but how could they have planted the explosives??

1…5681011…20

Comments

  • sonicreducer
    sonicreducer Posts: 713
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Good god. This is like that game where you whisper something into a bunch of people's ears and see what comes out the other end.

    He said they used missles to take down the plane.

    why would he slip up and say something like that if they didn't shoot it down? that is not part of the official explanation. the wreckage was spread over how many miles? twa exploded, it was spread over how many miles of the ocean?
    you're a real hooker. im gonna slap you in public.
    ~Ron Burgundy
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    I believe his first statement quite possibly could have been a mistake and his second a lie.

    I believe in that possibility too. I also believe in the possibility of the reverse.
    Of course, I can't prove if he is lying or not.

    But that doesn't stop you from using it as factual evidence???
    The whole theory of an inside job doesn't require Silverstein at all to still have merit.

    Of couse! You can always find some new "evidence" to fit that conclusion. Since the "whole theory of an inside job" seems to care not about fact or causation, I'm sure you'll be able to find support for such theories forever.
    It's just one question of the many. What evidence is there for the official story?

    A confession by the man responsible. Hundreds of dead civilians on four airplanes. Countless eyewitness reports. A large scientific inquiry. Pieces of buckled steel supports. That's a good start.
    It's all circumstantial on both sides with many possibilities, requiring one to draw their own conclusions and interpretations of the info out there.

    It's not "all circumstantial". Circumstantial evidence is a fact that requires competing inferences.
  • rebornFixer
    rebornFixer Posts: 4,901
    farfromglorified wrote:
    It's not "all circumstantial". Circumstantial evidence is a fact that requires competing inferences.

    All of the evidence gathered so far in support of the 9-11 conspiracy theories fits this definition.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    sonicreducer wrote:
    why would he slip up and say something like that if they didn't shoot it down?

    Are you seriously asking me why Donald Rumsfeld would say something if it wasn't true???? When Donald Rumsfeld told you that Iraq was a great threat to America, did you ask "why would he say something like that if it wasn't true"?????????

    If you're going to take Donald Rumsfeld's statement as a literal "slip-up", it then negates the "inside job" theory. It would then require Al Qaeda's shooting down the plane with a missle. Do you believe Al Qaeda shot that plane down with a missle?
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    farfromglorified wrote:
    I believe in that possibility too. I also believe in the possibility of the reverse.

    as do I.

    farfromglorified wrote:
    But that doesn't stop you from using it as factual evidence???

    It doesn't stop me from bringing it up as a good question to be discussed. I never said it was solid proof of anything.

    farfromglorified wrote:
    Of couse! You can always find some new "evidence" to fit that conclusion. Since the "whole theory of an inside job" seems to care not about fact or causation, I'm sure you'll be able to find support for such theories forever.

    same with either side.


    farfromglorified wrote:
    A confession by the man responsible. Hundreds of dead civilians on four airplanes. Countless eyewitness reports. A large scientific inquiry. Pieces of buckled steel supports. That's a good start.

    Can you prove any of that without doubt? Can you proved that is how these people died? There have been eyewitnesses supporting both theories. Scientific inquiries supporting both. Buckled steel can fit in both theories. You have proved nothing.

    farfromglorified wrote:
    It's not "all circumstantial". Circumstantial evidence is a fact that requires competing inferences.

    Yep
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    Yes, but the plans were supposedly put together by Arabs in a terrorist cell outside the of the US.

    Do you have evidence that suggests those plans were put together in the US? What US citizen put them together? In which state were they put together?
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Do you have evidence that suggests those plans were put together in the US? What US citizen put them together? In which state were they put together?

    What proof do you have that these Arabs did it? I can point to PNAC, you can point to Al Qaida.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • onelongsong
    onelongsong Posts: 3,517
    farfromglorified wrote:
    I believe in that possibility too. I also believe in the possibility of the reverse.

    It's not "all circumstantial". Circumstantial evidence is a fact that requires competing inferences.

    here's how circumstantial evidence was explained to me:

    there's a 3 foot high tree stump with a turtle sitting on top. it's circumstansial evidence that someone put the turtle there.
  • humanlight
    humanlight Posts: 271
    My God...what has our country come to? Are we serously suggesting that we (America) planned to blow ourselves up and blame it on terrisim? I am not sure but that seems to be what some people on here are saying. I think at the very least it proves everyones distrust in the government...regardless if it is true or false. That is scary b/c this means as citizens we can become very vunerable.
    "F**K you, I have laundry to do" -ed
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    It doesn't stop me from bringing it up as a good question to be discussed. I never said it was solid proof of anything.

    Yet you only ask the "question" in one fashion. You ask "was Larry Silverstein's first statement proof of an inside job theory?" You never ask "was Larry Silverstein's second statement a negation of the inside job theory?" Why is that?
    same with either side.

