There's no evidence in any of this, only you ranting on mindlessly about how much more likely the actual reported turn of events actually is, which I don't dispute. However, I would like to point out that the planted bombs that you're referencing, uhm... no one had to worry about timing the explosion to coincide with the planes hitting. I think the planes did a satisfactory job creating their own explosion.robtronik wrote:You really want to get into it? I'm just having fun with you right now. If want to debate, I'm up for it.Spikee wrote:So I guess that means that I win? I mean, that's hardly a retort.robtronik wrote:spikee, you are on conspiracy crack.
rob.
That's why I've bought into this conspiracy for 3 years now -- every time I argue with someone all that I do is pin them into a corner.
EDIT: I guess its better to blindly believe happy fairy tales and just take whatever's fed to you at face value than to become a champion of the notion that if you're not exhibiting all of the evidence, you are not doing enough to keep my spirit at ease. This country was built on asking questions, questioning authority and demanding that your government work harder tomorrow than what its designed to today. Buy hey, ignorance is bliss, right?
Tell Santa and the tooth fairy that I said hi, and don't forget to take your Soma!
I'll start here with your retort:
This is where you reveal your total bias into believing your viewpoint is right. Any time someone makes that statement at the beginning of their post, they have little to no room for an opposing viewpoints. Sigh. But I'll see what I can do.Spikee wrote: Bottom Line
I also chuckle at the "I won" point. What we in? Grade school? Let's do this:
Okay - do the calculation: which is more likely:there's simply not enough empirical data to validate or invalidate whatever belief you carry. You say that the chances are remote that a cover-up would work; I say that there's only a remote chance that an inept pilot could fly a Boeing, of all things, 4 feet above the ground, missing cars and formidible landscape. Do I have proof of a small plane or missile hitting the Pentagon? No. But do you have proof of a Boeing full of innocent civs and terrorists hitting the Pentagon? No sir, you do not.
1- terrorist hijacks plane. Flies it into the pentagon. Other terrorists hijacks other planes, flies those into various buildings and one field. Osama and Al Qaeda also claim that they are behind it via released tapes and broadcasts on Al Jazerra. They are also a sworn enemy of the United States. They have attacked the U.S. before and there is precedence.
2 - all of the above occurs WITH the help of the U.S. government. We also blow up our own portion of the pentagon to make it look more "real". No leaks from any government agency or individual that might have been involved in said conspiracy have come forward. Only speculation by OUTSIDE analysis that would otherwise be conjecture, theory, and stretching of known facts and truth to fit their world view of a manipulative, fascist, and imperialist government.
Somehow all of the above happened according to scenario 2. RIIIGHT.
And I have some beachfront land in wichita that I'd love to sell to you too.
Hey, I have a theory that you are a witch. Less test you to find out if it is true. I'll hold you underwater. If you drown, then you weren't a witch and I was wrong. At least you are going to heaven! If you don't drown, then you are a witch and we'll have to kill you.Can there be proof of a controlled demolition in NYC? No, the rubble's been disposed of (quite illegally and foolishly I must add). However, do you have proof that there was no explosion and jet fuel that burns that 1300 fahrenheit could cause a skyscraper to collapse and land on its own footprint, in only ~90 minutes? No, you do not.
You know what? Either way you die.
I use this as example of your logic. Can you disprove that it wasn't simply a terrorst flying a plane into the pentagon?
NO. In fact, there is more evidence that this is what occured than the conspiracy you are so inclined to uphold.
Go read the popular mechanics articles for a better understanding of the physics involved with the planes.
YOU KNOW else is totally remarkable about a controlled demolition?
You have to plant bombs. Lots of them. In both buildings. Since most of the people escaped out of the buidlings, you might have people that would wonder about the placement of these things beforehand and afterword when they blew up the building.
You might have to wonder how a plane hitting the building wouldn't cause a disruption in the ability to blow up said bombs in a coordinated fashion.
You might have to wonder how they BLEW THEM UP at the exact time the plane hit.
You might have to wonder where those people are that had to secure the explosives, place them, and then be aware of the plot, and then blow them up at the right time.
WOW. Lot's of depencies there. My money is on the planes freakin' blew up with tons of jet fuel, compromised the integrity of the building. What did you expect? For it to fall over sideways?
LOL.
If you believe NEVER will validate either side, then you are resigned to saying that your theory of conspiracy can NEVER be disproven - even in the face of simple logic, probability and, most importantly, facts.Some of us choose to not start threads about these things and their validity. Some of us know that there will NEVER be sufficient evidence to prove either point. So why don't you just come sit back with the rest of us instead of crusading on points you'll never be able to definitively prove?
And then you wonder why people like me don't want to engage lunacy that you advocate w/o the ability to change your mind.
At this point, its comedy to me - and why I'd rather just rile you up rather than engage, because you guys are more dogmatic than any reasonable POV (like mine) could ever be.
rob.
Other than that, you have debunked nothing, nor have you explained nothing. All you've done is further proved me right that the truth of 9/11 is absolutely unquantifiable at this present moment, and have added no new truth to the discussion. And if odds, improbabilities and speculation add up to fact, then you can give the Wichita beachfront property to your friend the tooth fairy.And the best part is, you talk about riling me up but you're the one that drops the 25 page diatribe. Well done, I really need a valium now!
And thanks to Smutek for doing a wonderful job of showing our friend Robotnik what the difference between a round of analyzing speculation and a round of analyzing fact is.
) to really explore it.