
However, I don't believe that because one doesn't support the official version then one is compelled to come up with a different version at all, to me this makes no sense

I disagree - if im telling you 1 + 1 = 3, I need to be able to back it up. The OS said "A" Happened, and here is the evidence for this belief. You're saying "A" didnt happen, and in fact what REALLY happend was "B, or C, or D, not really certain, but definitely not A". You need to be clearer than that. Extroadinary claims (and the conspiracy claims are certainly that) require extroadinary proof.

In my defense, I have stated post after post over many years what I believe are glaring holes in the official version so rather than continue to beat my head against a wall I will just say go re read them

However, I will have a go at what I believe happened that day
Feel free to can it if you like, that's no problem, but I have read a lot, watched a lot and even had the privilege of talking to people who were there, trust me ground zero is an amazing place to see, at least it was in 2005 when I was last there and if anyone gets the chance to go, it is worthwhile

Deep breath, here goes !!!

As we all know the Middle East is a place that has been fought over for a millennia , and also is rich in natural resources
When the Taliban and the US were getting along fine, lets not forget who created the Taliban, plans were put in place for natural gas pipeline from the Caspian Sea across multiple countries
Now some countries gave the go ahead to Enron but not the Taliban
After much threats and postering the Taliban were, in the late 90's , given an ultimatum, either together were create a carpet of gold or we bury you in a carpet of bombs

Now many massive multi national corporations had invested tidy sums in this project, and many of these corporations had powerful backers and shareholders, many high up in the realms of politics

So far all I'm reading is an incentive for middle eastern extremists to hate Americans enough to want to fly planes into buildings, not evidence of a convoluted and complicated conspiracy. But I'll read on.

So what happens behind the scenes in all governments ?
Agitators agitate
In my opinion if anyone thinks a Government is truly there to serve the people they are naive

Thats the idea, but being a politician is a job like any other, and thus people will look to serve their own interests, sure, but conspire to kill thousands of innocent americans (their own people!)? That would be an extroadinary claim, and you know how I feel about extroadinary claims...

So along comes George W
I would consider George to be amongst the biggest bumbling fools to ever be in a position of power
Now a president like that, in my opinion, is ripe to be manipulated for vested interests of those around him
With many of those around him heavily invested in corporations that themselves are heavily invested in the success of a project such as this, I ask is this situation ripe for manipulation ?
I believe it was

Invested in ensuring there was a war? Here is where the tin foil hat stuff comes through in my opinion. Did these people use the 9/11 events to their advantage? Sure! War is profitable, and these people I DO believe profited from it. But...to come up with a way to go to war by flying planes into buildings? Why? There are far far far easier ways to do this, ways that have been done before. Again, all youve managed to come up with is "these guys profited from it, so therefore they did it!". Zero evidence for that. zippo, none, nada.

So we have players such as Rumsfeld, Pearl, Ashcroft, Wolfowitz and others who's business and other interests lie in the success of these companies, the same players who are very interested also in the Project for a New American Century , PNAC , the think tank of think tanks
So, would these people wield enough power to pull something off that allows them the outcome that the desire ?
Well, these people wield enormous power , lets face it


See above - its pure speculation, and nothing more. It DEFINITELY cannot be considered eveidence of anything at all.


So somewhere along the line those high up and those they are involved with get wind of a daring plot by a terrorist cell to fly some planes into targets within the US, and maybe after some behind the scenes discussion come to the conclusion that a calamity such as the success of this plot could turn out for the best in many ways, ie defense budget spending, international support regardless of UN decisions etc etc
Is that far fetched
I don't think so

Wait wait wait - are you in the MIHOP or the LIHOP camp? LIHOP is the more credible of the two camps in my opinion, but again...ZERO evidence that they knew enough, and didnt do enough to stop it.

Far more likely, and is backed up conclusively by the evidence of that day is that the US defence forces, government etc was just too unprepared to stop it. People have grown up seeing movies that show the lone fighter pilot saving the world, and sophisticated war machines that can eavesdrop on the bad guys and blow them out of the sky just in time. Sadly, the real world isnt a move, and all the evidence we have from that day points to it being a looong time before they realised what was happening, longer still to realise it was a legit threat, and then a hoplessly inadequate response was deployed far too late.

Is that an outage? Yup. Is it a conspiracy? Nope.

