Originally posted by GoodOlDave
In case it's escaped you, the topic of this thread is whether or not Ted Olson lied to cover up the murder of his wife. Your posting here necessarily
means you have some thoughts on it one way or the other. If you're not going to say what they are then you shouldn't complain when others assume what
your opinion is.
Absolutely I will complain if you or anyone else makes assumptions about what I believe, and then states it is fact. There's another alternative - if
you don't know what my opinion is and you are interested to know, you could ask. Assuming you know what I believe, and then stating that assumption
as fact is not acceptable or factual or honest.
AH HA! you just mentioned one thing the conspiracy people all do agree on regardless of what their conspiracy theory happens to be- the need for
another investigation. Can you concur with THAT observation at least, or do we need to argue needlessly over that too?
Well Dave, I can't speak for all truthers. As you know, that would be extremely foolish. But clearly, I've already stated that a proper, criminal
investigation should be carried out. No, Dave, not 'another investigation' - the first, proper, criminal investigation into 9/11 needs to be carried
I don't understand your train of thought here. If you subscribe to Judy Wood's "Lasers from outer space" theory then you're necessarily agreeing with
me that the conspiracy people aren't waiting for the gov't to prove their case; they're grabbing their own independent scenario and treating it as
If you do NOT subscribe to Judy Wood then you're necessarily agreeing with me that the conspiracy people are having issues getting together and
forming a single consensus.
My train of thought is that if a full, proper, criminal investigation had been carried out, this kind of initiative would not be necessary.
Either way, you're agreeing with me and you're just arguing for argument's sake, here.
No, you are again basing your conjecture on a wrong assumption, and then constructing your own argument around it.
Many people do agree on many things - not everyone agrees on everything. The fact that you seem to be insisting that should be the case is unrealistic
and, frankly ridiculous. The fact is, it doesn't matter, because it's not necessary. Not even all those involved in the Commission Report agree with
it, or even agree it wasn't rigged and corrupt.
That is true...as far as it goes. I am going by Lee Hamilton's position that the 9/11 commission report was a first draft attempt and that subsequent
discoveries may prove much of what they documented as being incorrect....but the existing facts still show that at the end of the day it was still an
attack by foreign terrorists.
The document has been discredited by some of those who were involved in the process. It does not include all the available facts. In any case it was
not a proper, impartial, criminal investigation. That is what is needed.
The problem for you is that not only do you need to prove your case
No - this is an attempt by you to get into a circular argument in order to confuse the issue. I have stated very clearly that for me the issue is
that the government has yet to prove its case, and must do so. It needs to prove its case within the context of a proper, impartial, criminal
investigation, the integrity of which is totally reliable.
, you also need to show how it disproves all the other cases...which gets back to the original situation all over again that you can't even all agree
on what the case you're trying to prove even is.
That would only be the case if formal charges were made by individuals against the government. Those issuing the charges would need to prove their
case, agreed. But the Government has yet to prove its own case, and that needs to be the first step in any credible, official, impartial, criminal
The problem isn't that it isn't just inconclusive to what the conspiracy is. The problem is that it isn't conclusively supporting *any* conspiracy.
I don't need to point out that Judy Wood's "lasers" claim is completely at odds with any of the other claims of controlled demolitions and/or nukes in
the basement, but she has pages of pages of calculations backing her claims up.
Such disagreement is irrelevant at this stage. In a proper, official, criminal investigation, in the case where, for example, the government's story
was evidenced to be inaccurate, all this kind of evidence would be scrutinised and assessed by relevant experts. In a proper criminal investigation,
relevant documents can be obtained under subpeona, relevant witnesses can be questioned, and their testimony would not be kept outside of the
investigation, etc. The purpose of the investigation being to establish the truth as far as it is humanly possible....given the destruction of so much
of the evidence - which also must be subjected to a criminal investigation.
We can't simply brush her off as a crackpot becuase she had enough conviction to file a lawsuit when noone from the controlled demolitions or the no
planes side ever did.
My previous comments pertain. It is possible that the two theories are not mutually exclusive.
Here's the rub you face- you conspiracy people are so splintered amongst yourselves that even if the truth was told...even if it really was the truth
that had been told...not all of you are goign to accept it.
Well, that's more 'your rub' than 'the rub' because that's an assumption you are making. I guess the general response to a proper, criminal
investigation would very much depend on the thoroughness and the integrity of the investigation and the conclusions of such an investigation. Any
disinfo which may have been infiltrated into the truth movement, for example, would be identified as such, through proper investigation. The rest of
your statement is purely your speculation.
If, by some means, it was proven that the towers were brought down by controlled demolitions, do you genuinely thing the "no plane" people or the
"nukes in the basement" people will accept such findings when they don't even accept the 9/11 commission report?
The commission report was not a proper investigation. A proper, official, professional, thorough, transparent, criminal investigation is needed. If
some people have a personal investment in their own 'theory' being right, they may be unhappy if there was definitive proof that their specific theory
was evidenced as not being correct. However, it is my personal impression that a proper, absolutely thorough, open, honest investigation with
credible evidence and conclusions would satisfy many. That's my opinion. I can't speak for others.
You're back in the exact same predicament you were before.
What predicament am I in? I have stated more than once that I don't see these disagreements as a predicament at all, but simply the result of the
fact that no proper, official, criminal investigation has been carried out.
You are the one who seems to imagine a predicament....so it's your predicament, not mine.
All this is neither here nor there- do you believe Ted Olson is lying to cover up the murder of his wife or not?
I don't have enough reliable, specific evidence to have an opinion on that. I do believe there are anomalies about this part of the story, but that
doesn't mean I am saying he is lying.
edit on 3-1-2011 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)
edit on 3-1-2011 by wcitizen
because: (no reason given)