TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Another Chink in the Conspiracy 9/11 Theory
Pages (3): « 1 2 [3]

quote:

Originally posted by josh4 In a court of law a case has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. This is not beyond that doubt.

Are you making this a criminal case or civil case?

Because burden of proof changes between the two. You're more than likely strike a verdict making this a civil case. If this were a real world courtroom.

BTW are you alleging that there was no plane that hit the Pentagon? What kind of conspiracy theory are you trying to prove?


Funny how the shoe is on the other foot

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN hey! i know! why dont you propogate more falsehoods peddled by the conspiracy theorists as facts

I've repeatedly stated that I don't believe the CTs can be proven and in no way shape or form do I consider them hard factual evidence. Its clear at this point all you're interested in is putting words in my mouth and approaching everything and everybody involving the CTs as one big group that all believe the same thing. I haven't even said I believe any of this, all I've done is explain why they are here, what they're based on, and why you can't prove them wrong and shouldn't say you have.

So thats enough for me. I'm not going to argue with you because you're not listening to what I'm saying. I'm disappointed that a regular user of PDD would approach a topic, even this one, by making assumptions and accusations against others like that. Oh yes, you're tired of repeating yourself and this is a topic that gets you all rilled up. Well sucks to be you. Growup.

quote:

Originally posted by josh4 I've repeatedly stated that I don't believe the CTs can be proven and in no way shape or form do I consider them hard factual evidence. Its clear at this point all you're interested in is putting words in my mouth and approaching everything and everybody involving the CTs as one big group that all believe the same thing. I haven't even said I believe any of this, all I've done is explain why they are here, what they're based on, and why you can't prove them wrong and shouldn't say you have.

i havent missed your point at all joshua. you however, have missed mine your central position, in that there are gaps in the evidence, official story (whatever) which breeds the CTs. i understand that. however, i totally disagree with your assessment. there is so much hard physical evidence, and expert analysis across a wealth of different disciplines that to discredit such sources the CTs should have to come up with their own credible evidence. which they DONT. they try and poke holes in issues that are irrelevant or things that can never be known. but thats not evidence.

i mean seriously, ive never been to the US. as far as i know the towers came down coz i saw it happen on tv. i wasnt actually there. is not being there reason enough to disbelieve that its true? of course not.

you were the one that raised "beyond reasonable doubt". well theres another "reasonable" expression used in a court of law, and its "reasonable person".

firstly, lets recap on something youve said

quote:

because the rubble was cleared without being examined there is no physical evidence that explicitly tells what brought down the towers.

i dont need to make assumptions to tell you this statement is false. this i just something peddled by the CTs which you apparently have bought. i provided you with evidence suggesting this was false. thats what debating is.

things like this statement from you are repeated and copy-pasted from other 911 truth sites without the proper amount of research one should make before stating things as fact. its not a "hole" in the official narrative, it is a fallacy being peddled as truth. and the 911 movement is full of similar claims that you seem to think is evidence enough to argue the CTs exist because of gaps.

my central thesis: CTs exist because of poor research and logical fallacies in an environment where yes, sometimes the exact truth cannot be established because chaos breeds unpredictability and uncertainty.

quote:

So thats enough for me. I'm not going to argue with you because you're not listening to what I'm saying. I'm disappointed that a regular user of PDD would approach a topic, even this one, by making assumptions and accusations against others like that. Oh yes, you're tired of repeating yourself and this is a topic that gets you all rilled up. Well sucks to be you. Growup.

ive listened to what youre saying, and all you seem to be doing is repeating falsehoods as some kinds of "evidence" that because the truth cannot be known CTs are at least legitimate in their enquiry. even if you are correct in your analysis of the latter, you are thoroughly undermining your position by repeating lies.

the so-called "assumption" im making is that you are supporting a premise with poor evidence.

Just so we're on the same page, here's what I said:

quote:

Originally posted by stevieboy32808 I'm just asking because I feel the same way Purple does. Bush isn't exactly old faithful or trustworty. As I've hinted at before he had ties to Bin Laden before and it's kind of hard to swallow that they didn't keep in touch at least once not necessarily during his presidency.

and here's what you said:

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo the video of the 9/11 hijackers with Bin Laden aside, you say things like "it's hard to swallow" or "Bush isn't exactly trustworthy" but in essence, in the face of empirical and majorative facts and logic, you're saying nothing.

What do you mean I say nothing? My statement was based on what I've already posted on the first page. You say you want facts so try reading that article I posted. That's one example of 'keeping in touch' with the Bin Ladens.

You want more? Here's another article which talks about how our current President had ties to the Bin Ladens well into mid 90's right before his run for governor. He just couldn't keep his hands off the Carlyle Group:

quote:

....Neither former president Bush�who has continued advising his son on handling the war on terrorism�nor the Carlyle Group returned calls seeking comment. In a case of "like father, like son," [current] President Bush also had connections to the Carlyle Group, the Voice has learned. In the years before his 1994 bid for Texas governor, Bush owned stock in and sat on the board of directors of Caterair, a service company that provided airplane food and was also a component of Carlyle. For his consulting position, Bush was paid $15,000 a year, according to a Texas insider, and a bonus $1000 for every meeting he attended�roughly $75,000 in total. Reports show Carlyle was also a major contributor to his electoral fund. Upon hearing about the Bush-Bin Laden family connection, other Washington nonprofits have joined Judicial Watch in expressing their concern. "Carlyle is as deeply wired into the current administration as they can possibly be," Charles Lewis, executive director of the Center for Public Integrity, told Bushwatch.org. "George Bush is getting money from private interests that have business before the government, while his son is president. And, in a really peculiar way, George W. Bush could, some day, benefit financially from his own administration's decisions, through his father's investments. The average American doesn't know that. To me, that's a jaw-dropper."

