Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by matrixNIN11
How do you know if that footage, you believe in is not fake?
911 AMATEUR part2
www.youtube.com...
I mean, you are putting a lot of faith in someone’s documentary. If you are going to use this youtube video as your proof, and you are saying these
are the facts, then YOU have to show that it is not a fake or you have to prove it is not disinformation. Looks like the ball is in your court. For
all we know, this video documentary could have been the work of the same masterminds who released the famous Pentagon five frames video footage of the
Boeing slamming into the Pentagon.
the ENTIRE OFFICIAL STORY IS DISINFORMATION TO BEGIN WITH.
so what are you talking about? Before you can say the BOP is on us, you have to FIRST demand that of those who peddle the OFFICIAL STORY!
Why is it that you don't seem to understand something so basic?
You can use your reasoning above, but now the conundrum you and the oct supporters/RPTrs create is that you're using faulty self-destructing logic
that if the documentaries cannot proven they're using original footage, then what they show is not proof and/or fake. So your entire logic is built
on an already unproven CONSPIRACY THEORY that continues being exposed for the LIE it is. Not a very a WISE choice to put all your marbles into.
EVERYONE with a brain thats done the research knows the OCT is total BS.
With that said and known if you're an intelligent person, you're betting, assuming and putting MORE FAITH ON THE BELIEF that these VIDEOS such as SC
that claim to expose fakery, are fake, tampered with, not trustworthy and/or not taken from the originals etc.
thats really the ONLY reasoning you people have as a basis for your argument. There's not too much question that there's fakery imo. But the only
real argument/logic OCT and RPT defenders have to deny this fakery is that THE ANALYSIS IS NOT FROM THE ORIGINAL WHEN IN FACT WE'RE SAYING IT IS.
And with all thats known about the OCT being BS and 911 being an inside job, the claims and evidence of fakery being exposed should at least be given
the benefit of the doubt and given far more credibility than those who cling to the OCT and what it claims about REAL PLANES ie Flight 11, 175, 77 and
93!
The other problem you create is that because its allegedly not the original and can't be proven original or what we see isn't clear due to
compression and pixelation, its therefore not proof or evidence of anything and/or its fake.
So again, the first thing you have to do is PROVE that the oct and the footage it relies on as EVIDENCE/PROOF OF REAL PLANES, PROVES real planes.
It doesn't.
and no one has yet by any means.
Before you can claim NRPT'rs are wrong or that we're using some convoluted reasoning and logic, the burden of proof to PROVE the official story, is
on the government and media and anyone that supports it.
not only have they ALL failed to CONCLUSIVELY PROVE ANYTHING, but the official story has been PROVEN to contain contradictions, flaws, physical
impossibilities, unanswered and unanswerable questions, omissions suppression, and obvious tampering/manipulation of the evidence claimed that
allegedly proves the official conspiracy story.
talk about convoluted... And its this problem which opens up NRPT being far more logic and reasonable to explain things better than the RPT.
for all intents and purposes, all we really have to do is show just ONE contradiction, flaw, physical impossibility, or tampering of the evidence or
suppression and we've demonstrated the official story can not be trusted, relied on or used as evidence for anything.
Once those facts are presented, and we present counter-evidence showing how there's no conclusive evidence of a plane, that fact alone actually
validates NRPT, which you still don't even seem to understand.
you claim there's no evidence of NRP, yet you have yet to show how and where the evidence being presented, is wrong. All you or the RPT camp present
are opinions, conjecture, speculation and hearsay or silence, and then say oh but the burden of proof is on you to prove whats never been proven to
begin with!!! good gawd you people are unreal.
[edit on 21-4-2009 by matrixNIN11]
