THERE IS NO EVIDENCE!

BlueAngel · #1 09-15-2007, 02:21 PM

That 911 was an inside job.

There is no evidence.

That the Twin Towers collapsed due to a controlled demolition.

There is no evidence unless someone who actually wired the Twin Towers for demolition; unless someone who planted the bombs inside the towers; unless someone within the military who has knowledge that a stand down was ordered, etc., etc., etc. comes forward with undisputeable evidence and not merely their words.

Not one man, but many.

Until then, folks, we are conspiracy theorists and I'm happy to say so!

George_Bush · #2 09-15-2007, 02:34 PM

Quote:

BlueAngel wrote:
That 911 was an inside job.

There is no evidence.

That the Twin Towers collapsed due to a controlled demolition.

There is no evidence unless someone who actually wired the Twin Towers for demolition; unless someone who planted the bombs inside the towers; unless someone within the military who has knowledge that a stand down was ordered, etc., etc., etc. comes forward with undisputeable evidence and not merely their words.

Not one man, but many.

Until then, folks, we are conspiracy theorists and I'm happy to say so!

That 911 was an outside job.

There is no evidence.

That the Twin Towers collapsed due to airplane impact.

There is no evidence unless someone who actually flew the airplanes; unless someone who proves that there were no bombs inside the towers; unless someone within al quaeda who has knowledge that an attact was ordered, etc., etc., etc., comes forward with undisputeable evidence and not mearely their words.

Not one man, but many.

Until then, folks, the FBI are conspiracy theorists and I'm happy to say so!

BlueAngel · #3 09-15-2007, 02:36 PM

There is no evidence that the Twin Towers collapsed due to the impact of aircraft.

George_Bush · #4 09-15-2007, 02:38 PM

Quote:

BlueAngel wrote:
There is no evidence that the Twin Towers collapsed due to the impact of aircraft.

There is evidence that the Twin Towers collapsed due to controlled explosives.

BlueAngel · #5 09-15-2007, 03:44 PM

Unless there are individuals who attest to their involvement in OPERATION 911, everything else is considered here-say and a conspiracy theory.

The same as JFK.

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.

True as it may be, but here-say.

Unless there is convincing and compelling witness testimony.

George_Bush · #6 09-15-2007, 03:56 PM

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.

Hanso · #7 06-24-2009, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by George_Bush

There is evidence that the Twin Towers collapsed due to controlled explosives.

There is?!! In that case...RUN, RUN FOR YOUR LIVES

IT'S A CONSPIRACY!!

EireEngineer · #8 10-09-2009, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlueAngel

There is no evidence that the Twin Towers collapsed due to the impact of aircraft.

Split hairs much? It was the resulting fire, not the impact, that caused the collapse.

BlueAngel · #9 10-09-2009, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EireEngineer

Split hairs much? It was the resulting fire, not the impact, that caused the collapse.

The impact of the aircraft is what has been reported as having precipitated the fires.

So, no, I don't split hairs much.

EireEngineer · #10 10-09-2009, 11:14 PM

You should upgrade to Mozilla Firefox. It has a built in spell checker, which helps us left brained folk out a ton. If it wasnt fire, what do you think brought down the towers, out of curiosity?