There is plenty of evidence out there of multiple forewarnings of these events in the years leading up to 9/11
One just has to look for it

Hindsight is always 20/20 isnt it. And this is the thing. Stop looking for things, and let the eivdence speak for itself.

So armed with specifics of the attack is it then feasible that events leading up to and during and after the day are manipulated to give this plot every chance to succeed

This is the part where evidence is pretty important to back up this claim. No evidence = pure speculation, and therefore no credibility.

Because lets face it, in the bigger picture, a bit of collateral damage never hurts for public support in what transpires afterwards

But the risk of getting caught!! The conservative party would be out of office for the next 1000 years if they were busted pulling off shenaigans of this magnitude. Those responsible would be hung from the town square. For what? The chance to wage war, and then make money off it? Im telling you mate, there are easier ways, with a lot less risk.

So the events can be done to death and to me they stink of someone allowing these events to happen
Otherwise one, in my view, is forced to believe multiple coincidences and multiple cases of inefficiency all at the same time
Lets think about it a moment

Multiple mistakes in the areas of defence response, hijacking procedures, chain of command and coincidences of evidence trails, ready to go witnesses etc
Are we to believe the coincidence/ incompetence theory in full
For that is what the official version is, is it not ?

Sort of - not really though.

The official story is that terrorists wanted to make a bold statement of their hate of capitalist America, kill lots of people in the process, and were prepared to die themselves for the cause. The fact it was (mostly) successful was due to the simplicity of it all, the fact that is happened really quickly (like 2 hours from start to finish, with the really nasty stuff, the "time to shoot planes out of the sky" stuff happening in like 90mins tops), the number of people involed (less than 20 or so) and the fact that the US defences were inadequate for such an attack.


So what of the president and the massive task in keeping quiet all those involved you ask ?
Surely this is too big an operation for a small group to handle ?
Is it though?
Is it any bigger operation than nineteen hijackers and small support group on the side?
I don't think so

Dissagree - LIHOP requires less people to be complicit, but still....plenty of people would have either direct knowlege, or at least knowledge that something fishy was up. To this day, not a single person has come forward saying "I knew!". Not one. Thats whole lotta complaince, and a whole lotta hush money, and I might add, unprecedented. Secrets never stay secret for long, its human nature.

Simple pay offs would suffice, and elimination of those who don't want to play ball ( remember the so called suicides of special operations Personel in a certain base who witnessed something fishy in Tora Bora and the amazing coincidence of some Saudi Royal family deaths who had opened their gobs )
It's all there, every fishy bit
One just has to, as you guys put it, sort the chaff from the hay

Pure speculation. This is not evidence. You cant put the words "so called" in front of something and immediately claim credibility for whatever you're alleging. Prove these were murders, with intent to silence. You cant.

So what of Bush you ask, as the President surely if this was true he also was involved ?

A bumbling fool such as Bush would be easily manipulated, and even as I suspect, he did know, I believe it wasn't until afterwards and he may not even know the full story now
Who knows what threats and back room deals can keep a person quiet
I believe some are or have been close to getting to the murky bits
That worked well for Daniel Pearl, Sibel Edmonds is still alive but gagged and I would assume under threat

So I ask, is this far fetched ?
Does this sound like a novel ?

This is real life, in real life things are far from black and white
I, like many , would love to know the full truth and even though both sides hang a bit of shit on this forum, I don't think there is one person here who in their heart truly believes they know the full truth of what went on that day

Lets look at this objectively - which of the two sides is the more extroadinary of the two? Thge one that says terrorists with a histroy of attacking American targets did so again, albeit on a much larger scale, or the governemnt willingly killed thousands of its own citizens in an amazingly complex way as a pretext to a very profitable war?

At what point to you apply Ockham’s razor (sp??) to any of this?
Extroadinary claims need extroadinary proof.

So far, your side fo the fence has found none.

Anyway, pick it to bits guys, it's just my theory after all

 

[Helicopter Punt]

Ok - so apologies, it took a little while to respond...work seems to get in the way sometimes!

If I get...conforntational, or agressive in my response, apologies in advance. Love your work in this thread thus far!

Now then...

Logically explained points without attacking the man. Not a 'rolls eyes' to be seen & only a light sprinkling of tin foil hat references. That's a pretty good post/response.

However...

