Panthera tigris FC said:
Wow duckman. Seems a bit harsh on KR just for disagreeing with your conclusions (he is not alone there). He has always appeared to provide his justification for those disagreements.
Pffft. Among others:
KnightersRevenge said:
You jump from one mish-mash of supposition and conjecture to the next and seem incredulous and sometimes vitriolic when others don't acquiesce to your reasoning.
You reckon that's a fair assesment mate?
Feel free not to answer that. I'm happy with my decision and don't need your affirmation.
Panthera tigris FC said:
Nothing in that second paragraph is remotely convincing (unless you are looking to connect the dots for a foregone conclusion).
You keep disregarding the points where you have posted inaccurate information as justification for your conclusions. When these have been pointed out and conceded by yourself, instead of questioning the conclusions that you had drawn from them, you appear to raise other questions that again tend to be circumstantial, or in some cases plain nonsensical (why would someone plant a passport? why was WTC7 such a juicy target? why the questions about the pentagon?). You also claim that you just think an independent enquiry is justified (based on what? how would you ensure independence anyway? The U.S. won't allow their citizens to be tried in the International Courts, do you think they would provide such sensitive material related to 9/11 to independent arbiters?). You generally make well reasoned posts on other threads that we have been involved in, but you appear to have drawn a conclusion here and are looking for any evidence, circumstantial or not, that will fit that conclusion. When I look at the sum of the evidence, I see nothing significant to suggest something as nefarious as an inside plot or complicity.
Could you tell me why you don't find my reasoning remotely convincing rather than just making that assertion?
Can you give me an example of your first point in paragraph 2? I honestly don't think it's true at all. Can you also tell me what definitive conclusions I've drawn and what inaccurate information I used to justify them?
*I don't know why someone would plant a passport. To me it certainly implies foreknowledge though, which was the point I was making. Do you think it's feasible that Satam al-Suqami's passport escaped the wreckage of AA11 unharmed and ended up on Vesey Street?
*I don't know why WTC7 was demolished (if this is the case, I'm not saying it is definitively). I'm only trying to discuss the evidence.
*Why not question the manouvres performed by AA77 when so many experts insist it is impossible for pilots such as the supposed hijackers to make them?
*I think an independent inquiry is required because a) the first one was terribly compromised, even in the opinion of both co-chairmen, b) Bush and Cheney's actions and decisions clearly contributed to the outcome of these events and they've never had to testify on the record. much less take responsibility, c) so many experts from various fields not only question the OR but ridicule it and d) The victim's families deserve much better than that.
*An independent inqury can be commissioned at any time and can also be given the same powers as an official commission. Experts from other countries can be part of that investigative team. There'd be no need to try anyone in international courts.
Thanks for the kind words. I can assure you though that I haven't drawn a conclusion any more than you have and am trying to judge the available evidence as objectively as possible, as you try to do I'm sure. We just happen not to agree. I don't see why everyone in the same boat has to see this as a reason to insist I'm being irrational. If we spent as much time discussing the evidence as we have dissecting my motive and posting style we'd probably have solved the whole case by now.