here's another article regarding how our government trained Bin Laden in the CIA
1)http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3340101
2)http://www.worldpress.org/asia/1101binladen_cia.htm
3)http://www.antiwar.com/spectator/spec19.html

These articles describe how the FBI was told to back off Bin Laden family and how they were flown out:
1A)http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/newsnight/1645527.stm(see last paragraph of that article)
1B)http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/...sp?item=a96wamy(see title dates February-September 11, 1996 and Late January 2001
2)http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001...ain313048.shtml.

And to finish this off. Guess who the Bush adminstration contracted to rebuild wartorn Iraq? It's all here:
http://money.cnn.com/2003/05/05/new...ies/war_bechtel

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r Maybe because they're full of shit?

Hmmmmmmm, good argument. Maybe a few more of those might just clinch this debate for you. You're picky about what arguments YOU believe aren't you?

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r I have an idea, how about we listen to the qualified engineers that are telling us that are these CTs are full of themselves, pushing their own agendas and let the facts speak for themselves and not let others' interpetation do it for you?

So you need a guy with a piece of paper to tell you? OK.

But again, and I'm only going to say this once more just so you can get your tiny 'intellect' around it. Show me a video of a plane hitting one of the most top secret and highly guarded instiutions in the country. Then I'll believe you.

Look up Flight 77, Gas station, Sheraton.

Please read my post with the links in it too. Especially the one from the Cold War analyst.



Now sit down and shut up.

quote:

Originally posted by _Ocean_Drive_ Hmmmmmmm, good argument. Maybe a few more of those might just clinch this debate for you.

Maybe you should read the evidence before you or does your computer not show engineering articles?

quote:

So you need a guy with a piece of paper to tell you? OK.

You mean qualified people who actually know what they are talking about?
Better than listening some of those quacks out there with no qualifications at all I'd say...

quote:

But again, and I'm only going to say this once more just so you can get your tiny 'intellect' around it. Show me a video of a plane hitting one of the most top secret and highly guarded instiutions in the country. Then I'll believe you. Please read my post with the links in it too. Especially the one from the Cold War analyst. Now sit down and shut up.

Oh I see, you're one of those, "I have to see it to believe it" type people.
That's like saying the holocaust didn't happening because you weren't there either; great arguement! Not.
The plane isn't going to leave some cartoon cut-out of it's former self in a hardened, concrete bunker of a building, kapeesh?
The wings ripped off pretty damn fast.

You believe who you want to believe and I'll believe who I want to believe and we'll leave it at that.
I'll go with the guys who actually did engineering research, cross-referenced thousand of documents and interviewed everyone that was there and you go with some cold war analyst sitting on his ass typing whatever someone wants to believe.

Now scuse me while I get dressed...

quote:

Originally posted by _Ocean_Drive_ Show me a video of a plane hitting one of the most top secret and highly guarded instiutions in the country. Then I'll believe you.

quote:

Please read my post with the links in it too. Especially the one from the Cold War analyst.

i watched 2 of the three. i must say youre the most uncritical of viewers! there was so much bullshit in those vids it doesnt even bother going into. itd take me forever.

Watch Loose Change^

quote:

Originally posted by metalgearsolid Watch Loose Change^

youre not serious are you?

^there's more holes in that than swiss cheeze...

Watch [[ LINK REMOVED ]]

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r Better than listening some of those quacks out there with no qualifications at all I'd say...

I agree to some extent. But (as a historian!) I can't dismiss all eye-witness accounts, simply because they don't go with the general line of thinking.

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r Oh I see, you're one of those, "I have to see it to believe it" type people. You believe who you want to believe and I'll believe who I want to believe and we'll leave it at that.

I know the holocaust happened because there is irrefutable evidence of it - Gas Chambers, corpses, Zyklon B canisters, Waffen SS accounts, PoW accounts, skeletons, other human remains, MILLIONS of eye-witness accounts.

I just don't comprehend that a person such as yourself (who seems quite intelligent) can accept that the ONLY footage we have is a supposed 'nose-cone'.

I don't understand why the CCTV was confsicated from the Sheraton and nearby gas stations by FBI agents. I don't understand why Sheraton employees and a woman in hospital were visited by men in black suits who told them to stay quiet and accept the compensation and later refused to say what agency they were from.

I don't understand why they won't release the footage they confiscated. What is there to hide?

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN there was so much bullshit in those vids it doesnt even bother going into. itd take me forever.

And the Physics lab reconstruction has been debunked. Period. Watch the Google Video (again). I don't expect a cartoon shaped hole, but that explanation is ludicrous.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN youre not serious are you?

No, but I figured you could watch it for me. And than tell me how the film was.

But you have probably already watched it?

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r ^there's more holes in that than swiss cheeze... Watch [[ LINK REMOVED ]]

It seems kind of long....

quote:

Originally posted by metalgearsolid It seems kind of long....

Yups two hours.. I dont have that much internet in my country.

quote:

Originally posted by metalgearsolid No, but I figured you could watch it for me. And than tell me how the film was. But you have probably already watched it?

yeah, and its bullshit. dont waste your time!

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.