I disagree - if im telling you 1 + 1 = 3, I need to be able to back it up. The OS said "A" Happened, and here is the evidence for this belief. You're saying "A" didnt happen, and in fact what REALLY happend was "B, or C, or D, not really certain, but definitely not A". You need to be clearer than that. Extroadinary claims (and the conspiracy claims are certainly that) require extroadinary proof.
To not believe the official explanation does not create an obligation to provide an alternative. To re-purpose your example, if i tell you 1+1=3 and you say bullshit does a lack of explanation on your part as to why you think it's bullshit cause that equation to be suddenly correct?

Or, if you were with a friend who was accused of a crime which occurred somewhere else at the exact time you were with them. It necessarily follows you know they are innocent (official story is bogus) via first hand knowledge. Using your line of thought though you would need to solve the crime first in order to claim their innocence.

No one on BF has any duty to explain what happened. That duty fell to others. The provision of an alternative story bears no relevance whatsoever to whether the original is to be believed or not.

As for the rest of the post, it is irrelevant because it is hypothetical. No disrespect intended.
Glacier was not there & not involved in any way so cannot possibly provide a dependable alternative version of events.

In light of the level of evidence expected in this thread are you not arguing with a figment of someones imagination?
It had already been qualified as such However, I will have a go at what I believe happened that day.

Did you find any of the official explanation 'extraordinary' but lacking 'extraordinary proof'?

 

[Helicopter Punt]

Glacier mate, I can see your heart is in the right place but to truly think with scepticism it is critical that you have an alternative theory. That alternative theory must be more plausible, at least in your mind, than the null hypothesis. It is the only way you can sort the chaff from the wheat.

Why is Glacier being held to higher standards than the commission?

 

[Helicopter Punt]

And this is the point, as a sceptic, am I supposed or expected to validate my scepticism with an alternate theory or does it suffice that my reasons are because of this this and this

No you don't have to provide an alternate theory. It would be preposterous to expect you to provide one. This has been dealt with in earlier iterations of this thread.
It doesn't seem logical to you for good reason.

How could you accurately explain what you don't have first hand knowledge of?
If it isn't accurate then why bother?
Do the people asking require evidence?
You can't provide any. Wanna guess how it will end?

 

[Kellythatsit]

Why is Glacier being held to higher standards than the commission?

It's all about logic. You see if the null hypothesis is what we consider on this thread to be the "official story" then it stands that for any theory to be considered a genuine alternative to the null hypothesis it must be at least as credible as the "official story".

Hence it follows that for that alternative theory to be eventually considered the null hypothesis and the official story rendered less likely it needs to be more credible than said official story.

That's just using logic though. I haven't taken into account gut feel or confirmation bias.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Kellythatsit]

Logically explained points without attacking the man. Not a 'rolls eyes' to be seen & only a light sprinkling of tin foil hat references. That's a pretty good post/response.

However...

I disagree - if im telling you 1 + 1 = 3, I need to be able to back it up. The OS said "A" Happened, and here is the evidence for this belief. You're saying "A" didnt happen, and in fact what REALLY happend was "B, or C, or D, not really certain, but definitely not A". You need to be clearer than that. Extroadinary claims (and the conspiracy claims are certainly that) require extroadinary proof.
To not believe the official explanation does not create an obligation to provide an alternative. To re-purpose your example, if i tell you 1+1=3 and you say bullshit does a lack of explanation on your part as to why you think it's bullshit cause that equation to be suddenly correct?

No, it's a poor argument though and is unlikely to prove anything to person A who has posited the statement. Person B, who calls bullshit would simply need to show person A a short demonstration of how his assertion is incorrect. This demonstration would be backed up by fundamental basics of mathematical theory if person A was still confused or sceptical.

But what then of person A. To go on believing that 1+1=3 he would then have to have another theory that is more credible than the null hypothesis. If he doesn't and yet still believes his assertion to be true he either does not understand accepted mathematical theory and the reason 1+1 doesn't = 3 or wants to continue his belief despite all evidence to the contrary. This is regarded as faith and delusion.

Or, if you were with a friend who was accused of a crime which occurred somewhere else at the exact time you were with them. It necessarily follows you know they are innocent (official story is bogus) via first hand knowledge. Using your line of thought though you would need to solve the crime first in order to claim their innocence.

Not at all, I would have a sound theory as to why my friend is innocent and would likely have evidence to back this up.

