| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
KP50
Validated Poster
Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ
|
 Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 9:59 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| NorthernSoul wrote: | | KP50 wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | Well, KP50, you can easily end this discussion simply by proving your point, can't you? The old maxim is "he who asserts must prove", and you have made assertions about the topology of the area surrounding the Pentagon, so it is up to you to prove it. If you are correct, that should be quite simple for you. |
I could do that couldn't I? But I am rather enjoying the role of the sniping critic, a role you must know very well.
I asked pepik to prove that it was not impossible for the plane to impact the Pentagon flying level as per the CCTV image. So far all he has done is post aerial photos and a photo from Hong Kong. Which doesn't prove anything at all, hence he has failed. I am happy to give him more time if he needs it. |
Need I remind you that the burden of proof is on you? |
I asked pepik to prove it - I thought he was going to at least try. Maybe you can help him? Or maybe you have no idea of the details of the Pentagon incident? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
NorthernSoul
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 22 Mar 2008
Posts: 100
Location: Grimsby
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 9:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| KP50 wrote: | | pepik wrote: | Perhaps you are forgot which example of your brilliance we are currently laughing at. So here's a reminder:
| KP50 wrote: | | the Pentagon would have to be raised up above the surrounding land - it isn't, it is actually well hidden within a well built up area. |
|
So you are ignoring the point at hand ...... |
Which was that in your opinion, the plane couldn't hit the pentagon in the way in your opinion it did because in your opinion the pentagon is in what, in your opinion, would be considered a built up area? Is that about right?
_________________
NorthernSoul
Super Secret NWO Agent
Lt in charge of FEMA Death Camp Delta 2
Call 0800 310 310 to find out where there is an NWO recruitment center near you! Join Today. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KP50
Validated Poster
Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 10:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| NorthernSoul wrote: | | KP50 wrote: | | pepik wrote: | Perhaps you are forgot which example of your brilliance we are currently laughing at. So here's a reminder:
| KP50 wrote: | | the Pentagon would have to be raised up above the surrounding land - it isn't, it is actually well hidden within a well built up area. |
|
So you are ignoring the point at hand ...... |
Which was that in your opinion, the plane couldn't hit the pentagon in the way in your opinion it did because in your opinion the pentagon is in what, in your opinion, would be considered a built up area? Is that about right? |
I said it would be impossible for a plane of that size, travelling at that speed, to impact the Pentagon flying level to and just above the ground. It would have to still be descending due to the previous obstacles in the flight path. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NorthernSoul
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 22 Mar 2008
Posts: 100
Location: Grimsby
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 10:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| KP50 wrote: |
I asked pepik to prove it - I thought he was going to at least try. Maybe you can help him? Or maybe you have no idea of the details of the Pentagon incident? |
But why did you ask him to prove it when the burden of proof is so clearly on you, the Truthers.
That's a rhetorical question, don't waste time answering it. Time that you could use to try to prove some of what you've said, instead of giving us your fact free opinions.
_________________
NorthernSoul
Super Secret NWO Agent
Lt in charge of FEMA Death Camp Delta 2
Call 0800 310 310 to find out where there is an NWO recruitment center near you! Join Today. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NorthernSoul
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 22 Mar 2008
Posts: 100
Location: Grimsby
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 10:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| KP50 wrote: | | I said it would be impossible for a plane of that size, travelling at that speed, to impact the Pentagon flying level to and just above the ground. It would have to still be descending due to the previous obstacles in the flight path. |
And eye witnesses say it was still descending, please look at the statements I linked to earlier for confirmation.
Nontheless as far as I can tell, that is still all just your opinion, at least Pepik is trying to demonstrate his claims rather than repeating them.
