One side has all the evidence...I'll agree once more. 50 years from now, when it's declassified, we'll all know what happened was the biggest black op fiasco in US history.
I've been meaning to say something to those effects. Patriot will be in his mid sixties when stuff starts becoming declassified.
Well, DUH! Nobody who looks at the evidence with an open mind can conclude that Bush the Lesser had any clue what he was doing. This, of course, did not keep him and his merry morons from acting as if they were actually protecting us from something. Okay, a hypothetical. You're dumb as a box of balsa wood sledge hammers and a bunch of irregular guerilla forces has just scored a major hit because you were too busy picking on the man who tried to whack your daddy, and, at the same time, fielding demands from your corporate masters to cut them a better deal on taxes. You know that, soon or late, people are going to figure out that you are a useless sack of crap and kick you to the curb. They are already speaking out against you. They are even finding some goods evidence of just how petty and stupid you are. So, you hire some ass clowns to run around the country skrieking that they have found something like a smoking gun that proves that yopu planned a false-flag operation against your own country and keep all the legitimate journalist at arms length by dealing with the useful idiots. Now people have no time to garther the evicence against you. At the same time, many of the shills that were, nominally, trying to get rid of you find that they have no future in this sort of work just walk away. Now the government is looking at hundreds of suspects in a crowd [out of which only one or two are at all political. If you can't blind them with your brilliance, baffle them with you bull(*)(*)(*)(*). Weaknesses in that theory?
Nice cop out. Pretending you don't have anything, but wait twenty years and you'll be justified. Bull(*)(*)(*)(*). We both know you have nothing.
OK then be so kind as to show a conspiracy theory with zero evidence where declassified information twenty years down the road exposed it. I can point out several examples of conspiracy theories that had evidence to back them up where the government finally admitted to it. The truther version of 9/11 has no evidence. Hell, the truthers can't even begin to agree on which version of the "truth" they believe in. Shouldn't that be job one of the truther movement? Come up with a theory everyone can agree on? How many truths does a movement need especially when they are pretending to be all about the truth. I'm not saying we won't find out anything more about 9/11 down the road. I am sure new information will come out. But given what we know now, I sincerely doubt it is going to be the revelation that the government was behind 9/11. Or are you agreeing with RWAF where fifty years down the road "we'll all know what happened was the biggest black op fiasco in US history"? Of course, RWAF still can't get it right. If it was a fiasco, everyone would know about it.
There have been many things - coups from the 50s-70s, like in Iran, Chile, Iraq, Guatemala, etc - and it wasn't quite 20 years, but Iran-Contra. We're still learning things about Vietnam, WWII, the Korean War, and the Cold War, man.
I am not debating that. But in every instance there was hard evidence that supported the "conspiracy theories" BEFORE the government declassified information. What truthers are talking about is the sudden appearance of evidence twenty to fifty years down the road that will prove whichever theory they happen to believe that day. In other words, evidence that completely changes the official story of 9/11 being done by Al Qaeda to 9/11 being a joint CIA/FBI/NTSB/NIST/FAA/FDNY/NYPD/ATC/UAL/AMR/Army/Navy/Airforce/Marines coverup. I'll say it again. I would not be surprised if down the road the government declassifies information that shows more screwups than what the public version of the 9/11 commission report outlined. The government is NOT going to suddenly come forward and say the entire 9/11 theory is a lie no matter how much truthers whine that they will.
Bottom line, they were conspiracy theories back then because they could not prove their theories because they did not have the materials to prove their theories because the materials to prove their theories true were classified and thus hidden from them behind a wall of red tape. I keep addressing this point. There is a lot we're not being told. And about many different things, not just 9/11. I have a question for you: Would you be willing to bet your life that there is no, absolutely zero evidence that incriminates the United States government with the crime of 9/11? And by incriminates, I am meaning: they allowed it to happen, they helped, or they did it themselves.
That's very dramatic, and unnecessary. It borders on fear-mongering. If any evidence is presented that incriminates the US Government with the crime of 9/11, I will be the first to admit I was wrong. I'll also do my best to make sure the guilty parties are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
What he said. I've been saying since day one that I would follow the evidence. Truthers have NONE. Ten plus years later they have no evidence, a TON of conflicting theories, no consensus on who did it, how they did it, why they did it, when they did it, or where they did it. I am not here to defend the government. I am here to defend the truth because, quite frankly, truthers who use their lies and bull(*)(*)(*)(*) theories to damage this nation, hurt those who lost loved ones on 9/11, and let those who DID plan and carry out 9/11 off the hook disgust me and need to be exposed.