For that theory to be debunked by anyone they would need to not only poke holes in my theory but also provide their own more plausible theory as to how he committed the crime. They would need to back this up with evidence at least as strong as mine

No one on BF has any duty to explain what happened. That duty fell to others. The provision of an alternative story bears no relevance whatsoever to whether the original is to be believed or not.

As for the rest of the post, it is irrelevant because it is hypothetical. No disrespect intended.
Glacier was not there & not involved in any way so cannot possibly provide a dependable alternative version of events.

In light of the level of evidence expected in this thread are you not arguing with a figment of someones imagination?
It had already been qualified as such However, I will have a go at what I believe happened that day.

Did you find any of the official explanation 'extraordinary' but lacking 'extraordinary proof'?

You are completely missing the point as to why a hypothesis is necessary to critical thinking. Sure, we could sit there till the end of the age and point to this inconsistency or that inconsistency, ask question after question that has zero relevance and believe we are thinking outside of the box. In reality we are not actually challenging ourselves. We are not asking the question to ourselves, thinking about its relevance nor trying to fit it into an alternative narrative that can hold up to scrutiny. It is much easier to simply JAQoff without actually thinking about what we are asking, whether it is even logical or true or what conclusions can be reached. It is a poor argument, poor science and poor thinking.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Helicopter Punt]

No, it's a poor argument though and is unlikely to prove anything to person A who has posited the statement. Person B, who calls bullshit would simply need to show person A a short demonstration of how his assertion is incorrect. This demonstration would be backed up by fundamental basics of mathematical theory if person A was still confused or sceptical. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

'To not believe the official explanation does not create an obligation to provide an alternative.'

The point of my post was to debunk the commonly held perception that if you do not believe a story then you are required to provide alternative.
This is simply not so. You may believe it is.

I don't believe the official story and do not know what happened, ie: no alternative. Is this even possible under your theory or are you saying I must be lying about not believing it.

 

[Helicopter Punt]

It's all about logic. You see if the null hypothesis is what we consider on this thread to be the "official story" then it stands that for any theory to be considered a genuine alternative to the null hypothesis it must be at least as credible as the "official story".

Slight retraction. 'At least as much' is less demanding than 'must be more plausible'. But irrelevant nonetheless because you are assigning credibility to official story for no other reason than it is official. This is your default position. The premise your argument sits upon. It is fundamentally flawed.

If this were the case there would be no thread. No debate. Everyone else would also simply assign credibility to official version. 'Official' & 'credible' are not related - not even vaguely.

The fact is that you expect others to debate you according to your truth - your premise. You're not alone - this debate has been going in circles for thousands of posts.
I for one believe the official story was a crock of shit. Glacier, too, appears to have issues with it. Is there any other reason besides your own assumption that Glacier would debate you based on your beliefs when he/she has stated they believe the opposite?

FTR I reckon Glaciers version has inconsistencies too. Difference is I don't need to have a default winner. They are both dismissed. Your faulty premise doesn't allow you the same option.

 

[little graham]

This JFK shit pisses me. What about we learn how the world changed as a result of that event and how the world changed him that lead to that event? That is history. It's a full on insult that we're kept in the same emotional and low intellect world of innuendo on who did it. Which is exactly something he seeked to change

Who cares who did it, it only matters who or what it profited.


With something so obvious, one wonders if the any of the peoples on the next three planets we inhabit will ever get Nien11?

 

[Kellythatsit]

'To not believe the official explanation does not create an obligation to provide an alternative.'

The point of my post was to debunk the commonly held perception that if you do not believe a story then you are required to provide alternative.
This is simply not so. You may believe it is.

I don't believe the official story and do not know what happened, ie: no alternative. Is this even possible under your theory or are you saying I must be lying about not believing it.

Excellent. So how do you propose we come to find an explanation that would be suitable to you?

Essentially what you are promoting is what is commonly known as "JAQing off", the act of spouting assertions and accusations while hiding behind the claim that you are "Just Asking Questions". Frankly, it is a cheap and cowardly ploy to throw your preconceived and leading arguments into the debate without having to formulate a hypothesis of your own to be scrutinised.

Worse yet is that the answers are already well known or the assertions have been refuted a thousand times, yet they are thrown out there time and again in an obvious effort to keep them alive in circulation. (Eg. Your comment a page or so ago alluding to the long debunked claim that the 911 terrorists were still alive)

I'm sorry if I'm being blunt and I don't want to offend, but that is my opinion of this technique of enquiry you are pushing (don't worry, you aren't alone - this entire thread and all those that came before it have essentially been one giant JAQ off).