_________________
NorthernSoul
Super Secret NWO Agent
Lt in charge of FEMA Death Camp Delta 2
Call 0800 310 310 to find out where there is an NWO recruitment center near you! Join Today. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KP50
Validated Poster
Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 10:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| NorthernSoul wrote: | | KP50 wrote: |
I asked pepik to prove it - I thought he was going to at least try. Maybe you can help him? Or maybe you have no idea of the details of the Pentagon incident? |
But why did you ask him to prove it when the burden of proof is so clearly on you, the Truthers.
That's a rhetorical question, don't waste time answering it. Time that you could use to try to prove some of what you've said, instead of giving us your fact free opinions. |
I wanted to see him do some work for once instead of sitting back and sniping in a smug fashion. Let's face it, if it actually happened, how hard can it be to look at the facts and show how it happened?
I am waiting to see whether it is worth my time posting more details here. From my experience of critics so far, details are carefully avoided in favour of scoffing at other people's work .... maybe you are different as you haven't been around all that long. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sam
Wrecker
Joined: 29 Dec 2007
Posts: 343
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 10:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| KP50 wrote: | | I said it would be impossible for a plane of that size, travelling at that speed, to impact the Pentagon flying level to and just above the ground. It would have to still be descending due to the previous obstacles in the flight path. |
So it would depend on the height of the "obstacles", their distance from The Pentagon, their substance, the speed and mass of the aircraft, its descent angle and its capacity to level-out from that descent.
Please provide your analysis showing it would be impossible for the plane to impact The Pentagon as per the OT.
Please explain why the (very flimsy) obstacles would preclude a level impact. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KP50
Validated Poster
Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 10:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sam wrote: | | KP50 wrote: | | I said it would be impossible for a plane of that size, travelling at that speed, to impact the Pentagon flying level to and just above the ground. It would have to still be descending due to the previous obstacles in the flight path. |
So it would depend on the height of the "obstacles", their distance from The Pentagon, their substance, the speed and mass of the aircraft, its descent angle and its capacity to level-out from that descent.
Please provide your analysis showing it would be impossible for the plane to impact The Pentagon as per the OT.
Please explain why the (very flimsy) obstacles would preclude a level impact. |
You're not reading this thread very well are you? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 11:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| KP50 wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | KP50 wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | Well, KP50, you can easily end this discussion simply by proving your point, can't you? The old maxim is "he who asserts must prove", and you have made assertions about the topology of the area surrounding the Pentagon, so it is up to you to prove it. If you are correct, that should be quite simple for you. |
I could do that couldn't I? But I am rather enjoying the role of the sniping critic, a role you must know very well.
|
But actually that is not your role at all. Your role is of the careless troofer who has half understood or half remembered something on a conspiracy website, and regurgitated it without bothering to check back. Then when you are pulled up on it, you find you cannot justify it, so you have to resort to bluff, bluster, and trying to change the subject. It is a role we often see played out here, nothing new. |
I love it when you use that word "troofer". It really puts me in my place.
Nobody has pulled me up on anything yet, you haven't even posted a decent photo of the flight-path yet. |
Yes, I have pulled you up on your assertion "To hit the light poles it has to be on a descent due to the topography. There isn't time between poles and Pentagon, at high speed, to level a very large airliner. That isn't a scientific description but you can check out the Pilots for Truth site if you are interested. The basic requirement is that for the Pentagon to be hit by a plane flying level and low to the ground, the Pentagon would have to be raised up above the surrounding land - it isn't, it is actually well hidden within a well built up area." and asked you to prove it. You haven't, and in fact it is very clear that you can't, because it is simply untrue. That is what makes you a "troofer", because you are not a truth-seeker. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 8:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
KP, you think you have changed the topic, and you have, just not in the way you intended. We are no longer trying to get you to prove that the Pentagon is "well hidden, in a built up area". Its clear you can't and won't. Its also clear that you ignore evidence that shows this is completely, utterly false.
The topic of this thread is now "how much of a dishonest, evasive, weasel coward is KP50"? The longer you carry on the bigger a fool you make of yourself.
Compare this to Marky. When he said a Bush family member was in charge of WTC security, I pointed out that was wrong. He said "oops" and moved on. End of story.
_________________
"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KP50
Validated Poster
Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 8:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| pepik wrote: | KP, you think you have changed the topic, and you have, just not in the way you intended. We are no longer trying to get you to prove that the Pentagon is "well hidden, in a built up area". Its clear you can't and won't. Its also clear that you ignore evidence that shows this is completely, utterly false.
The topic of this thread is now "how much of a dishonest, evasive, weasel coward is KP50"? The longer you carry on the bigger a fool you make of yourself.
Compare this to Marky. When he said a Bush family member was in charge of WTC security, I pointed out that was wrong. He said "oops" and moved on. End of story. |
You are very predictable - I find that comforting in a changing world. As you well know and I will not tire of repeating, I asked you to prove something for once. And all you have done since then is evade and post aerial photos. You haven't even pointed out the flight path yet, which is all we are interested in. Maybe you don't know the flight path? Is that it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NorthernSoul
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 22 Mar 2008
Posts: 100
Location: Grimsby
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 8:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
Once again, to any truther that doesnt grasp this, the burden of proof is on you. These are your accusations, innocent until proven guilty ring a bell? Prove the government is guilty...
KP50, for perhaps the dozenth time, please show that it was impossible for flight 77 to hit the pentagon the way it did...
The burden of proof is on you
The burden of proof is on you
The burden of proof is on you
Got it yet?
_________________
NorthernSoul
Super Secret NWO Agent
Lt in charge of FEMA Death Camp Delta 2
Call 0800 310 310 to find out where there is an NWO recruitment center near you! Join Today. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TimmyG
Validated Poster
Joined: 04 Apr 2006
Posts: 489
Location: Manchester
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 9:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
i still want to know what an actual expert is.
these debates are pointless.
the burden of proof is on us if we are presenting an full conclusive report of what happened. yes. just like the burden of proof for the official story is on the 9/11 commission. a commission which lee hamilton admits has failed in finding out the full truth.
aggressively defending the right NOT to have any further investigation into 9/11 is madness.
_________________
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 10:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TimmyG wrote: | i still want to know what an actual expert is.
these debates are pointless.
the burden of proof is on us if we are presenting an full conclusive report of what happened. yes. just like the burden of proof for the official story is on the 9/11 commission. a commission which lee hamilton admits has failed in finding out the full truth.
aggressively defending the right NOT to have any further investigation into 9/11 is madness. |
Where the 9/11 Commission failed to get at the full truth, where it was misled and where the 9/11 families are dissatisfied, is why there was such a failure to use all the information received from various sources to prevent the al Qaeda plot.
What actually happened on the day, 19 hijackers seizing four planes and crashing two into the WTC towers and one into the Pentagon is well established, and not in fact disputed with any credibility. If you wish to dispute that, then the burden of proof is on you, to prove that wrong. So far, all the 9/11 truth movement's efforts have failed to disprove any significant part of the 'official story' and it remains a movement simply founded on a belief. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 10:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | You are very predictable - I find that comforting in a changing world. |
Nice weather we're having today. Mmmmm. Anyway, how is the Pentagon "well hidden in a well built up area"? | Quote: | | As you well know and I will not tire of repeating, I asked you to prove something for once. |
Mmmm. How is the Pentagon "well hidden in a well built up area"? Can you show us please? | Quote: | | And all you have done since then is evade and post aerial photos. |
Yes, I provided aerial photos showing that the Pentagon is not "well hidden in a built up area", you provided... ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. Therefore I'm evading and you're not. Welcome to trooferland! | Quote: | | You haven't even pointed out the flight path yet, which is all we are interested in. Maybe you don't know the flight path? Is that it? |
Oh suddenly that's "all" (since when?) "we're" (who?) interested in. I know the flight path, and the photos Bushwhacker and I have provided show all possible directions. The photos you have provided... oh wait you didn't provide any photos. You haven't provided a single thing to back up your claims, and not only do you continue to refuse to do so, you are actually trying to find a way to make it out to be a principled stand.
