-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
911 Truth Movement
- Thread starter Harry
- Start date
Disco08 said:
The whole incoherent thrust of the paper is that there was a massive conspiracy by the "Vulcans" and others to conceal various acts of political dastardry, embezzlement and theft by destroying the records held in WTC by flying planes into it.
Yet you want us to discuss the "facts" and "connections" in the paper without referring to the aforementioned conspiracy.
WTF dude.
antman said:
The conspiracy is made up of facts seemingly obtained from the public record. To disprove it all you have to do is show that the facts presented are false.
The attack on the Pentagon is a good example. The facts are that AA77 flew directly into the ONI. To do that it made the task far harder (arguably too hard for a novice pilot) and ignored far more attractive targets. If these facts are proven correct don't we need to ask why? Or should we just ignore it altogether because the conspiracy it implies is implausible in some peoples opinions?
I haven't had the chance to try and verify many of the other claims made. I'm going to though when I get the time because at face value the case presented is very compelling.
The constant mocking of anything that brings the honesty of such upstanding individuals as the Bush's, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice and Wolfinsky is totally bizarre. Honestly I've seen more rationality while visiting Ray Comfort's blog when I've been feeling a bit low.
Disco08 said:
Yeah good point.
By rejecting inane conspiracy theories we are elevating the *smile* Cheneys and Donald Rumsfelds of the world to the status of saints.
I clearly need to rethink the whole issue, why didn't I see this before.
I'll take that as a compliment. Honestly - well over half this thread would have to be made up of mocking and derision. There's very little rational discussion going on.
Like the AA77 point I made. That'll be roundly ignored but it's a set of facts well worth pondering and digging into.
Like the AA77 point I made. That'll be roundly ignored but it's a set of facts well worth pondering and digging into.
well maybe there is a bit of mocking, but that strawman you just flopped out is hardly "rational discussion" either.Disco08 said:
Is that really how you see this discussion? You and Harry can forward any theory - no matter how ludicrous - and if we don't immediately stroke our chin thoughtfully and mutter "yes, yes that sounds plausible" we are condemned as *smile* Cheney fanbois?
Which strawman is that?
That's not really how is see it but it's not that far off either. How much do you know about Cheney's history for instance? Rumsfeld's? These are the people you guys are basically defending with the contant belittling of any assertion that there is evidence for their complicity.
That's not really how is see it but it's not that far off either. How much do you know about Cheney's history for instance? Rumsfeld's? These are the people you guys are basically defending with the contant belittling of any assertion that there is evidence for their complicity.
And the strawman question?
Cheney was with Haliburton. That's it?
The insistance that any conspiracy is just too complex to be plausible (and the subsequent dismissal of any evidence towards complicity) is an indirect defense of those who were supposedly simply incompetent. If these people were incompetent then we should be putting them firmly under the microscope - not letting them off the hook.
Cheney was with Haliburton. That's it?
evo said:
The insistance that any conspiracy is just too complex to be plausible (and the subsequent dismissal of any evidence towards complicity) is an indirect defense of those who were supposedly simply incompetent. If these people were incompetent then we should be putting them firmly under the microscope - not letting them off the hook.
Talk about twisting the story. A sign of desperation. Dismissing far fetched conspiracy theories is NOT defending anyone.Disco08 said:
But now i will defend them because as far as I know Bushes, Cheney, Rumsfeld are innocent men so its pretty poor form for anyone to be accusing them of complicity to terrorism.