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Kellythatsit]

Slight retraction. 'At least as much' is less demanding than 'must be more plausible'. But irrelevant nonetheless because you are assigning credibility to official story for no other reason than it is official. This is your default position. The premise your argument sits upon. It is fundamentally flawed.

If this were the case there would be no thread. No debate. Everyone else would also simply assign credibility to official version. 'Official' & 'credible' are not related - not even vaguely.

The fact is that you expect others to debate you according to your truth - your premise. You're not alone - this debate has been going in circles for thousands of posts.
I for one believe the official story was a crock of shit. Glacier, too, appears to have issues with it. Is there any other reason besides your own assumption that Glacier would debate you based on your beliefs when he/she has stated they believe the opposite?

FTR I reckon Glaciers version has inconsistencies too. Difference is I don't need to have a default winner. They are both dismissed. Your faulty premise doesn't allow you the same option.

FFS Helicopter Punt! I can think for myself, I don't need a government agency to label something as "official" for me to get on board!

What I respond to is thorough investigation employing rational thinking and the scientific method. What I value is the ability for an argument, hypothesis and theory to weave a narrative that accounts for all the known evidence in a credible and reasoned approach. That is it! That's all that is required. If someone can't do this, or feels that it is irrelevant and unnecessary then what is the point of further debate. They are obviously not going to listen to logic and reason because they have shown no value for it.

And no that wasn't a retraction, sorry to burst your bubble. It was a clarification as to why any alternative theory would need to be "more credible" than the "official story" to be regarded as the null hypothesis.

I do agree though that the "official story" is a crock. Or rather that is, the TERM "official story". It is a weasel word that gets rolled out during these kinds of debates and is really misrepresentative of reality. It's like referring to Einstein's theory of relativity as the "official theory" or the sinking of the Titanic as the "official story". They are the ONLY theories we have that account for all scientific and investigative evidence in a credible way.

The title of this thread is "Prove 911 Official Story" (which in itself gives the absurd and incorrect impression that the null hypothesis is, well, undetermined I guess). Several pages ago I posted the evidence that I and many like me feel is proof of the "official story". Despite some rumblings about incorrect descriptions in footnotes, the effect of gravity on a hat truss, supposed free-fall misrepresentations and misunderstandings about the melting temperature of steel this theory and the evidence that backs it has yet to be refuted.

Again, show me I'm wrong guys and gals.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Kellythatsit]

Ok Glacier, here we go . . .

You can't say these haven't been answered now - though I still haven't answered some : ) That will have to wait til I can get a bit more time . . .

1- a 125 foot wide , 40 foot high plane does not fit in an 18 foot round whole- fact
2- a plane that " vaporises " due to the heat of its fires ( pentagon) would not leave DNA evidence to identify the passengers on board- fact
3- before mentioned " vaporised" plane would not punch a whole with its nose in the third ring of the Pentagon - fact

Already been answered by BW (and many, many others previously) whose explanations I endorse.

4- the black box of this plane has 20 minutes at its conclusion unaccounted for – fact

I’ve searched and searched for some reference to this but can’t find anything remotely similar to what you are stating here – which is the first indication to me that this may be more factoid than fact. Do you have a source for this?

5- over 100 billion in transactions were moved from computers inside the WTC as events unfolded - fact

Again, this is another one that I can't find any reference to - though to be honest I haven't really looked as yet : ) Will get back to you, but again, a source would be handy.

However, can I just say that it already seems pretty dubious with the claim that all this was going on while the buildings were burning. Seems like a pretty unsafe and uncontrolled environment to carry out a nefarious plot to presumably move large sums of cash without detection. Anyway, we shall see.

6- eye witness accounts that differ from official story were ignored, at all three crash sites- fact

Which eyewitness accounts are you referring to? Please clarify.

Also, because there are differing accounts it doesn’t mean that the account was ignored or dismissed. It is more likely there wasn’t enough corroborating evidence to back up the claim OR that what they witnessed was actually something other than what they think it is. There is a raft of reasons why witness testimony should be considered unreliable, especially given the circumstances and if all other evidence doesn’t support it.