Keep digging KP. Or show us evidence that the Pentagon is "well hidden in a well built up area".
_________________
"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KP50
Validated Poster
Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 10:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| NorthernSoul wrote: | Once again, to any truther that doesnt grasp this, the burden of proof is on you. These are your accusations, innocent until proven guilty ring a bell? Prove the government is guilty...
KP50, for perhaps the dozenth time, please show that it was impossible for flight 77 to hit the pentagon the way it did...
The burden of proof is on you
The burden of proof is on you
The burden of proof is on you
Got it yet? |
Very tedious - still waiting for you to add anything to any debate on here.
Burden of proof huh? The FDR allegedly from Flight 77 never shows the plane levelling off. Maybe you are asking the wrong person for proof. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KP50
Validated Poster
Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 10:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| pepik wrote: | | Quote: | | You are very predictable - I find that comforting in a changing world. |
Nice weather we're having today. Mmmmm. Anyway, how is the Pentagon "well hidden in a well built up area"? | Quote: | | As you well know and I will not tire of repeating, I asked you to prove something for once. |
Mmmm. How is the Pentagon "well hidden in a well built up area"? Can you show us please? | Quote: | | And all you have done since then is evade and post aerial photos. |
Yes, I provided aerial photos showing that the Pentagon is not "well hidden in a built up area", you provided... ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. Therefore I'm evading and you're not. Welcome to trooferland! | Quote: | | You haven't even pointed out the flight path yet, which is all we are interested in. Maybe you don't know the flight path? Is that it? |
Oh suddenly that's "all" (since when?) "we're" (who?) interested in. I know the flight path, and the photos Bushwhacker and I have provided show all possible directions. The photos you have provided... oh wait you didn't provide any photos. You haven't provided a single thing to back up your claims, and not only do you continue to refuse to do so, you are actually trying to find a way to make it out to be a principled stand.
Keep digging KP. Or show us evidence that the Pentagon is "well hidden in a well built up area". |
I'm still waiting for you to post a decent photo. Aerial photos don't really show us anything do they, you really need a photo more like this.
Then we can start look at the difficulty of hitting the almost the foot of the building while flying level. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NorthernSoul
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 22 Mar 2008
Posts: 100
Location: Grimsby
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 10:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yes it's very tedious, because Truthers can't prove anything they say.
KP, please show how the Pentagon is "well hidden in a built up area" as you claim.
_________________
NorthernSoul
Super Secret NWO Agent
Lt in charge of FEMA Death Camp Delta 2
Call 0800 310 310 to find out where there is an NWO recruitment center near you! Join Today. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KP50
Validated Poster
Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 10:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| NorthernSoul wrote: | Yes it's very tedious, because Truthers can't prove anything they say.
KP, please show how the Pentagon is "well hidden in a built up area" as you claim. |
You're going to tire of this before me you know - although I am getting a bit sleepy - the issue at hand is whether the plane could fly level in the Pentagon as shown in the CCTV footage. Pepik is obsessing about my single phrase because he is comfortable with it, as it enables him to Google scenic tourist shots and claim massive debunking.
Nice avoidance of the FDR issue as well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 11:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | You're going to tire of this before me you know |
I can absolute concede that point, your ability to evade far exceeds my interest in making you admit you were wrong. As I said before, my point has been proved long ago, the only point remaining is precisely how much of a dishonest, evasive, cowardly little weasel you are. | Quote: | | the issue at hand is whether the plane could fly level in the Pentagon as shown in the CCTV footage |
I thought it was the flight path? Or at least it was one post ago. Soon it will be free fall speed and the hijackers who are still alive. And did you know Silverstein admitted that he had them pull WTC7?
"The issue" is changing rapidly as you dance around what anyone who is reading this thread can plainly see: the Pentagon is not well hidden and is not a well built up area. You made a claim but cannot back it up, and no matter how blindingly obvious it is you absolutely refuse under any circumstances to admit it. In your strange thinking if you never admit you are wrong, that, in some bizarre way, is the same thing as being right.
| Quote: | | Pepik is obsessing about my single phrase because he is comfortable with it, as it enables him to Google scenic tourist shots and claim massive debunking. |
Your single phrase is a single lie. The Pentagon is not "well hidden in a built up area". Why do you consider it irrelevant whether or not the things you say here are actually true? | Quote: | | I'm still waiting for you to post a decent photo. Aerial photos don't really show us anything do they, you really need a photo more like this. |
This photo does not show the Pentagon to be well hidden in a built up area. Perhaps you can try again?
_________________
"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 11:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I am still waiting to know why "scenic tourist shots" of the Pentagon are somehow inadmissable! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TimmyG
Validated Poster
Joined: 04 Apr 2006
Posts: 489
Location: Manchester
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 3:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | TimmyG wrote: | i still want to know what an actual expert is.
these debates are pointless.
the burden of proof is on us if we are presenting an full conclusive report of what happened. yes. just like the burden of proof for the official story is on the 9/11 commission. a commission which lee hamilton admits has failed in finding out the full truth.
aggressively defending the right NOT to have any further investigation into 9/11 is madness. |
Where the 9/11 Commission failed to get at the full truth, where it was misled and where the 9/11 families are dissatisfied, is why there was such a failure to use all the information received from various sources to prevent the al Qaeda plot.
What actually happened on the day, 19 hijackers seizing four planes and crashing two into the WTC towers and one into the Pentagon is well established, and not in fact disputed with any credibility. If you wish to dispute that, then the burden of proof is on you, to prove that wrong. So far, all the 9/11 truth movement's efforts have failed to disprove any significant part of the 'official story' and it remains a movement simply founded on a belief. |
well established = proof? i don't know . saying something is well established is quite a loose term.
the 'well established' official story is that bin laden was soley responsible.
i would define proof as something that would at least involve hard evidence. and the FBI say they have none connecting him to the attacks.
_________________
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 3:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| We are talking about where the burden of proof lies, and it lies with you to disprove the 'official theory' which is a complete and consistant account, that fits with all the evidence. If it was proved beyond doubt in all respects, you would simply have to accept it, as it is, it is the only complete account, that fits every aspect of all the known facts and all the available evidence. If you dispute it, the burden is clearly on you to substantiate that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NorthernSoul
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 22 Mar 2008
Posts: 100
Location: Grimsby
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 4:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| KP50 wrote: | | Nice avoidance of the FDR issue as well. |
Well I was trying to keep the focus on the "built up area" issue which you still havnt proved to be true. But right on schedule you've changed the subject.
A recurring theme in this thread has been changing the subject, we've gone through at least 6 different issues and the Truthers have given up on each.
As for the FDR this is one of the funniest claims ever.
You are saying the flight data recorder, found in the wreckage of the pentagon, couldn't be in the pentagon?
So either the FDR was beamed down from Flight 77 Star Trek style
or it was planted there with the wrong information by super secret NWO agents? Why would they plant it there with the wrong information!?
_________________
NorthernSoul
Super Secret NWO Agent
Lt in charge of FEMA Death Camp Delta 2
Call 0800 310 310 to find out where there is an NWO recruitment center near you! Join Today. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NorthernSoul
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 22 Mar 2008
Posts: 100
Location: Grimsby
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 4:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If you can find me an example of professionals such as people working for the NTSB or other, similar, organisations or with the qualifications and experience to analyze the FDR saying it couldn't have been there I would be interested in seeing it.
