111 replies to this topic

[Babe Ruth]

flyingswan, on 25 November 2012 - 11:13 AM, said:

If the debris contained any incriminating evidence, what would be the advantage of giving it to a foreign power?

Good heavens man, the advantage would be the removal and destruction of evidence.  That's a no brainer, and that is precisely what happened, both at WTC, the Pentagon and Shanksville.

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 26 November 2012 - 07:32 PM, said:

Good heavens man, the advantage would be the removal and destruction of evidence.  That's a no brainer, and that is precisely what happened, both at WTC, the Pentagon and Shanksville.

The 9/11 conspiracist were responsible for distorting the facts on evidence, not the U.S. government.

[Babe Ruth]

Destruction of evidence is what the government is all about.  That is not a profound statement, and even the movie Argo shows that dynamic in action, as the employees at the US Embassy in Tehran were busy beavers destroying evidence as the hordes came over the fence.

I understand the process, and consider it good under certain conditions.  The point is that claiming the government does not destroy evidence is an absurd claim.

And the destruction of evidence and utter compromise of the crime scene at WTC was blatant and observed and commented on by many.

No evidence, no crime, is the operative philosophy.  That's how the government works, I'm sad to report, and it's been demonstrated many times over many years.

[flyingswan]

Babe Ruth, on 26 November 2012 - 07:32 PM, said:

Good heavens man, the advantage would be the removal and destruction of evidence.

Destruction of evidence is one thing, giving the evidence to a foreign power is another.

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 27 November 2012 - 02:43 PM, said:

And the destruction of evidence and utter compromise of the crime scene at WTC was blatant and observed and commented on by many.

No evidence, no crime, is the operative philosophy.  That's how the government works, I'm sad to report, and it's been demonstrated many times over many years.

To back up your claim, where's your evidence?

[WoIverine]

Usually skeptics can't see the forest for the trees when it comes to politics. They've been so heavily propagandized, they believe anything they hear. Of course, you could make the same argument against believers as well. Have to find the middle ground and consider all sources, eventually the truth will be realized.

[Likely Guy]

WoIverine, on 27 November 2012 - 08:17 PM, said:

Usually skeptics can't see the forest for the trees when it comes to politics. They've been so heavily propagandized, they believe anything they hear. Of course, you could make the same argument against believers as well. Have to find the middle ground and consider all sources, eventually the truth will be realized.

So then, you have to skeptical of the skeptics on both sides of the issue?

*my head hurts*

Edited by Likely Guy, 27 November 2012 - 09:04 PM.

[Liquid Gardens]

WoIverine, on 27 November 2012 - 08:17 PM, said:

Usually skeptics can't see the forest for the trees when it comes to politics. They've been so heavily propagandized, they believe anything they hear.

Your second sentence contradicts your first, a skeptic by definition does not 'believe anything they hear'.  I think we need to judge who and who isn't a 'skeptic' not just by how they refer to themselves, but by whether we actually see them put skepticism into practice.  Which is not to say the skepticism is perfect, you can go too far of course, just like as you acknowledged 'believers' can.  But skepticism has an extra benefit in that it purposely attempts to account for biases, fallacies, and critical thinking failures to which everyone is naturally prone (which is not to be confused with 'to which everyone is prone to the same extent').

[Babe Ruth]

flyingswan, on 27 November 2012 - 03:46 PM, said:

Destruction of evidence is one thing, giving the evidence to a foreign power is another.

Taking evidence away from the scene of the crime is itself a crime, and as many times the context is lost thereby, can be tantamount to destruction of the evidence.

You're trying to back pedal from an obviously INCORRECT earlier statement.  It's very tough indeed to even attempt to defend a lie.

[JGirl]

Thomas J, on 13 October 2012 - 07:46 PM, said:

Is that Sandra Bullock lol?

no just some internet chick wearing a cat for a hat

[JGirl]

i think it goes like this
the gullible
the heartfelt believers
the fence sitters
the skeptical
the debunkers

at UM we have an abundance of all of these types, but the debunkers are often mistaken for skeptics and the heartfelt believers are often accused of being gullible (usually by the debunkers)
i sit between fence sitter and skeptic usually.
ok if none of that made sense, sorry. it did when i typed it lol

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 27 November 2012 - 09:46 PM, said:

Taking evidence away from the scene of the crime is itself a crime, and as many times the context is lost thereby, can be tantamount to destruction of the evidence.

You're trying to back pedal from an obviously INCORRECT earlier statement.  It's very tough indeed to even attempt to defend a lie.

The website references you have been using are well known for spreading lies.

[flyingswan]

Babe Ruth, on 27 November 2012 - 09:46 PM, said:

Taking evidence away from the scene of the crime is itself a crime, and as many times the context is lost thereby, can be tantamount to destruction of the evidence.

You're trying to back pedal from an obviously INCORRECT earlier statement.  It's very tough indeed to even attempt to defend a lie.

I am not back-pedalling from a statement, or defending anything. I asked a question of Turbs.  I have not had an answer from either him or you.

This is my last try at getting you to understand my point:  Given that the steel from ground zero contained incriminating evidence, why should it be shipped to a foreign country rather than melted down in the US?

[skyeagle409]

flyingswan, on 28 November 2012 - 10:57 AM, said:

Given that the steel from ground zero contained incriminating evidence, why should it be shipped to a foreign country rather than melted down in the US?

Very good point!

[Insaniac]

skyeagle409, on 27 November 2012 - 10:35 PM, said:

The website references you have been using are well known for spreading lies.

No wonder you're familiar with it.