ANZACs and war and stuff

[Edbear]

What are your ideas on this page?

http://www.globalresearch.ca/ted-ols...l-denials/8514

So Ted Olson claims to have had phone conversations with his wife but the FBI claim there were no such conversations and you don't find that odd?

What is the problem here? Enough physical evidence has been found to prove which plane hit which object. Even tail numbers. Two 767's hit the towers, one 757 hit the Pentagon and another 757 crashed into the ground. All proven by wreckage found and photographed.

Even the claim that the 757 that crashed into the ground somehow had debris spread over many kilometers has been debunked. Though how many here actually looked at that link?

So assuming confusion by Ted Olsen, and you have to assume this link is actually correct being of a conspiracy bent, what changes the above?

You place a lot of weight on these so-called qualified experts who have time and again been shown to be false. How about simply looking at the photographs?

[Katman]

How about simply looking at the photographs?

You mean of the plane actually hitting the Pentagon?

[Edbear]

You mean of the plane actually hitting the Pentagon?

I specifically referred to the wreckage evidence. You are clutching at straws. Look at all the photographs of all the wreckage found at each site. That is conclusive evidence irrefutable.

[MisterD]

Just think of the sheer number of people and amount of organisation required to pull off the hoax that conspiracy theorists claim.

Now, in the light of the recent Ed Snowdon / Guardian hoo-hah over US government snooping, what are the chances that it could be done with nobody "blowing the whistle" on such an elaborate plot?

[Edbear]

Just think of the sheer number of people and amount of organisation required to pull off the hoax that conspiracy theorists claim.

Now, in the light of the recent Ed Snowdon / Guardian hoo-hah over US government snooping, what are the chances that it could be done with nobody "blowing the whistle" on such an elaborate plot?

Careful, you are bringing reason into the argument...

[Crasherfromwayback]

Just think of the sheer number of people and amount of organisation required to pull off the hoax that conspiracy theorists claim.

Now, in the light of the recent Ed Snowdon / Guardian hoo-hah over US government snooping, what are the chances that it could be done with nobody "blowing the whistle" on such an elaborate plot?

My thoughts exactly.

[Drew]

Just think of the sheer number of people and amount of organisation required to pull off the hoax that conspiracy theorists claim.

Now, in the light of the recent Ed Snowdon / Guardian hoo-hah over US government snooping, what are the chances that it could be done with nobody "blowing the whistle" on such an elaborate plot?

Careful, you are bringing reason into the argument...

Again....

I said the exact same thing earlier. But since it's not theoretically impossible, the debate continues.

The whole conspiracy theory, (whatever version), relies on there being not one single honest investigator or journalist pocketing some evidence of foul play, and coming forward. I cannot accept that.

[Edbear]

Again....

I said the exact same thing earlier. But since it's not theoretically impossible, the debate continues.

The whole conspiracy theory, (whatever version), relies on there being not one single honest investigator or journalist pocketing some evidence of foul play, and coming forward. I cannot accept that.

I'm not so sure it isn't theoretically impossible. If you examine what is required for it to be said conspiracy, you would have to conclude it simply could not happen that way.

[oneofsix]

I'm not so sure it isn't theoretically impossible. If you examine what is required for it to be said conspiracy, you would have to conclude it simply could not happen that way.

But isn't that the beauty of these conspiracy theories, you don't take it as a whole and work up a full alternative, you just look for bits that you can make seem like holes in the so called official story and then declare the whole official story a conspiracy.

[Edbear]

But isn't that the beauty of these conspiracy theories, you don't take it as a whole and work up a full alternative, you just look for bits that you can make seem like holes in the so called official story and then declare the whole official story a conspiracy.

Of course! You are quite right...

[Katman]

Just think of the sheer number of people and amount of organisation required to pull off the hoax that conspiracy theorists claim.

Now, in the light of the recent Ed Snowdon / Guardian hoo-hah over US government snooping, what are the chances that it could be done with nobody "blowing the whistle" on such an elaborate plot?

http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-se...leblowers.html

[Maha]

I specifically referred to the wreckage evidence. You are clutching at straws. Look at all the photographs of all the wreckage found at each site. That is conclusive evidence irrefutable.

Katman is very good at the 'copy and paste' stuff, maybe he should post his humorous findings in here -->>http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/sh...-jokes/page140

[Katman]

Katman is very good at the 'copy and paste' stuff,

Well if the information is already out there why would I bother retyping it?

[Drew]

Well if the information is already out there why would I bother retyping it?

Might give you some context at least.

[Maha]

Well if the information is already out there why would I bother retyping it?

''Information'' is stretching it a bit don't you think?
The Woman's Weekly (so I am lead to believe) also has a lot information, but only if you choose to believe what you are reading.