Ultimate 911 POLL

[Woodman]

If there actually is evidence out there, I'd be unable to accuse you of that at all.

Meanwhile, in evidence for awesome, it does come from america...



I think I have a penchant for hidden lights...

Faaaaarrk thats cool

[Virago]

What about the van packed with explosives found on the George Washington Bridge that same day?

Were the box-cutter wielding hijackers responsible for that too?

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/A_..._of_explosives

[Katman]

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/A_..._of_explosives

Retracting stories at a later date does not necessarily mean they didn't happen.

It can simply mean someone's had a change of heart. (Or been told to change their story).

There's usually no smoke without fire.

[bogan]

Retracting stories at a later date does not necessarily mean they didn't happen.

It can simply mean someone's had a change of heart. (Or been told to change their story).

There's usually no smoke without fire.

Yeh I can see why you were so reluctant to post 'evidence' for those claims

Something about smoke?

[Katman]

Yeh I can see why you were so reluctant to post 'evidence' for those claims

So because Mayor Guiliani and the New York City Police Commisioner contradict the reported story we should just leave it at that?

You really are a model citizen, aren't you?

[bogan]

So because Mayor Guiliani and the New York City Police Commisioner contradict the reported story we should just leave it at that?

You really are a model citizen, aren't you?

Nope, because none of those involved with the story ever provided a shred of evidence to confirm the originally reported story (which is more likely to be wrong due to hysteria hype, and urgency to report news as it is breaking) we should discount it as evidence for a wider conspiracy; any other take on it is simply confirmation bias.

Models?

[Katman]

Nope, because none of those involved with the story ever provided a shred of evidence to confirm the originally reported story (which is more likely to be wrong due to hysteria hype, and urgency to report news as it is breaking) we should discount it as evidence for a wider conspiracy; any other take on it is simply confirmation bias.

Of course, because you can implicitly trust the authorities, can't you?

[bogan]

Of course, because you can implicitly trust the authorities, can't you?

I trust the evidence, when all you have is one person against another, that is not what I consider evidence. The reason you consider it evidence is because you are already biased to believe one side over the other.

[Katman]

I trust the evidence, when all you have is one person against another, that is not what I consider evidence. The reason you consider it evidence is because you are already biased to believe one side over the other.

So what exactly is your 'evidence'? That two planes flew into two towers? (Something that I have never denied).

Because that's all the 'evidence' I can see that you've presented.

[bogan]

So what exactly is your 'evidence'? That two planes flew into two towers? (Something that I have never denied).

Because that's all the 'evidence' I can see that you've presented.

Other evidence would be that the towers fell down.

[Katman]

Other evidence would be that the towers fell down.

I've never denied that either.

See, the difference between you and me is that I would like to know the truth.

You're just happy accepting what the authorities tell you.

Like I said - a model citizen. (Sort of like Ed - except without the drug habit).

[Tazz]

Just to keep the fatties happy, car of the future. Check out those sexy curves:

[bogan]

I've never denied that either.

See, the difference between you and me is that I would like to know the truth.

You're just happy accepting what the authorities tell you.

Like I said - a model citizen.

Wrong, the difference between us is that I recognize an unknowable 'truth' when I hear one. I am able to recognize this because I am also able to recognize what is evidence and what isn't. Those two first ones were the indisputable (by any reasonably minded person) bits of evidence. Next to come would be the peer reviewed evidence; that which is not immediately apparent to a layman. Things like plane velocities, structural tower damage, fall velocities. Other things can come after, like motivations and who said what which loudest, but are largely of little consequence when compared to the former.

And then, occams razor must be applied, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, while it could conceivibly be a cyborg in a duck suit; it's probably just a duck.

[Katman]

Wrong, the difference between us is that I recognize an unknowable 'truth' when I hear one. I am able to recognize this because I am also able to recognize what is evidence and what isn't. Those two first ones were the indisputable (by any reasonably minded person) bits of evidence. Next to come would be the peer reviewed evidence; that which is not immediately apparent to a layman. Things like plane velocities, structural tower damage, fall velocities. Other things can come after, like motivations and who said what which loudest, but are largely of little consequence when compared to the former.

There is a huge number of highly qualified people who strongly dispute the "peer reviewed evidence" that you so blindly believe.

[Katman]

And then, occams razor must be applied, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, while it could conceivibly be a cyborg in a duck suit; it's probably just a duck.

And the authorities never lie, right?