skeptics not skeptical about official theory?

Welcome!

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

Pages:
1
2
…
5

skeptics not skeptical about official theory?; megaphone icon
Topic Started: Dec 18 2008, 08:08 PM (1,472 Views)
decider911	Dec 18 2008, 08:08 PM Post #1
Posts: 55 Group: Members Member #971 Joined: 12/18/08	any skeptics use skeptisism and critical thinkng about official theory?
Posts: 55 Group: Members Member #971 Joined: 12/18/08


albion	Jan 4 2009, 10:54 AM Post #2
Posts: 175 Group: BANNED! Member #911 Joined: 10/28/08	decider911 Dec 18 2008, 08:08 PM any skeptics use skeptisism and critical thinkng about official theory? Yes. We've said many times that: there is no "official" theory because the evidence that informs us of what happened on 9/11 comes from thousands of independent sources. ALL of that evidence supports the conclusion that Al Qaeda was behind 9/11. That some think the government was behind 9/11 requires that they refute that evidence. We're still waiting. Edited by albion, Jan 4 2009, 10:54 AM.
Posts: 175 Group: BANNED! Member #911 Joined: 10/28/08


DoYouEverWonder	Jan 4 2009, 11:10 AM Post #3
Posts: 437 Group: Members Member #206 Joined: 01/24/08	albion Jan 4 2009, 10:54 AM decider911 Dec 18 2008, 08:08 PM any skeptics use skeptisism and critical thinkng about official theory? Yes. We've said many times that: there is no "official" theory because the evidence that informs us of what happened on 9/11 comes from thousands of independent sources. ALL of that evidence supports the conclusion that Al Qaeda was behind 9/11. That some think the government was behind 9/11 requires that they refute that evidence. We're still waiting. Please present your evidence that supports al Qaeda was behind the 9/11 attacks. I haven't found anything substantial in the last 7 years that I've been looking.
Posts: 437 Group: Members Member #206 Joined: 01/24/08


Miragememories	Jan 4 2009, 11:25 AM Post #4
Posts: 759 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08	albion "ALL of that evidence supports the conclusion that Al Qaeda was behind 9/11. That some think the government was behind 9/11 requires that they refute that evidence." It's never some, or a lot of evidence. When defending the official Story, the false skeptics betray their lack of objectivity by using "ALL". At best, the evidence is sketchy. Self proclaimed experts like Rohan Gunaratn make their living perpetuating a belief in a highly sophisticated terrorist network labeled Al Qaeda, with Osama Bin Laden charged as it's supreme leader. I find it difficult to trust people who make their living by promoting beliefs that fit so handily with those in power, people who are profiting from the massive security industry created by a belief in a worldwide terrorist organization. In the 7+ years since 9/11, this powerful, sophisticated terrorist network, hasn't done so much as start an outhouse fire in the U.S., in spite of all the security loopholes that still exist. Without the Al Qaeda dragon, power seekers would be confined to more subtle methods of responding to terrorist incidents. Methods which preclude whole country invasions. MM
Posts: 759 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08


albion	Jan 4 2009, 07:41 PM Post #5
Posts: 175 Group: BANNED! Member #911 Joined: 10/28/08	Miragememories Jan 4 2009, 11:25 AM albion "ALL of that evidence supports the conclusion that Al Qaeda was behind 9/11. That some think the government was behind 9/11 requires that they refute that evidence." It's never some, or a lot of evidence. When defending the official Story, the false skeptics betray their lack of objectivity by using "ALL". How can we defend something that does not exist? Please expalin Quote: At best, the evidence is sketchy. Self proclaimed experts like Rohan Gunaratn make their living perpetuating a belief in a highly sophisticated terrorist network labeled Al Qaeda, with Osama Bin Laden charged as it's supreme leader. I find it difficult to trust people who make their living by promoting beliefs that fit so handily with those in power, people who are profiting from the massive security industry created by a belief in a worldwide terrorist organization. Since the 9/11 Truth Movement has been wholly unable to refute the evidence, you are most welcome to keep trying. What we real skeptics ask of you is to demonstrate what you haven't, starting with demonstrating that the US Government is even a suspect. Since you haven't, how do you expect to get even a new investigation that you claim you want? Edited by albion, Jan 4 2009, 07:42 PM.
Posts: 175 Group: BANNED! Member #911 Joined: 10/28/08


