I see all these claims about WTC7 and Flight 77 etc, but not one, single, irrefutable piece of evidence that contradicts the conclusion that AQ planned and executed the whole thing.
The conspiracy theorists are just that - theorists.
Sure there's interesting shit like the way WTC7 fell down, and the confusing testimony that came out, etc.
But in an operation that would have needed to have involved hundreds of people over the whole of the continental USA, we still have no one, 12 years after the fact that has come forward and said - "I was involved".
Why is that?
This is a Govt. that is bleeding intelligence at the moment.
Why no mention in wiki-leaks?
Nothing from the Russian spy's operating in DC?
Nothing from the British MI6 whistle-blowers mentioned earlier?
You know my reasons for siding with the conspiracy theorists. There are too many inconsistencies for 1 side to be believed over another, BUT, given that there are experts who honestly believe that the FACTS that back up the official story are questionable, I'm going with them as I wouldn't put it past a govt to allow these sorts of things to happen. Anything I say after this point will be "conspiracy", but I'm not foolish enough to believe that there aren't people in this world that would allow these sorts of things to happen and then do nothing about them other than to start planning for the fallout.
Originally Posted by Oscar
I fought my own fights, DIckhead.
What? Did you get ripped off by a finance company or something?
... it's an analytical tool. And in this case it's implementation is entirely appropriate, and it strongly suggests that there's fuck all dodgy going on there outside of the recorded and commonly accepted causes..
Originally Posted by Oscar
I see all these claims about WTC7 and Flight 77 etc, but not one, single, irrefutable piece of evidence that contradicts the conclusion that AQ planned and executed the whole thing.
The conspiracy theorists are just that - theorists.
Sure there's interesting shit like the way WTC7 fell down, and the confusing testimony that came out, etc.
But in an operation that would have needed to have involved hundreds of people over the whole of the continental USA, we still have no one, 12 years after the fact that has come forward and said - "I was involved".
Yet not one piece of evidence that concludes that AQ planned and executed the whole thing.
Not one person who has come forward and said - "I was involved".
You cannot be serious.
Atheism and Religion are but two sides of the same coin.
One prefers to use its head, while the other relies on tales.
Conspiracy theories are easy to concoct, and generally impossible to disprove - in the exact same way that it's impossible to actually prove anything.
I have recently learned that a significant number of Jews sold their homes in Christchurch, in the weeks and months before the big shake. So was there a Jewish conspiracy involved? My evidence says so - unless you can prove otherwise. You can't? Then the conspiracy stands.
My doubts over-ride your evidence and common sense, until you can prove otherwise.
Proof. The onus of proof is always on the other party. Keep up the good work.
Can I believe the magic of your size... (The Shirelles)
Conspiracy theories are easy to concoct, and generally impossible to disprove - in the exact same way that it's impossible to actually prove anything.
I have recently learned that a significant number of Jews sold their homes in Christchurch, in the weeks and months before the big shake. So was there a Jewish conspiracy involved? My evidence says so - unless you can prove otherwise. You can't? Then the conspiracy stands.
My doubts over-ride your evidence and common sense, until you can prove otherwise.
Proof. The onus of proof is always on the other party. Keep up the good work.
Feel free to make an issue of it if it's important to you.
You lack of knowledge demonstrates clearly that you are new to the whole questioning of the official story.
Posting links to justify your assertions of facts, eg 'FDR parameter not installed', with the unequivocal truth as contained in the statement 'as a professional pilot it is unlikely the doors were monitored', is just being silly.
.
I accept what a professional pilot says (and what he says about reinforced cockpit doors prior to 9/11 is fact), and I'm being silly?
Then you post ridiculous and unproven statements like "The behaviour of the US Govt. is probably the biggest reason to suspect official involvement. Guilty behaviour implying guilt."
They look guilty so they are? It's that simple?
"The events that took place on Sept 11 2001 and the subsequent moves by Govts around the world were and remain extremely important."
This is true, but it proves nothing.
You're still asking me to accept a theory based on suppositions and innuendo. whilst the obvious answer is the simplest.
So there's no flaws in any of the other theories put forward? ie controlled demoliton
"If you can make black marks on a straight from the time you turn out of a corner until the braking point of the next turn, then you have enough power."
Originally Posted by scracha
Even BP would shy away from cleaning up a sidecar oil spill.
Originally Posted by Warren Zevon
Send Lawyers, guns and money, the shit has hit the fan
Conspiracy theories are easy to concoct, and generally impossible to disprove - in the exact same way that it's impossible to actually prove anything.
I have recently learned that a significant number of Jews sold their homes in Christchurch, in the weeks and months before the big shake. So was there a Jewish conspiracy involved? My evidence says so - unless you can prove otherwise. You can't? Then the conspiracy stands.
My doubts over-ride your evidence and common sense, until you can prove otherwise.
Proof. The onus of proof is always on the other party. Keep up the good work.
Assume, for a moment, (and I understand this might be difficult) that something other than an explosive device caused the building to fall down. A spontaneous existence failure of several steel columns, say.
So why would NIST claim that it was the failure of a single column?
Originally Posted by Oscar
I didn't think!!! I experimented!!!
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks