1810 replies to this topic

[Babe Ruth]

We can trust only the government statements.  The statements of ordinary citizens are suspect, and if they contradict the Official Conspiracy Theory, they are flat out wrong.

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 05 July 2012 - 04:42 PM, said:

We can trust only the government statements.  The statements of ordinary citizens are suspect, and if they contradict the Official Conspiracy Theory, they are flat out wrong.

It is what the evidence depicts.

You have 9/11 CT folks claiming that no aircraft crashed at Shanksville nor at the Pentagon despite non-government eyewitnesses accounts of recovered aircraft wreckage and remains of human bodies from those crash sites at which point other 9/11 CT folks claimed that United 93 was shot down despite the fact that pilots had orders to conduct a CAP over Washington D.C., not over Shanksville.

Edited by skyeagle409, 05 July 2012 - 06:04 PM.

[MID]

Nathan Jones, on 02 July 2012 - 05:44 AM, said:

I think it was an inside job because there's no proof that the government didn't do it.

Unfortunately, Nathan, there's no possibility of you ever satisfying your actual burden of proof in this matter.

Good luck!

Edited by MID, 06 July 2012 - 10:56 PM.

[MID]

MID, on 06 July 2012 - 10:56 PM, said:

Unfortunately, Nathan, there's no possibility of you ever satisfying your actual burden of proof in this matter.

Good luck!

It apparently, I was right...
That proving the government did it thing must've been too much....

It's OK, no one else has ever come close to proving that.

Edited by MID, 14 October 2012 - 06:23 PM.

[Babe Ruth]

Nobody I'm aware of can prove the Official Conspiracy Theory.  They can't even prove the airplanes were hijacked by the named critters, and they cannot prove that 77 crashed at the Pentagon.

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 15 October 2012 - 02:00 PM, said:

Nobody I'm aware of can prove the Official Conspiracy Theory. They can't even prove the airplanes were hijacked by the named critters, and they cannot prove that 77 crashed at the Pentagon.

The official story has already been proven with facts and evidence, and the amazing thing about that is, you know it.

[RaptorBites]

Babe Ruth, on 15 October 2012 - 02:00 PM, said:

Nobody I'm aware of can prove the Official Conspiracy Theory.  They can't even prove the airplanes were hijacked by the named critters, and they cannot prove that 77 crashed at the Pentagon.

Wrong.

Evidence has been presented on behalf of the OCT.  Just because you dismiss them as eivdence because they do not support your theories does not make them go away.

In fact, all this time and you have yet been able to provide any evidence that can hold up to scruitny.

[Babe Ruth]

Nor have you been able to prove the official narrative Raptor, and so we are back to the stalemate.

Mere repetition of government statements is proof of nothing.

Amendment after amendment of such records as passenger manifests, so that they will finally comport with the Official Story is ACTUALLY evidence of fraud, somehow or other.

Explosions in the basement before the airplane strike is evidence of SOMETHING, that's for sure.

[Czero 101]

Babe Ruth, on 15 October 2012 - 07:14 PM, said:

Nor have you been able to prove the official narrative Raptor, and so we are back to the stalemate.

No we are not at a stalemate.

Raptor, nor anyone else has any obligation to back up the Accepted Fact of what happened on 9/11.

You however have all the burden to prove that your version of events is what happened, something you have been unable and unwilling to do and have aggressively avoided.





Cz

[Professor Buzzkill]

Czero 101, on 15 October 2012 - 07:56 PM, said:

No we are not at a stalemate.

Raptor, nor anyone else has any obligation to back up the Accepted Fact of what happened on 9/11.

You however have all the burden to prove that your version of events is what happened, something you have been unable and unwilling to do and have aggressively avoided.





Cz

That seems fair. One side has billions of dollars to spend supporting their theory and one man on the internet with no backing cannot prove it wrong.

That has settled it for me then...

[MID]

Babe Ruth, on 15 October 2012 - 02:00 PM, said:

Nobody I'm aware of can prove the Official Conspiracy Theory.  They can't even prove the airplanes were hijacked by the named critters, and they cannot prove that 77 crashed at the Pentagon.

Well, except for the fact that they did prove all that, I suppose there a shred of something in your comments.

Who do you know who is a part of the actual investigation--you know, all those scientists and engineers who did the astute, professional work??

Oh, snd incidentally, there was no Official Conspiracy Theory advanced by anyone in this case (**).

I know it's impossible to comprehend for you, but these qualified people I referred to put out a report and a detailed engineering analysis on what occurred on 9-11-01.

The only "theory" advanced has been the one advanced by people who have no professional grade knowledge or skill sets concerning the matter, have no professional responsibility to engage in an investigation / analysis, and are somehow still posessed of an elementary distrust of all authority.

That's people like you, B.R., the people who actually do craft Conspiracy theories about these cases.

