| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
scubadiver
Validated Poster
Joined: 26 Apr 2006
Posts: 1850
Location: Currently Andover
|
 Posted: Sat Aug 19, 2006 9:05 am Post subject: One final question. |
 |
|
As far as I am concerned Jay Ref (or any of you) has not contributed anything substantial to the defence of the Government's version of events. How can you if the FBI have now said that there is no evidence that OBL masterminded the attacks and that the US have said that capturing OBL was not a primary objective when they invaded Afghanistan.
Instead, JR comes out with things like "Occams Razor", "Strawman" and "Logical fallacy". He is condescending, patronizing, sarcastic which suggests to me:
a) he is completely devoid of any kind of human emotion (that is an observation not an insult) if he uses such cold-hearted and calculating words and phrases (like the above). He has no arguments or evidence to support the official events so he has to resort to such obviously shallow methods
and
b) he, and like the rest of you, can't offer any evidence to support the official version of events (even after a few openings by me to allow you to do this including the thread on speculating on the collapse if explosives were not used.).
So I give you the opportunity to explain how the towers collapsed given the picture I posted yet you manage to hijack the thread and ask me to prove that explosives were used. This suggests to me that I put your back against the wall and you feel you have no way out. Hence the sarcasm and hijacking (sorry, no pun intended). It has become a childish tit-for-tat game that I can't be bothered with any more.
I have decided none of you have anything substantial to offer in the way of reasoned argument or discussion to convince me to support the official story. Your case hasn't been proved.
We all agree that there were intelligence warnings going to as far back as 1995 of a 'bojinka' style plot. The "airwave" chatter was so great it was off the scale and the CIA knew of an imminent attack going to happen as far back as May 2001.
I have one final question:
Why wasn't the WTC complex completely shut down? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 19, 2006 1:29 pm Post subject: Re: One final question. |
|
|
| scubadiver wrote: | | So I give you the opportunity to explain how the towers collapsed given the picture I posted yet you manage to hijack the thread and ask me to prove that explosives were used. This suggests to me that I put your back against the wall and you feel you have no way out. |
I answered your challenge:
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=18152#18152 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 19, 2006 1:39 pm Post subject: Re: One final question. |
|
|
| scubadiver wrote: | We all agree that there were intelligence warnings going to as far back as 1995 of a 'bojinka' style plot. The "airwave" chatter was so great it was off the scale and the CIA knew of an imminent attack going to happen as far back as May 2001.
I have one final question:
Why wasn't the WTC complex completely shut down? |
Is there any evidence that they knew the WTC complex was a target? Is there any evidence that they knew when the attack was going to occur? Is there any evidence that they knew the nature of the attack?
This is the extent of what they knew: http://www.cnn.com/2004/images/04/10/whitehouse.pdf
Why stop at shutting down the WTC complex for an indeterminate amount of time (the logistics of which, I hope you realize, would be incredibly difficult, and incredibly unpopular unless the certainty of the intelligence was 100%)? Why not shut down DC? Why not ground all flights? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jay Ref
Moderate Poster
Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Posts: 511
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 21, 2006 4:18 pm Post subject: Re: One final question. |
|
|
| scubadiver wrote: | As far as I am concerned Jay Ref (or any of you) has not contributed anything substantial to the defence of the Government's version of events. How can you if the FBI have now said that there is no evidence that OBL masterminded the attacks and that the US have said that capturing OBL was not a primary objective when they invaded Afghanistan.
|
The government doesn't need to defend itself against your charges as you have no evidence and we have this little "innocent until proven guilty" thing that most of us find to be pretty important.
| Quote: |
Instead, JR comes out with things like "Occams Razor", "Strawman" and "Logical fallacy". He is condescending, patronizing, sarcastic which suggests to me: |
If you cease using fallacy to prop up your lack of evidence.... oh nevermind.
| Quote: |
a) he is completely devoid of any kind of human emotion (that is an observation not an insult) if he uses such cold-hearted and calculating words and phrases (like the above). He has no arguments or evidence to support the official events so he has to resort to such obviously shallow methods |
Appeal to emotion? What does my emotion (or lack thereof) have to do with your failure to find evidence of your claims?
| Quote: |
and
b) he, and like the rest of you, can't offer any evidence to support the official version of events (even after a few openings by me to allow you to do this including the thread on speculating on the collapse if explosives were not used.). |
Bull...evidence abounds and I've quoted and linked to it.
| Quote: |
So I give you the opportunity to explain how the towers collapsed given the picture I posted yet you manage to hijack the thread and ask me to prove that explosives were used. This suggests to me that I put your back against the wall and you feel you have no way out. Hence the sarcasm and hijacking (sorry, no pun intended). It has become a childish tit-for-tat game that I can't be bothered with any more.
I have decided none of you have anything substantial to offer in the way of reasoned argument or discussion to convince me to support the official story. Your case hasn't been proved. |
You are the one who has the burden of proof. Not us.
| Quote: |
We all agree that there were intelligence warnings going to as far back as 1995 of a 'bojinka' style plot. The "airwave" chatter was so great it was off the scale and the CIA knew of an imminent attack going to happen as far back as May 2001.
I have one final question:
Why wasn't the WTC complex completely shut down? |
Because you can't stop living your life just because of a threat. I ride a motorcycle in city traffic everyday. I'm not going to stop living my life to it's fullest just because each day could be my last. Indeed, that fact makes my daily rides even sweeter.
It's called courage. You either live with it, or it's no kind of life at all.
-z
_________________
"Knowledge is good"
-Emil Faber
"God in heaven. Here's the hard-headed, evidence-only freak who will not, like we CTers, indulge himself in self-inflating, utterly misconceived fantasies." -kbo234 (who is NOT a nazi) briefly makes sense |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 11:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Please do not post the same article to multiple threads.
You can post it on one thread, then post a link, possibly.
_________________
Andrew
Ask the Tough Questions, Folks! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