Stundie	Jan 5 2009, 06:24 AM Post #6
Posts: 890 Group: Members Member #78 Joined: 01/16/08	Albion ALL of that evidence supports the conclusion that Al Qaeda was behind 9/11. http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.binladen.denial/ CNN In a statement issued to the Arabic satellite channel Al Jazeera, based in Qatar, bin Laden said, "The U.S. government has consistently blamed me for being behind every occasion its enemies attack it. "I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the recent attacks, which seems to have been planned by people for personal reasons," bin Laden's statement said. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13664.htm Muckraker Report Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.” ..... ...Tomb continued, “The FBI gathers evidence. Once evidence is gathered, it is turned over to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice than decides whether it has enough evidence to present to a federal grand jury. In the case of the 1998 United States Embassies being bombed, Bin Laden has been formally indicted and charged by a grand jury. He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connected Bin Laden to 9/11.” http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/03/20060329-2.html Quote: Dick Cheney....."We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming.".....[/b] Is Osama guilty then until proven innocent?? lol You must have loads of evidence from all your sources that the GOP and FBI don't have access to hey Albion? lol
Posts: 890 Group: Members Member #78 Joined: 01/16/08


Domenick DiMaggio	Jan 5 2009, 07:30 AM Post #7
Posts: 2,006 Group: Members Member #22 Joined: 01/14/08	albion Jan 4 2009, 10:54 AM decider911 Dec 18 2008, 08:08 PM any skeptics use skeptisism and critical thinkng about official theory? Yes. We've said many times that: there is no "official" theory because the evidence that informs us of what happened on 9/11 comes from thousands of independent sources. ALL of that evidence supports the conclusion that Al Qaeda was behind 9/11. That some think the government was behind 9/11 requires that they refute that evidence. We're still waiting. when you say "thousands of independent sources" are you referring to bush's hand picked 9/11 commission which tried to connect saddam to 9/11 along with zelikow having outlined the entire report prior to the investigation? are you talking about all those "thousands of independent sources" like the epa which allowed the bush administration to overwrite their findings on the air quality on ground zero? or how about the government funded nist "thousands of independent sources" who received all their funds from the criminals? how do you know for a fact the bush white house didn't overwrite their findings like they did to the epa? still waiting? lol are you stuck in time? you're movement is soooooo fucking pathetic it now insists there isn't an official story. how about that one? you have to deny the story even exists because it's been picked apart and debunked so many times. now there's no 9/11 commission, no nist reports, no epa reports, nothing. none of it exists. this is the new belief of the conspiracy theorists. you guys are a fucking joke.
Posts: 2,006 Group: Members Member #22 Joined: 01/14/08


Headspin	Jan 5 2009, 07:47 AM Post #8
Posts: 975 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08	Domenick DiMaggio Jan 5 2009, 07:30 AM when you say "thousands of independent sources" are you referring to bush's hand picked 9/11 commission which tried to connect saddam to 9/11 along with zelikow having outlined the entire report prior to the investigation? That's not correct. Zelikow (along with CIA's John Deutch) outlined the 9/11 commission report's findings prior to 911 itself. CFR document 1998: http://www.foreignaffairs.org/19981101faessay1434/ashton-b-carter-john-deutch-philip-zelikow/catastrophic-terrorism-tackling-the-new-danger.html full document: http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/catastrophicterrorism-foreignaffairs-1198.pdf Edited by Headspin, Jan 5 2009, 07:53 AM.
Posts: 975 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08


pguillory	Jan 5 2009, 01:30 PM Post #9
Posts: 91 Group: BANNED! Member #766 Joined: 07/25/08	Miragememories Jan 4 2009, 11:25 AM albion "ALL of that evidence supports the conclusion that Al Qaeda was behind 9/11. That some think the government was behind 9/11 requires that they refute that evidence." It's never some, or a lot of evidence. When defending the official Story, the false skeptics betray their lack of objectivity by using "ALL". At best, the evidence is sketchy. Self proclaimed experts like Rohan Gunaratn make their living perpetuating a belief in a highly sophisticated terrorist network labeled Al Qaeda, with Osama Bin Laden charged as it's supreme leader. I find it difficult to trust people who make their living by promoting beliefs that fit so handily with those in power, people who are profiting from the massive security industry created by a belief in a worldwide terrorist organization. In the 7+ years since 9/11, this powerful, sophisticated terrorist network, hasn't done so much as start an outhouse fire in the U.S., in spite of all the security loopholes that still exist. Without the Al Qaeda dragon, power seekers would be confined to more subtle methods of responding to terrorist incidents. Methods which preclude whole country invasions. MM If the official evidence is not solid, in your opinion, how would you describe the truthers' evidence? I don't understand how you can claim that the official evidence doesn't prove anything, when the truthers haven't shown any proof of their claims. Do you have proof of a flyover? Can you show that the flyover is possible to fool anyone? Do you have any proof that anyone planted evidence at the pentagon? Do you have any proof that the plane debris was placed on the lawn after the explosion. Do you have any proof that Lloyd is intentionally lying to cover up for the gov? Do you have any proof as to what the damage should be when a 757 hits the pentagon at 500mph? Do you have any proof that the light poles were staged? Proof means you can show with evidence that something happened. It doesn't mean that you have a feeling or that something doesn't look right to you. The authorities and witnesses have shown with more than enough evidence what happened at the pentagon.
Posts: 91 Group: BANNED! Member #766 Joined: 07/25/08