_________________
NorthernSoul
Super Secret NWO Agent
Lt in charge of FEMA Death Camp Delta 2
Call 0800 310 310 to find out where there is an NWO recruitment center near you! Join Today. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TimmyG
Validated Poster
Joined: 04 Apr 2006
Posts: 489
Location: Manchester
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 4:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | We are talking about where the burden of proof lies, and it lies with you to disprove the 'official theory' which is a complete and consistant account, that fits with all the evidence. If it was proved beyond doubt in all respects, you would simply have to accept it, as it is, it is the only complete account, that fits every aspect of all the known facts and all the available evidence. If you dispute it, the burden is clearly on you to substantiate that. |
ah ok.. well the issue i have here is that you are saying that no-one has the right to say that the official story is not true unless they can proof beyond any doubt that every single piece of it is untrue. at the same time you are saying that any alternative theory has no merit whatsoever unless every single piece of can be proved to be true beyond any doubt.
this is a biased opinion in my mind.
and is further complicated as the people with the authority to tell us what the 'mainstream truth' is are effectively working for the people we suspect to be guilty of the crime. the ones we suspect to be guilty also hold the real evidence and have control over who can examine it.
_________________
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 5:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TimmyG wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | We are talking about where the burden of proof lies, and it lies with you to disprove the 'official theory' which is a complete and consistant account, that fits with all the evidence. If it was proved beyond doubt in all respects, you would simply have to accept it, as it is, it is the only complete account, that fits every aspect of all the known facts and all the available evidence. If you dispute it, the burden is clearly on you to substantiate that. |
ah ok.. well the issue i have here is that you are saying that no-one has the right to say that the official story is not true unless they can proof beyond any doubt that every single piece of it is untrue. at the same time you are saying that any alternative theory has no merit whatsoever unless every single piece of can be proved to be true beyond any doubt.
this is a biased opinion in my mind.
and is further complicated as the people with the authority to tell us what the 'mainstream truth' is are effectively working for the people we suspect to be guilty of the crime. the ones we suspect to be guilty also hold the real evidence and have control over who can examine it. |
That is not at all what I am saying, what I am saying is that the onus is on you to prove some significant part of the official story untrue, if you expect anyone outside the 9/11 movement to press for a new enquiry. You certainly do not have to prove all of it untrue.
Your problem is that you have failed to prove any significant part of the official story untrue, and of course you have not only failed to prove any alternative theory, you have also failed to produce any alternative theory that is in the slightest bit plausible.
That is not a very high hurdle to jump, but you have failed to get off the ground at all. Until you do, you are never going to get a new enquiry. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TimmyG
Validated Poster
Joined: 04 Apr 2006
Posts: 489
Location: Manchester
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 5:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
ok. my misunderstanding.
i personally think theres quite a lot of pieces of the official story that have been demonstrated to be untrue .. to get 100% proof would be quite difficult for me as i don't have the authority or ability to detain suspects, question witnesses etc...
heres a few simple things:
bin laden is meant to have organised the attacks all by himself. the FBI have said he is not wanted for this crime and that there is no hard evidence against him.
flight 77 black box data does not match up with the official narrative.
apparently barbara olsen did call her husband,... but er, now we are told she didn't. its either one or the other. needs to be clarified.
NIST have no conclusive report on wtc7. just a hypothesis. a 47 story steel framed building collapsing on the same day as the attacks at nearly freefall is quite important to get a full picture of what happened. experts in the field have pointed out the kink and signs of a demolition (or atleast forceable collapse of the buillding).
what caused the molten steel at ground zero?
the official story changes significantly if the terrorists involved were funded and organised by us inteligence.. they is testimony from Indira Singh that suggests very strongly that this is the case.
like wise if a 747 really hit the pentagon, why don't the public deserve to see some clear video footage of it ? that would be fairly good proof
proof is quite a strong word and it's definition isn't as simple as it might seem i think. Personally i'm a believer that the only thing i can prove to a 100% degree of certainty is the existance of my own consciousness. everything else is probabilities. i decide what i think is the most probable truth is based on evidence i see.
