The state of 9/11 Truth: not pretty

page: 16
2
<< 13  14  15   >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


bs, I guess I touched a nerve. Didn't mean to....

I suppose, conspiracies will exist, always and ever. JFK has gotten lots of traction, but RFK hasn't. Why!?!? Since I'm in the 1968 era, what about Martin Luther? Why the silence, compared to the HUGE JFK stuff?

OK, back to now....let's tear this thing (9/11) down, and find the conspirators, if they exist! Seriously, if this was a psych-op, then it MUST be revealed! Because, while trying to keep politics out of it, we can't when we consider the nature of USA political nature, and the subsequent actions of these traitors...(Oops, I just revealed MY bias...)




posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas

Second, as I have shown here and countless others have shown elsewhere, the 9/11 Commission Report is flawed in a great many ways, as confirmed by the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Commission.


That's right...

Here it is at last - a point upon which we can finally agree. The 9/11 Commission is flawed.

Originally posted by jthomas
...but my statement as to their conclusions is not one of them.

Well, if you choose to trust the conclusions of report you now acknowledge is flawed, then that's up to you.

I don't.



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by coughymachine

Originally posted by jthomas

Second, as I have shown here and countless others have shown elsewhere, the 9/11 Commission Report is flawed in a great many ways, as confirmed by the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Commission.


That's right...

Here it is at last - a point upon which we can finally agree. The 9/11 Commission is flawed.

Originally posted by jthomas
...but my statement as to their conclusions is not one of them.

Well, if you choose to trust the conclusions of report you now acknowledge is flawed, then that's up to you.

I don't.


The 9/11 Commission Report does have flaws, but the "flaws" are unrelated to the conclusions about the attacks of 9/11.

In other words, that 19 Arab hijackers took over four planes and crashed them into WTC 1, 2, and the Pentagon, with one crashing in Pennsylvania, was already established before the Commission was, and nothing has been demonstrated to the contrary.



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 

I'm just delighted to have demonstrated the following:

  • You are dishonest
  • There is an 'official' account of the events of 9/11
  • The 9/11 Commission Report is flawed in many ways
  • Notwithstanding the above, you agree with the Report's conclusions

And to think, you started this thread to argue that the state of 9/11 Truth was not pretty.



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 01:37 PM
link   
I'll stick with the evidence.



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas

In other words, that 19 Arab hijackers took over four planes and crashed them into WTC 1, 2, and the Pentagon, with one crashing in Pennsylvania, was already established before the Commission was, and nothing has been demonstrated to the contrary.


Official Story Soundbite (tm)

Might those other words be: Robert Zelikow?



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by gottago

Originally posted by jthomas

In other words, that 19 Arab hijackers took over four planes and crashed them into WTC 1, 2, and the Pentagon, with one crashing in Pennsylvania, was already established before the Commission was, and nothing has been demonstrated to the contrary.


Official Story Soundbite (tm)

Might those other words be: Robert Zelikow?


No, just the convergence of thens of thousands of pieces of evidence, documents, interviews, scientific and forensic studies, and eyewitness testimony on a conclusion completely independent of whatever the government has or wishes to say about it.



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
I'll stick with the evidence.


Why not share it with the rest of us?

Are you still looking for NIST's demonstration of global collapse inevitability?



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 

Yes, you stick with the evidence developed by a Commission that was set up to fail and whose Official Report is based in part on lies.

Yes, that makes perfect sense.



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by coughymachine
reply to post by jthomas
 

Yes, you stick with the evidence developed by a Commission that was set up to fail and whose Official Report is based in part on lies.


Your premise is wrong. The evidence never depended on the 9/11 Commission nor was it "developed" by the 9/11 Commission.



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by jthomas
I'll stick with the evidence.


Why not share it with the rest of us?

Are you still looking for NIST's demonstration of global collapse inevitability?


I gave you all the info you needed to understand it. Keep on reading it.



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 

Is it your position that the 9/11 Commission never developed any evidence relating to the events of 9/11?



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
I gave you all the info you needed to understand it. Keep on reading it.


You gave me everything, except what I asked for: NIST's demonstration of inevitability of global collapse.

Talking yourself in circles, isn't the same as showing me the scientific demonstration you claimed. I don't want to talk in circles. I want the demonstration. Why not in your next post?



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 08:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by RexxCrow

Originally posted by BlueRaja

And it is quotes and logic such as this that only serve to obfuscate the actual truth for the purpose of discrediting others, whom do not share their view. This is a blatant and pathetic attempt and for the record it does not deter me from where I stand on this issue. As far as who did when only they know that, the evidence will speak for itself and it will tell the jurors just exactly, whom did what and when and how and why. That is not the job of any Truther or Freedom Fighter and they know it just as much as you do. You are just to ashamed to admit that you could have been played like a harp. I guess all of that training at the CIA has paid off for you eh? (that was a joke BTW).


I see it the same way.
Sad how some people are hopelessly indoctrinated. Some are to stuck up to even consider things.



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas

In other words, that 19 Arab hijackers took over four planes and crashed them into WTC 1, 2, and the Pentagon, with one crashing in Pennsylvania, was already established before the Commission was, and nothing has been demonstrated to the contrary.


This was the official version of events reported by the media within hours of the attack, so when you say "thousands of people and pieces of evidence", were they all verified in the short time between the attacks and when the "truth" was "stated" to the world?

The 911 Commission didn't start looking at "evidence" until more than a year later.



posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Taxi-Driver



Gurm, ya think? The US blasting Afghanistan in 1998 with tons of cruise missles is pretty well documented too. Ya see, the WORLD and the Taliban were NOT exactly seeing eye-to-eye back round the turn of the century. Partly because they harbored known terrorists, and partly because of stark civil rights atrocities.



I think it might have had more to do with poppies...



posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 03:35 PM
link   
dupe post

[edit on 24-3-2008 by tha stillz]



posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by tha stillz
 


And don't forget that pipeline. The poppies only pay the rent at Langley.

And more generally, war is good for business--especially if it's in backward places that have lots of oil, natural gas and poppies, and particularly if you happen to be ex-oilpersons (can't forget Condi!), sons of top spooks, and former CEOs of top military contractors.



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Unplugged

Originally posted by RexxCrow

Originally posted by BlueRaja

And it is quotes and logic such as this that only serve to obfuscate the actual truth for the purpose of discrediting others, whom do not share their view. This is a blatant and pathetic attempt and for the record it does not deter me from where I stand on this issue. As far as who did when only they know that, the evidence will speak for itself and it will tell the jurors just exactly, whom did what and when and how and why. That is not the job of any Truther or Freedom Fighter and they know it just as much as you do. You are just to ashamed to admit that you could have been played like a harp. I guess all of that training at the CIA has paid off for you eh? (that was a joke BTW).


I see it the same way.
Sad how some people are hopelessly indoctrinated. Some are to stuck up to even consider things.


You all might want to look in the mirror from time to time. You're absolutely certain that you're right, and absolutely certain that anyone with different opinions couldn't possibly have arrived at them based upon anything other than indoctrination.





new topics
top topics
 
2
<< 13  14  15   >>

log in

join