Flippy	Jan 5 2009, 01:54 PM Post #10
Posts: 578 Group: Members Member #8 Joined: 01/12/08	I just want proof of a plane hitting the Pentagon. Seems to me (and any other logical human being) that they could very easily share the tapes from any of the over 100 security cameras at the facility.
Posts: 578 Group: Members Member #8 Joined: 01/12/08


albion	Jan 5 2009, 02:09 PM Post #11
Posts: 175 Group: BANNED! Member #911 Joined: 10/28/08	Domenick DiMaggio Jan 5 2009, 07:30 AM albion Jan 4 2009, 10:54 AM decider911 Dec 18 2008, 08:08 PM any skeptics use skeptisism and critical thinkng about official theory? Yes. We've said many times that: there is no "official" theory because the evidence that informs us of what happened on 9/11 comes from thousands of independent sources. ALL of that evidence supports the conclusion that Al Qaeda was behind 9/11. That some think the government was behind 9/11 requires that they refute that evidence. We're still waiting. when you say "thousands of independent sources" are you referring to bush's hand picked 9/11 commission which tried to connect saddam to 9/11 along with zelikow having outlined the entire report prior to the investigation? How could all that independent evidence starting on the morning of 9/11/2001 come from the 9/11 Commission that didn't even exist? How is that physically possible, Dom? Edited by albion, Jan 5 2009, 02:09 PM.
Posts: 175 Group: BANNED! Member #911 Joined: 10/28/08


Domenick DiMaggio	Jan 5 2009, 05:10 PM Post #12
Posts: 2,006 Group: Members Member #22 Joined: 01/14/08	albion Jan 5 2009, 02:09 PM How could all that independent evidence starting on the morning of 9/11/2001 come from the 9/11 Commission that didn't even exist? How is that physically possible, Dom? what independent evidence are you talking about, al? the corporate media???? just putting the words independent and evidence together doesn't mean shit if you don't know what you're talking about.
Posts: 2,006 Group: Members Member #22 Joined: 01/14/08


albion	Jan 5 2009, 09:40 PM Post #13
Posts: 175 Group: BANNED! Member #911 Joined: 10/28/08	Domenick DiMaggio Jan 5 2009, 05:10 PM what independent evidence are you talking about, al? What do you mean, "what independent evidence?" You can't mean you don't believe there is no evidence that forms the basis of what we know about 9/11, can you? What do you think the 9/11 Commission, NIST, FEMA, ASCE, etc. relied on? Edited by albion, Jan 5 2009, 09:42 PM.
Posts: 175 Group: BANNED! Member #911 Joined: 10/28/08


Domenick DiMaggio	Jan 5 2009, 11:59 PM Post #14
Posts: 2,006 Group: Members Member #22 Joined: 01/14/08	albion Jan 5 2009, 09:40 PM Domenick DiMaggio Jan 5 2009, 05:10 PM what independent evidence are you talking about, al? What do you mean, "what independent evidence?" You can't mean you don't believe there is no evidence that forms the basis of what we know about 9/11, can you? What do you think the 9/11 Commission, NIST, FEMA, ASCE, etc. relied on? evidence that isn't available for independent scrutiny. you disagree?
Posts: 2,006 Group: Members Member #22 Joined: 01/14/08