7- rubble cleared from WTC sites before examination took place on the orders if the Whute House- fact

Long debunked factoid. Will get back to you with the details . . .

8- no black boxes found from either WTC plane, only time in history – fact

This “only time in history” claim is disputable however I digress . . .

It’s also the first time in history that two passenger airliners have smashed into a high rise building, creating fires hot enough to significantly weaken steel after which the building has subsequently collapsed. Under these conditions I’d have thought the black boxes not being recovered would be the likely scenario. Certainly, I’m baffled that this is considered some kind of smoking gun pointing to a cover up. I don’t see what the big mystery is here.

Hypothetically, say they had found the black boxes and the data was entirely consistent with the official story. Would you and other “questioners” have accepted that or would you instead be incredulous that the black boxes could be found at all? Would you now be claiming must be planted by the powers that be to manufacture evidence backing the official story?

It’s an interesting what if.

Also, this is a good demonstration of how falsification plays an important role in the scientific method. If a theory can’t be falsified then it is flawed and fails on a fundamental level. In this example, my theory that the black boxes can’t be found because of the conditions they were submitted to would fail if a) they found the black boxes; and b) the data recorded on them was inconsistent with what has been reported in the investigations. Either of these scenarios would falsify my theory.

However, for your scenario of there being some kind of cover up and the missing black boxes is evidence of this, there is no way to really falsify the claim. If they found the black boxes this would then become part of the conspiracy. If the data was consistent with the official story this would become part of the cover up. It can’t be falsified and is therefore a flawed theory.

9- a passport of a hijacker found at WTC site ( burn proof apparently ) – fact

Again, and as discussed several pages ago on this very thread, where is the mystery here. They have found credit cards, business cards and other identifying consumable items from other passengers on these flights, why is it so incredible that they found identification from one of the hijackers?

Besides which, it’s not like this was the clincher to pin al-Qaeda or even that particular terrorist to the plot. This is just another one of those little trinkets that gets thrown out there as being unexplainable.

And we all know that unexplainable == multilayered false flag conspiracy

10- up to eight of the hijackers have since come fwd but are apparently officially dead – fact

Ohhh no you didn’t . . . you didn’t just say this . . .

Please for the sake of reason.

This ‘fact’ has been debunked since September 12, 2001 - Probably earlier

Do you really need me to run you through it?

11- Caspian Sea to Indian Ocean pipeline contract awarded to Enron after invasion of these countries, whilst beforehand the Taliban refused to sight off on the contract

. . . and therefore nefarious insider Conspiracy?

It is illogical to say that because B happened therefore A is true. BustedWing has already gone over the reasoning behind this so I’m not going to reinvent the wheel.

12- Individuals such as Pearl, Cheney, Wolferwitz, Ashcroft and Rumsfeld have involvement with companies who have made astronomical profits in the wake of events of 9/11 - fact
I would love to know how much individual wealth has been accumulated by these guys by their involvement in companies such as Enron, Halliburton and others due to massive defense budget increases

See answer for Q11

13- Cases such as those of Sibel Edmonds and Daniel Pearl have hardly been discussed – fact

Neither has the plight of Yeshu ben Yosef, Max Headroom or Toby the staffy next door . . .

This is a pretty loose use of the term ‘fact’

What is there to discuss? You’ve brought them up. Please enlighten us.

14- put options up to twelve times the normal volume on companies directly affected by 9/11 in the days leading up to the event not only passed off as coincidence by the 9/11 commission but in excess of 15 billion is paid out without question- fact

See answer for Q10

15- Weapons on numerous other planes prevented from taking off due to no fly order are found in the days after- fact

Oh dear, have you already forgotten this conversation?

There we have it Glacier. Will get back to you in due time with the answers to 5 and 7 and if you could provide a little more clarification on 4 and 6 that would be handy too.

 

[Helicopter Punt]

Excellent. So how do you propose we come to find an explanation that would be suitable to you?

I'm not able to because I'm not sure one exists in the public domain yet. But I am able to accept that fact.
When I see an explanation congruent with what occurred this may change.

Essentially what you are promoting is what is commonly known as "JAQing off", the act of spouting assertions and accusations while hiding behind the claim that you are "Just Asking Questions". Frankly, it is a cheap and cowardly ploy to throw your preconceived and leading arguments into the debate without having to formulate a hypothesis of your own to be scrutinised.

