Quote:
BlueAngel wrote:
Unless there are individuals who attest to their involvement in OPERATION 911, everything else is considered here-say and a conspiracy theory.
|
False-premise and unsubstantiated assertion -- your approach would not stand up in a court of law.
Quote:
BlueAngel wrote:
The same as JFK.
|
False-premise and unsubstantiated assertion -- your approach would not stand up in a court of law.
Quote:
BlueAngel wrote:
All that we saw with our naked eye; all that occurred that is illogical and defies the laws of nature and realm of possibilities that brings us to the conclusion that 911 was an inside job, will always and forever remain a conspiracy.
The same as JFK.
|
Again, False-premise and unsubstantiated assertion -- your approach would not stand up in a court of law and is in itself a logical contradiction.
Quote:
BlueAngel wrote:
True as it may be, but here-say.
|
You mean "HEARSAY"?
Quote:
BlueAngel wrote:
Unless there is convincing and compelling witness testimony.
|
There is convincing and compelling witness testimony. There are multiple credible witnesses. Their testimony is compelling. And their testimony is convincing because it matches. This is called "Having a case." This has moved beyond theory into the realm of testimony, and demonstrative evidentiary proof.