pguillory	Jan 6 2009, 02:20 PM Post #15
Posts: 91 Group: BANNED! Member #766 Joined: 07/25/08	Domenick DiMaggio Jan 5 2009, 11:59 PM albion Jan 5 2009, 09:40 PM Domenick DiMaggio Jan 5 2009, 05:10 PM what independent evidence are you talking about, al? What do you mean, "what independent evidence?" You can't mean you don't believe there is no evidence that forms the basis of what we know about 9/11, can you? What do you think the 9/11 Commission, NIST, FEMA, ASCE, etc. relied on? evidence that isn't available for independent scrutiny. you disagree? That is a false argument. You have never been privy to all of the evidence in any investigation. Your argument is that since you didn't watch the DNA evidence collected and analyzed first hand, it doesn't exist. You know you never were in a position to see that happen. None of us ever expect to be in that position. By your logic nothing ever happens unless there is a video, or you personally witness every single aspect of the investigation. You have seen a video released, by the gov, that clearly shows a plane crashing into the pentagon. It shows no flyover and so you have to try and refute it. Your way of refuting it is to simply say it was faked. You have not proved that it was faked. Even if you saw a video, you would still find an excuse to not believe your own eyes. You have an agenda and it is not finding the truth.
Posts: 91 Group: BANNED! Member #766 Joined: 07/25/08


Flippy	Jan 6 2009, 03:01 PM Post #16
Posts: 578 Group: Members Member #8 Joined: 01/12/08	Quote: You have seen a video released, by the gov, that clearly shows a plane crashing into the pentagon. Show me the plane crashing into the Pentagon. Please. Circle it in crayon if you must. Edited by Flippy, Jan 6 2009, 03:01 PM.
Posts: 578 Group: Members Member #8 Joined: 01/12/08


pguillory	Jan 6 2009, 03:37 PM Post #17
Posts: 91 Group: BANNED! Member #766 Joined: 07/25/08	Flippy Jan 6 2009, 03:01 PM Quote: You have seen a video released, by the gov, that clearly shows a plane crashing into the pentagon. Show me the plane crashing into the Pentagon. Please. Circle it in crayon if you must. It may not be clear to you, but it is to me. You can see the plane. It is not horizontal to the camera , because the plane was traveling and hit at an angle. You will not see the entire length of the fuselage. It is almost as if it is coming toward you but off to the side. I am an aircraft buff and I can clearly see it.
Posts: 91 Group: BANNED! Member #766 Joined: 07/25/08


Flippy	Jan 6 2009, 04:06 PM Post #18
Posts: 578 Group: Members Member #8 Joined: 01/12/08	pguillory Jan 6 2009, 03:37 PM Flippy Jan 6 2009, 03:01 PM Quote: You have seen a video released, by the gov, that clearly shows a plane crashing into the pentagon. Show me the plane crashing into the Pentagon. Please. Circle it in crayon if you must. It may not be clear to you, but it is to me. You can see the plane. It is not horizontal to the camera , because the plane was traveling and hit at an angle. You will not see the entire length of the fuselage. It is almost as if it is coming toward you but off to the side. I am an aircraft buff and I can clearly see it. Because there would be less of the plane to view if it was traveling at an angle? I'm sorry, your logic is flawed. If the plane were traveling at an angle that would leave more visual reference for the eye. Instead of a tube (fuselage) you would also see the slight tilt and underside of the wing. Unless you are trying to say that it was at the opposite angle of what I am visioning. In which case, there would be tears in the surely moist, well watered lawn. EDIT: Regardless. Please, show me the plane you see. Circle it in crayon if you must. Edited by Flippy, Jan 6 2009, 04:08 PM.
Posts: 578 Group: Members Member #8 Joined: 01/12/08


noeffects	Jan 6 2009, 06:55 PM Post #19
Posts: 798 Group: Members Member #178 Joined: 01/22/08	"I am an aircraft buff and I can clearly see it." keep it that way...just a buff If you see "it" clearly you gots to get some optomology work.
Posts: 798 Group: Members Member #178 Joined: 01/22/08