Perhaps the core of the matter lies in what it is that you may consider "honest screwups" versus something a bit more criminal. I find it amazing that some can give the benefit of the doubt continually when it comes to "grey' areas of the story behind 9/11, yet demand every detail of any opposing view by fully scrutinized in every aspect or it's not worth considering to begin with. If you applied the same standard you use to the "official" version of events as you do to anything counter, I think it would lend credibility to your point of view. You guys are just a bunch of good citizens, that happen to be available 24/7 to combat these "crazy truthers"? Why?? Open and honest discussion of the subject would be one thing. Slamming, cursing and belittling anti "official" views on the matter are something else. Many folks have questions and find many strange "oddities" with 9/11 (despite your characterization of the opposite). That's probably because there DO exist many strange occurrences that don't seem to make much sense. Why not DISCUSS the differences versus attacks? I've asked this repeatedly here, and it somehow can never come to pass. Why can't we have a calm, CIVIL, discussion on the issues, point by point, item by item, back and forth, without all the rhetoric or the insults? I'm willing to offer a PRECISE point and discuss it to its conclusion. ONE at a time. Shoot me down, show me that I'm wrong, and I'll move on. Am I likely to change my opinion of the whole matter? Probably not. Am I willing to consider solid evidence that I could be wrong? ABSOLUTELY. When the insults start flying and the questions are evaded though, I have a problem with continuing the discussion (what you guys call "running" and what I call you guys do "dancing"). A simple back and forth point, counter point discussion should not be so difficult to achieve, I wouldn't think. Bottom line, I think many "pro official" entities here are disinformation tools, and what you consider me I don't really care, but, a civil and frank discussion about the particulars, one by one, wouldn't be so difficult to achieve, if honest discussion was engaged in and maintained throughout the course that discussion. That NEVER happens here I realize. That's sad, and also very revealing IN MY OPINION.
Do as I say, not as I do. Whatever. You can start by responding any of the very specific point by point responses I have given you. Take your pick. Thermite. Steel Dust. Voice morphing. NIST model analysis MIT model analysis Perdue model analysis Bazant model analysis Security camera capability analysis Radar system analysis
You believe they outright did it. There is no confusing that. Once again YOU are the one guilty of "muddying the waters" by pretending other than you profess to believe. Yet you can't even come close to answering the MAJOR questions about your retarded theories, much less "every detail". Instead you resort to this kind of bull(*)(*)(*)(*) where you pretend your "grey areas" exist. They don't. By your own admission you ignore evidence. That evidence explains your so called "grey areas". I absolutely apply the same standards of evidence. Present your evidence. What? You have no evidence? Then why are you surprised when everyone laughs at your retarded theories? We apply the EXACT same standards to your bull(*)(*)(*)(*). We look at the evidence. The truth will always have evidence. The official story has tons of evidence you refuse to look at. Your bull(*)(*)(*)(*) has none. Simple as that. So why don't you apply the same standards to the "official story" as you do to the retarded theories you profess to believe? Well, if you did, you would have to believe in the tooth fairy, Santa Clause, an honest politician and all kinds of other fairy tales. Because what we think you truthers are doing to the truth is wrong. What better reason does ANYONE need than that? How would you know? I've yet to see any of your posts promote honest discussion, and you're as guilty as anyone for "slamming, cursing and belittling" people. Welcome to the wonderful world of reality! People who come here honestly asking questions don't get treated like truthers. Look at Jango. He gets all kinds of civil replies to his questions. Why? Because he is not a truther. Again, welcome to the real world. Again, where do you discuss? You throw theory bombs out there and run as fast as you can. Maybe if you actually tried what you preach you would get more respect. Read your own posts and you will have your answer. Bull(*)(*)(*)(*). We do that all the time and all you do is run. You post there is nanothermite in the paint. You can't defend it so you run. You claim Flight 93 was shot down so they gathered up all the pieces and faked shanksville. You can't defend THAT theory so you ran. First time a fatal flaw comes up you're gone. The odd are about the same as generating ten identical guids back to back. Absolutely NOT. Who do you think you're trying to kid? You're talking about when you start throwing insults, right? Or when you can't defend your theories? If you were actually WILLING to do this it would be easy. Let us know when you actually want to try that. Again, read your own posts to see the reasons why. Do I need to point them out or can you find them on your own?
I would appreciate a response to my question, Patriot. A favor, if you will. I knew what type of question it was. There's a reason why I asked it.
See....that's key. He means "their" evidence. The "official" evidence. Their version all the way, or something very close to it.
Evidence is evidence. Truthers like to trot out opinion and pretend it is evidence. I ask them for evidence all the time. I never get any.
So present your evidence, RWAF. Last time you were asked you admitted the official story had all the evidence and yours had none. Here is a prime example for Jango. Present your evidence.
You ask a pointless question that borders on histrionics. What would answering a silly question like that prove one way or another?
I said "the official story had all the evidence and mine had none"? Could you please refer me to where I said this.....SPECIFICALLY? Thanks.
You know my question isn't pointless. And you know what it serves to do, and what it proves. That is, whatever Patriot's answer is.
I did answer it. You must have missed it. Would I bet my life on the government not being involved in any way in the attacks on 9/11? Absolutely not. I FOLLOW THE EVIDENCE. Right now the evidence is all in the governments favor and truthers have yet to present any evidence. If one follows the evidence and is standing up for the truth, one cannot fail. If real evidence came out tomorrow that the government was in any way complicit in the attacks, I will be at the front demanding justice.