The Official Investigation didn't craft a theory.  They merely explained what happened.  I know that's not necessarily acceptible for people who don't have the requisite knowledge level and aren't  capable of reading and understanding the reports.

But they did produce the required reports, and they were well understood...by those of us who know about this stuff, and can read and understand the technish.



(**) That's a simplistic, and erroneous crafting of people like you, who can't understand the real thing.

Edited by MID, 15 October 2012 - 08:20 PM.

[RaptorBites]

Babe Ruth, on 15 October 2012 - 07:14 PM, said:

Nor have you been able to prove the official narrative Raptor, and so we are back to the stalemate.

Wrong BR.  Evidence has already been presented to you hundreds if not thousands of times.

Babe Ruth, on 15 October 2012 - 07:10 PM, said:

Mere repetition of government statements is proof of nothing.

Was my findings of the Ross and Furlong's paper from a government statement?
Was Wally Miller's statement regarding the twisting of his words by CT's a government statement?
Was my review on Steven Jone's paper about the inconsistancies and lack of aluminum oxide in quantity consistant with a thermitic reaction a government statement?

Babe Ruth, on 15 October 2012 - 07:10 PM, said:

Amendment after amendment of such records as passenger manifests, so that they will finally comport with the Official Story is ACTUALLY evidence of fraud, somehow or other.

And yet the media has the habit of giving out improper information on initial reports and having to correct itself ALL the time.

Babe Ruth, on 15 October 2012 - 07:10 PM, said:

Explosions in the basement before the airplane strike is evidence of SOMETHING, that's for sure.

We already spoke about that BR.  Can you conclusivly prove my analysis of the Ross and Furlong paper incorrect?

[RaptorBites]

Professor Buzzkill, on 15 October 2012 - 08:04 PM, said:

That seems fair. One side has billions of dollars to spend supporting their theory and one man on the internet with no backing cannot prove it wrong.

That has settled it for me then...

Except you do not know the posting history of BR.

I will give you a short form.

BR: no plane crashed at the Pentagon
OCT: there's photos of 757 parts all over the place inside and outside the pentagon
BR: it was planted
OCT: by who
BR: i don't know, the government lies all the time spo it makes sense it was planted.
OCT:  /facepalm

BR: there was no plane at shanksville
OCT: bodies were found and identified at the crash site, including pieces of UA flight 93
BR: but Coroner Wally Miller said there was no bodies
OCT: taken out of context, there were no bodies but only bits and pieces of body parts
BR: Wally Miller was paid to lie and retract his statement
OCT: /facepalm

BR: i once heard nukes were used to bring down the WTC, how else can anyone explain the intense heat, hot enough to melt paint and tires
OCT: what about nuclear fall out?
BR: it was only something i heard, i dont know
OCT: /facepalm

I can go on and on, but thats the basic jist of it.

[Czero 101]

Professor Buzzkill, on 15 October 2012 - 08:04 PM, said:

That seems fair. One side has billions of dollars to spend supporting their theory and one man on the internet with no backing cannot prove it wrong.

That has settled it for me then...

So you're saying that its ok for someone to make ridiculous claims based on personal incredulity and ignorance, claim that evidence exists to support his position and then flatly refuse to provide any form of evidence and to do everything he can - including lying about his ability to use a computer - to deflect the attention from the fact that he has no evidence to support his position?

I am just one man on the internet, yet I was able to use freely available evidence to prove TO YOU that neither the impact of Flt. 77 into the Pentagon nor the Pentagon itself could be seen or should have been able to have been visible on the video footage from the Doubletree hotel. The only thing I spent was time.

BR says the evidence exists to prove him right, yet does everything he can - including lying about his computer skills - to avoid and deflect his burden of proof.

The bottom line here is that the "official narrative" of 9/11 is the accepted fact of that day, regardless of whether you or anyone else believes it. People who bring up other theories on what may or may not have happened, or who may or may nor be responsible are making a claim against the accepted fact of that day and have the burden to prove their claims. Period. End of story.

This isn't me just making it up. This is how debates work. BR constantly claims to be here for "honest and intelligent debate" then he proceeds to prove to everyone that he's lying about that, too.







Cz

Edited by Czero 101, 15 October 2012 - 09:52 PM.

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 15 October 2012 - 07:14 PM, said:

Amendment after amendment of such records as passenger manifests, so that they will finally comport with the Official Story is ACTUALLY evidence of fraud,....

You got it wrong again, because hijackers are  not considered victims.   But, you knew that!

I guess only in your own mind, these terrorist can be considered innocent victims.

Quote

Explosions in the basement before the airplane strike is evidence of SOMETHING, that's for sure.

But, no one heard any explosions in the basement. Where did you get that false idea?!?!?!

Taking a look at this video, there are no sounds of explosions just before American 11 struck WTC1. which simply means that you are in serious error! .

Edited by skyeagle409, 15 October 2012 - 10:15 PM.