Domenick DiMaggio	Jan 7 2009, 12:21 AM Post #20
Posts: 2,006 Group: Members Member #22 Joined: 01/14/08	pguillory Jan 6 2009, 02:20 PM That is a false argument. no it isn't. someone throwing around words like 'independent evidence' needs to be put in their place. do you agree that phrase is completely untrue?
Posts: 2,006 Group: Members Member #22 Joined: 01/14/08


painter	Jan 7 2009, 12:34 PM Post #21
Posts: 35 Group: Members Member #970 Joined: 12/17/08	albion Jan 4 2009, 10:54 AM decider911 Dec 18 2008, 08:08 PM any skeptics use skeptisism and critical thinkng about official theory? Yes. We've said many times that: there is no "official" theory because the evidence that informs us of what happened on 9/11 comes from thousands of independent sources. ALL of that evidence supports the conclusion that Al Qaeda was behind 9/11. That some think the government was behind 9/11 requires that they refute that evidence. We're still waiting. Right there, folks, in black and white is the blue-print of the government loyalist tactic for disposing of the 9/11 truth movement. Read it carefully and understand it. a) They claim there is no "official" theory b) They claim the evidence that informs them about 9/11 comes from "thousands" of "independent sources" c) They claim the sum total of ALL that "evidence" supports the conclusion that Al Qaeda (not defined) was "behind" 9/11 d) They claim that we have to refute "their" evidence as "outlined" above and e) since we have not (according to them) our views are bogus. Ladies and gentlemen, this is the outline, the "talking points" from which the government loyalist operates. Note how tightly knit it is, how each point neatly segues into the next, how it establishes the 'rules of the game' they challenge us to play, without putting forward ONE piece of information or evidence whose "independent source" can be questioned or truth value can be analyzed or tested. You can not win this game. They say "there is no "official" theory". So there is nothing to be proven or disproved. They say the evidence that informs them comes from thousands of "independent" sources, not just the government, and it is ALL THAT evidence which supports their "conclusion" that Al Qaeda was behind 9/11. They want us to refute ALL THAT evidence, NOT evidence derived from government sources. How interesting. How very, very interesting.
Posts: 35 Group: Members Member #970 Joined: 12/17/08


justfacts	Jan 7 2009, 01:35 PM Post #22
Posts: 260 Group: BANNED! Member #874 Joined: 10/02/08	painter Jan 7 2009, 12:34 PM albion Jan 4 2009, 10:54 AM decider911 Dec 18 2008, 08:08 PM any skeptics use skeptisism and critical thinkng about official theory? Yes. We've said many times that: there is no "official" theory because the evidence that informs us of what happened on 9/11 comes from thousands of independent sources. ALL of that evidence supports the conclusion that Al Qaeda was behind 9/11. That some think the government was behind 9/11 requires that they refute that evidence. We're still waiting. Right there, folks, in black and white is the blue-print of the government loyalist tactic for disposing of the 9/11 truth movement. Read it carefully and understand it. a) They claim there is no "official" theory b) They claim the evidence that informs them about 9/11 comes from "thousands" of "independent sources" c) They claim the sum total of ALL that "evidence" supports the conclusion that Al Qaeda (not defined) was "behind" 9/11 d) They claim that we have to refute "their" evidence as "outlined" above and e) since we have not (according to them) our views are bogus. Ladies and gentlemen, this is the outline, the "talking points" from which the government loyalist operates. Note how tightly knit it is, how each point neatly segues into the next, how it establishes the 'rules of the game' they challenge us to play, without putting forward ONE piece of information or evidence whose "independent source" can be questioned or truth value can be analyzed or tested. You can not win this game. They say "there is no "official" theory". So there is nothing to be proven or disproved. They say the evidence that informs them comes from thousands of "independent" sources, not just the government, and it is ALL THAT evidence which supports their "conclusion" that Al Qaeda was behind 9/11. They want us to refute ALL THAT evidence, NOT evidence derived from government sources. How interesting. How very, very interesting. If only it were that simple - proof AQ was behind the attacks (besides confessions and admissions in public). But that is not where it ends. Its not even where it begins. First you have to "prove" the planes existed, then you have to "prove" the planes took off, then you have to "prove" there were people on board, then you have to "prove" they hit the buildings, ground, etc. Then it gets better. Then you have to "prove" nobody in the government was lying, then you have to "prove" that there were no explosives in the buildings, then you have to "prove" no laser beams were used to bring down the buildings, etc. etc. etc. I beg to disagree with the poster above, there is an official theory, supported by evidence in trial. That does not include every youtube video, every newspaper article, every magazine article or every book. Read the trial transcripts for the "official theory".
Posts: 260 Group: BANNED! Member #874 Joined: 10/02/08