_________________
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 6:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TimmyG wrote: | ok. my misunderstanding.
i personally think theres quite a lot of pieces of the official story that have been demonstrated to be untrue .. to get 100% proof would be quite difficult for me as i don't have the authority or ability to detain suspects, question witnesses etc...
heres a few simple things:
bin laden is meant to have organised the attacks all by himself. the FBI have said he is not wanted for this crime and that there is no hard evidence against him.
flight 77 black box data does not match up with the official narrative.
apparently barbara olsen did call her husband,... but er, now we are told she didn't. its either one or the other. needs to be clarified.
NIST have no conclusive report on wtc7. just a hypothesis. a 47 story steel framed building collapsing on the same day as the attacks at nearly freefall is quite important to get a full picture of what happened. experts in the field have pointed out the kink and signs of a demolition (or atleast forceable collapse of the buillding).
proof is quite a strong word and it's definition isn't as simple as it might seem i think. Personally i'm a believer that the only thing i can prove to a 100% degree of certainy is the existance of my own consciousness. everything else is probabilities. i decide what i think is the most probable truth based on evidence i see. |
OBL is not said to have organised everything himself, according to Wiki, "the idea for the September 11 plot came from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who first presented the idea to Bin Laden in 1996.[97] At that point, Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda were in a period of transition, having just relocated back to Afghanistan from Sudan.[98] The 1998 African Embassy bombings marked a turning point, with Bin Laden intent on attacking the United States.[98] In late 1998 or early 1999, Bin Laden gave approval for Mohammed to go forward with organizing the plot.[98] A series of meetings occurred in spring of 1999, involving Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Osama bin Laden, and his deputy Mohammed Atef.[98] Bin Laden provided leadership for the plot, along with financial support.[98] Bin Laden was also involved in selecting people to participate in the plot, including choosing Mohamed Atta as the lead hijacker.[99] Mohammed provided operational support, such as selecting targets and helping arrange travel for the hijackers.[98] Bin Laden overruled Mohammed, rejecting some potential targets such as the U.S. Bank Tower in Los Angeles.[100]
In a 2002 interview with Al Jazeera journalist Yosri Fouda, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed admitted his involvement, along with Ramzi Binalshibh, in the "Holy Tuesday operation".[101] Mohammed was arrested on March 1, 2003 in Rawalpindi, Pakistan.[102] Mohammed ultimately ended up at Guantanamo Bay. During US hearings in March 2007, which have been "widely criticized by lawyers and human rights groups as sham tribunals",[103] Mohammed again confessed his responsibility for the attacks, "I was responsible for the 9/11 operation, from A to Z."[104]"
What someone from the FBI said some time ago about why there was no mention of 9/11 on their website description of OBL is hardly the FBI's considered view of the situation. OBL's videos are evidence, whether you accept them or not.
The flight 77 FDR does not match up, according to conspiracy supporters. It was found in the Pentagon, so using data it contained to prove flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon lacks a little logic!
Ted Olson says his wife called him. The story that she has been arrested on the Polish-Austrian border is a bit hard to take seriously when those two countries do not share a common border!
NIST have not concluded their report on WTC7. One expert said it was demolition on the basis of watching a video, but he also said the twin towers were not demolished. The Fire Dept was expecting the building to collapse, on the basis of how long and how seriously it had been burning, it was seen to be distorting prior to collapse.
I am sorry but I do not think any of these things cast serious doubt on the 'official story' |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 6:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
On your two new points, there is some anecdotal hearsay evidence about molten metal at ground zero, but since there was aluminium cladding all over the towers and lead in the stand-by batteries which would melt first, if there was molten metal, they seem more likely. There were fires going for weeks under the debris which could have melted it.
I don't think a 747 hit the Pentagon! There is no reason to suppose that there is any clear video of flight 77 hitting it, for the public to see.
I am afraid that I have never heard of Indira Singh. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
