Beginners Guide To The 9/11 Conspiracy

[video=youtube;yuC_4mGTs98]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded& v=yuC_4mGTs98[/video]

This clip is the most honest analysis I have seen to date on the events of that tragic day.

Comments?

 

Three incorrect claims in the first twenty seconds.

1) The terrorists were armed with more than just box cutters.
2) UBL wasn't on dialysis.
3) UBL didn't direct the operation.

Three lies in twenty seconds. Why keep watching?

 

That cclip is a subjective survey of 911 that offers little if any actual 'analysis' or evidence and is rife with innuendo and opinion. I dont know why some on this forum- one member in particular- offer this video as
causus belli of our govts involvement on 9 11 when it is really nothing more than a biased accounting of 9 11 and some of the events surrounding it. There video offers nothing to support the allegations put forth in it as such the video itself is quite insubstantial. Ultimately, until the 'truth' movement can encapsulate the tenets of their hypothesis in higher order mediums they will remain a fringe movement. Youtube videos just arent a credible format of persiasive discourse

 

1) How is what they said an incorrect claim?
2) You have a source for that?
3) You're correct here.

 

By all means, debunk the video then. Here's the transcript:

http://www.corbettreport.com/911-a-conspiracy-theory/

 

1) It leads one to believe that only box cutters were used. That isn't true, and the statement is misleading.
2) It's an unsubstantiated claim.
3) I know.

 

If the first 20 seconds contain 3 misleading statements, why bother going any further? Is it going to get more truthful?

 

I don't know, I provided the transcript so you could read it and have an easier time debunking it.

 

1) But not 'incorrect'. Misleading isn't even appropriate to use either.
2) No source then?

 

You want me to source a negative? There is no evidence that UBL was on dialysis.

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-325887.html

 

An unnamed medical worker who says she saw it. That's your evidence?

Well, since the 'special team' was 'up to no good', that just cinches it. Good research, Jango. You have proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that Osama bin Laden had to be on constant dialysis. The entire video must be true. Congrats.

 

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1819280,00.html

 

"It's trying to make a diagnosis from thousands of miles away with only fragments of the medical chart"

Even more concrete evidence. You should contact the authorities.

 

Lol.

What does that entail?

 

Ask them. You've convinced me.

 

Can you link me to the actual report, so I can see exactly what the CIA says? Thanks in advance.

 

Just link to the CIA report. Let's see what it says. (It does exist, doesn't it?)

 

Why is it impossible? If there was such a report published, show it.
Did TIME give a source for reading this report?

The article also states:

Where IS this alleged report? Let's see the evidence.

 

Like I said, quit playing games. You either take TIME at their word or not. They're a credible source. Using unnamed U.S. officials has been common practice for a long time with the media. There is no link for the report which suggests what, exactly? To me, it says: "This file(s) is classified." That's why I said it was a impossible demand, which I believe you've known all along, same as me.

 

And what of the quote I posted from TIME? Do you take them at their word?

 

What, the CIA's mouthpiece?

 

So it's subjective? You don't take TIME at their word.

 

How do you draw that conclusion based off what I stated in response to the question you posed in regard to the quote from the CIA spokesperson?

 

<<< Mod Edit: Insult >>>
You have yet to answer my questions, by the way.