JFK	Jan 7 2009, 01:41 PM Post #23
Posts: 4,220 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08	painter Jan 7 2009, 12:34 PM albion Jan 4 2009, 10:54 AM decider911 Dec 18 2008, 08:08 PM any skeptics use skeptisism and critical thinkng about official theory? Yes. We've said many times that: there is no "official" theory because the evidence that informs us of what happened on 9/11 comes from thousands of independent sources. ALL of that evidence supports the conclusion that Al Qaeda was behind 9/11. That some think the government was behind 9/11 requires that they refute that evidence. We're still waiting. Right there, folks, in black and white is the blue-print of the government loyalist tactic for disposing of the 9/11 truth movement. Read it carefully and understand it. a) They claim there is no "official" theory b) They claim the evidence that informs them about 9/11 comes from "thousands" of "independent sources" c) They claim the sum total of ALL that "evidence" supports the conclusion that Al Qaeda (not defined) was "behind" 9/11 d) They claim that we have to refute "their" evidence as "outlined" above and e) since we have not (according to them) our views are bogus. Ladies and gentlemen, this is the outline, the "talking points" from which the government loyalist operates. Note how tightly knit it is, how each point neatly segues into the next, how it establishes the 'rules of the game' they challenge us to play, without putting forward ONE piece of information or evidence whose "independent source" can be questioned or truth value can be analyzed or tested. You can not win this game. They say "there is no "official" theory". So there is nothing to be proven or disproved. They say the evidence that informs them comes from thousands of "independent" sources, not just the government, and it is ALL THAT evidence which supports their "conclusion" that Al Qaeda was behind 9/11. They want us to refute ALL THAT evidence, NOT evidence derived from government sources. How interesting. How very, very interesting. Very well put as usual Painter, And welcome back to the forum.
Posts: 4,220 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08


JFK	Jan 7 2009, 01:45 PM Post #24
Posts: 4,220 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08	justfacts Jan 7 2009, 01:35 PM painter Jan 7 2009, 12:34 PM albion Jan 4 2009, 10:54 AM decider911 Dec 18 2008, 08:08 PM any skeptics use skeptisism and critical thinkng about official theory? Yes. We've said many times that: there is no "official" theory because the evidence that informs us of what happened on 9/11 comes from thousands of independent sources. ALL of that evidence supports the conclusion that Al Qaeda was behind 9/11. That some think the government was behind 9/11 requires that they refute that evidence. We're still waiting. Right there, folks, in black and white is the blue-print of the government loyalist tactic for disposing of the 9/11 truth movement. Read it carefully and understand it. a) They claim there is no "official" theory b) They claim the evidence that informs them about 9/11 comes from "thousands" of "independent sources" c) They claim the sum total of ALL that "evidence" supports the conclusion that Al Qaeda (not defined) was "behind" 9/11 d) They claim that we have to refute "their" evidence as "outlined" above and e) since we have not (according to them) our views are bogus. Ladies and gentlemen, this is the outline, the "talking points" from which the government loyalist operates. Note how tightly knit it is, how each point neatly segues into the next, how it establishes the 'rules of the game' they challenge us to play, without putting forward ONE piece of information or evidence whose "independent source" can be questioned or truth value can be analyzed or tested. You can not win this game. They say "there is no "official" theory". So there is nothing to be proven or disproved. They say the evidence that informs them comes from thousands of "independent" sources, not just the government, and it is ALL THAT evidence which supports their "conclusion" that Al Qaeda was behind 9/11. They want us to refute ALL THAT evidence, NOT evidence derived from government sources. How interesting. How very, very interesting. If only it were that simple - proof AQ was behind the attacks (besides confessions and admissions in public). But that is not where it ends. Its not even where it begins. First you have to "prove" the planes existed, then you have to "prove" the planes took off, then you have to "prove" there were people on board, then you have to "prove" they hit the buildings, ground, etc. Then it gets better. Then you have to "prove" nobody in the government was lying, then you have to "prove" that there were no explosives in the buildings, then you have to "prove" no laser beams were used to bring down the buildings, etc. etc. etc. I beg to disagree with the poster above, there is an official theory, supported by evidence in trial. That does not include every youtube video, every newspaper article, every magazine article or every book. Read the trial transcripts for the "official theory". Are you sure you have the correct forum ?
Posts: 4,220 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08


painter	Jan 7 2009, 01:55 PM Post #25
Posts: 35 Group: Members Member #970 Joined: 12/17/08	JFK Jan 7 2009, 01:41 PM Very well put as usual Painter, And welcome back to the forum. Thanks for the WB, JFK.
Posts: 35 Group: Members Member #970 Joined: 12/17/08


1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)


Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Skeptics · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
2
…
5