I'm not promoting anything other than highlighting the broken logic being used in this thread requiring an alternative explanation from anyone who does not believe the official story verbatim.
If I've got questions what exactly is cheap and cowardly in asking them?
You expect that I need to make shit up that I can't possibly know (therefore granting you cannon fodder) or else I must conform to your view and accept the official explanation as a default position.
Not believing and not making shit up is also a viable option. In fact it is the only viable option once the not believing condition exists.

Worse yet is that the answers are already well known or the assertions have been refuted a thousand times, yet they are thrown out there time and again in an obvious effort to keep them alive in circulation. (Eg. Your comment a page or so ago alluding to the long debunked claim that the 911 terrorists were still alive)

Do any of the victims families have any further questions? Why?

I'm sorry if I'm being blunt and I don't want to offend, but that is my opinion of this technique of enquiry you are pushing (don't worry, you aren't alone - this entire thread and all those that came before it have essentially been one giant JAQ off).

Not offended at all. You call it as you see it. I respect that.
I'll never change your mind and you probably wont change mine. We're pretty much the same as every other poster on the respective sides of this thread. It's why I lurk rather than post anymore. I only piped up to say...
Not having an alternate explanation is not at all inconsistent with not believing the official version

 

[BustedWing]

I think what gets people on my side of the fence so exhasperated is the fact that people who are:
* "just asking questions"
* Don't belive the null hypothesis (much prefer this to "official story")
Are playing with a loaded dice, as it were.

Its absolutely ok to ask questions. Ask away. If you dont understand something, by all means seek clarification. But its intellectually dishonest to keep asking these questions ad nauseum IF THEY HAVE BEEN ANSWERED FOR YOU.

REPEATEDLY.

If you didnt like the answer, then fine. Tell us WHY the answer is incorrect. This is the part where you provide evidence to back up your belief.

The line that keeps coming up here is " I dont need to give you an alternative version of events, just because I dont believe the OS". is again, poor logic IF (and this is the important part) you want to have any credibility.

The line of debate seems to flow like this.

Person A - the offical story is correct.
Person B - I dont know, it seems fishy to me.
Person A - what about it seems fishy?
Person B - Well, theres conspiracy theory 1,2,3,4,5....
Person A - Ah, thats all explainable, it happened this way because of this, that, and the other.
Person B - I dont believe those answers/explanations.
Person A - why not? Whats wrong with them?
Person B - I dont have to be able to tell you whats wrong with them, this belief that the explanations are wrong are in no way invalidated by the fact that I cant come up with any other way the events could have occured.

Person B is entitled to their opinion, but its not very credible. Person A will win that debate every time.

 

[Helicopter Punt]

I think what gets people on my side of the fence so exhasperated is the fact that people who are:
* "just asking questions"
* Don't belive the null hypothesis (much prefer this to "official story")
Are playing with a loaded dice, as it were.

Its absolutely ok to ask questions. Ask away. If you dont understand something, by all means seek clarification. But its intellectually dishonest to keep asking these questions ad nauseum IF THEY HAVE BEEN ANSWERED FOR YOU.

REPEATEDLY.

How is this relevant to what I posted?

If you didnt like the answer, then fine. Tell us WHY the answer is incorrect. This is the part where you provide evidence to back up your belief.

Evidence is provided by someone to back up their story if they want it accepted as fact. I don't have a story despite your insistence I manufacture one. I just don't believe someone elses.

The line that keeps coming up here is " I dont need to give you an alternative version of events, just because I dont believe the OS". is again, poor logic IF (and this is the important part) you want to have any credibility.

Not at all. Explain why. I don't think you can.
Until you can explain why it remains your belief. I certainly have no obligation to conform to your beliefs, regardless of how much it would tilt the table in your favour. Especially when that belief is incorrect.
I have already said I don't know what occurred. How can making shit up make my point of view more credible?

Not believing and not making shit up is also a viable option. In fact it is the only viable option once the not believing condition exists

Explain how this statement is incorrect or illogical. You clearly contend that it is.

I don't need to have a story to believe. I don't know what occurred on the day but I'm ok with that. Why is that not ok with you?
You need me, for some inexplicable reason, to believe a story - any story - yours, mine, someone elses, official or otherwise or else your logic is divided by zero.
To not believe a story doesn't create any further conditions or obligations. These were invented by yourself and others. They exist only in your head.