    The side of logic will never separate itself from fact and causation.
    Can you prove any of that without doubt?

    "A confession by the man responsible"

    http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/79C6AF22-98FB-4A1C-B21F-2BC36E87F61F.htm

    "So with these images and their like as their background, the events of September 11th came as a reply to those great wrongs, should a man be blamed for defending his sanctuary?"

    "Hundreds of dead civilians on four airplanes"

    http://www.coalitionof911families.org/

    "A large scientific inquiry"

    http://www.9-11commission.gov/

    "Pieces of buckled steel supports"

    http://wtc.nist.gov/media/gallery.htm#recover

    Feel free to list your doubts.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    onelongsong wrote:
    here's how circumstantial evidence was explained to me:

    there's a 3 foot high tree stump with a turtle sitting on top. it's circumstansial evidence that someone put the turtle there.

    That's an excellent illustration.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    What proof do you have that these Arabs did it? I can point to PNAC, you can point to Al Qaida.

    I could point to the Salvation Army too, based on your standards. Al Qaeda, however, is the only group that claims responsibility. And it is the only group who those 19 hijackers were funded by. Regardless, you didn't answer my questions so I'll just assume you missed them. Here they are again:

    Do you have evidence that suggests those plans were put together in the US? What US citizen put them together? In which state were they put together?
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    reborncareerist wrote:
    All of the evidence gathered so far in support of the 9-11 conspiracy theories fits this definition.

    Actually, no. The conspiracy theory (at least most of them) still require the evidence that the buildings themselves collapsed. That isn't circumstantial.
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Yet you only ask the "question" in one fashion. You ask "was Larry Silverstein's first statement proof of an inside job theory?" You never ask "was Larry Silverstein's second statement a negation of the inside job theory?" Why is that?

    It would be one thing if I didn't think he may have slipped up in saying the first statement. He was obviously not slipping up when he made the second and i have no reason to believe anything this man says.

    farfromglorified wrote:
    The side of logic will never separate itself from fact and causation.

    never claimed otherwise.

    farfromglorified wrote:
    "A confession by the man responsible"

    http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/79C6AF22-98FB-4A1C-B21F-2BC36E87F61F.htm

    "So with these images and their like as their background, the events of September 11th came as a reply to those great wrongs, should a man be blamed for defending his sanctuary?"

    "Hundreds of dead civilians on four airplanes"

    http://www.coalitionof911families.org/

    "A large scientific inquiry"

    http://www.9-11commission.gov/

    "Pieces of buckled steel supports"

    http://wtc.nist.gov/media/gallery.htm#recover

    Feel free to list your doubts.

    none of this is anymore solid proof than the stuff posted about the other theory.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • onelongsong
    onelongsong Posts: 3,517
    farfromglorified wrote:
    WTC 7 is a relatively short structure in the context of an earthquake theory.



    I believe the prevailing conspiracy theory is an implosion, not an explosion.



    Actually in the case of WTC 7, it happens in reverse. The base of the building became unstable from fires and falling debris. And when you remove the base, the rest collapses.

    1) a short building at the epicenter.
    2) do you know what it takes to implode a structure?
    3) why wouldn't the shock wave weaken the base and the fire compound the situation?
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    sonicreducer wrote:
    why didn't he say, we have to pull the firefighters out of there.

    Tell me, why aren't you asking this question:

    "why didn't he say, we have to blow that building up"?
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    farfromglorified wrote:
    I could point to the Salvation Army too, based on your standards. Al Qaeda, however, is the only group that claims responsibility. And it is the only group who those 19 hijackers were funded by. Regardless, you didn't answer my questions so I'll just assume you missed them. Here they are again:

    Do you have evidence that suggests those plans were put together in the US? What US citizen put them together? In which state were they put together?

    There are questions surrounding the validity of the 'confession' tape. Do you have proof that the tape is the real deal? Nope. You have decided to believe what they have presented you with is enough for you to have faith in it but I haven't. I don't have all the answers but I do have many questions that are not answered.

    I guess you, like I am saying you have solid proof either...just a theory.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Tell me, why aren't you asking this question:

    "why didn't he say, we have to blow that building up"?

    Because that would indicate premeditation. It's called slipping and back peddling.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • parreuss
    parreuss Posts: 3
    for those who haven't seen it... watch the documentary called:

    911 In Plane Site Director's Cut
  • onelongsong
    onelongsong Posts: 3,517
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    none of this is anymore solid proof than the stuff posted about the other theory.

    i can provide URLs that show good evidence that oswald killed jfk; the mafia killed him; and also that castro killed him. links are only as reliable as the author and his opinions on the subject matter.

Categories