Man, are YOU stretching! The one key word in your whole post is faith. I have faith in the evidence. I do NOT have faith in the government. COULD evidence come out of collusion or participation by the government in the attack? Yes. I recognize that possibility exists. That is why I say I follow the evidence. You're trying to twist it into I follow the government. Rather dishonest tactic, but I see the point you're trying to make. There are things I would bet my life on. Apparently I value my life more than others value theirs if they are willing to pretend one's life is worth betting on an event in question.
BULL(*)(*)(*)(*). You're trying to pretend the "hidden evidence" you are convinced exists actually exists. What evidence did I thow out the window? I am going off the KNOWN evidence, not the unknown evidence I think someone else has. I am not going to consider paranoid delusions as evidence. You're right. Nobody knows with absolute certainty. But that is the excuse of people on the losing end of the debate. You're asking everyone NOT to believe the sum total of evidence presented by numerous sources on the SPECULATION that other evidence we don't know about would totally change the official theory. Sorry, but that is lunacy! Can we say with 100% certainty that ANYTHING is real? No. Can we piece together all the evidence from all over and come up with a theory that fits all the evidence? Yes. Does ANY of it fit the truther theories? No.
Where did they lie? They didn't. They said they heard explosions. Nobody is doubting they heard explosions. It is only when you dishonesty try to pretend you know they REALLY meant explosions from explosives that the credibility of YOUR claims, not the firefighters, starts stinking like a fetid pile of (*)(*)(*)(*). Quit trying to pretend your credibility is anywhere near that of the firefighters. When one of THEM says they thought the explosions they heard were caused by explosives, THEN you have a case. Until then you're only making (*)(*)(*)(*) up.
Once again I ask you to present this evidence you claim exists. You can't because it doesn't exist. There is nothing to "accept".
RWAF, why are you running from the FACT your source you claim is credible is lying their ass off? Are you truly incapable of defending his blatant lies, yet equally incapable of acknowledging he is lying his ass off?
And neither do you but you keep debating from the position that you are SURE there is but the government is just hiding it. That indicates that you already have your mind made up. Me, I don't have my mind already made up but based on all of the evidence that I have seen, I don't think the government was behind it. I assume you meant that does prove the government's involvement. And you can't say for certain that it DOES exist, but again, it appears that your mind is made up that classified evidence exists somewhere implicating the government but they are just hiding it. As are you in your position. And neither do you. No. But does that mean to you that I think the government is involved? It means that I am always willing to consider new evidence. Would you bet your life that there IS evidence implicating the government? Of course it's a pretty safe bet since one cannot prove that something doesn't exist. Especially when people keep insisting that it DOES exist but the government is just hiding it.
Always willing to consider new evidence? What does that have to do with anything? I asked a point blank question. It didn't mean bet your life AFTER learning something incriminating - it meant bet your life with what you got 'right now'. Don't be dense. And that's the exact reason why you're unwilling to wager your life on it, you're afraid that you might be wrong after all. Whereas I would bet my life that the government is hiding materials that would incriminate them in the crime of 9/11. I would take that bet. Right now. I'm no stranger to signing my life over to things that are bigger than myself. I did that when I was eighteen. I would have no problem stepping up to the plate now. Besides, I'm an Aries, my curiosity is killing me.
Have you ever been wishy-washy on your 9/11 beliefs? I mean, some of these things I am learning, man, you guys try to explain them away, but it just doesn't fit. How did the terrorists even get into the cockpit? I have a hard time understanding how two panicked women were able to recall where they were sitting - same for all the planes. Or how they got their weapons on the planes. Or how a passport or two were found at Ground Zero. And how no American heads ever rolled over this. There should have been many. Why are you not outraged. You have said that there are problems with the official story, I would like to know exactly what you meant by that. And I'd also like to know how far you have actually investigated 9/11.
OK, since you seem to value life so little that you demand people bet their life on it, if I had to bet my life on the official story or the truther story based on the evidence, I would absolutely bet my life on the official story. Frankly, I think someone betting their life on a theory that has NO EVIDENCE at all to back it up when there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary is someone who either doesn't value their life or needs to take a serious step back and re-examine their belief system because something is jacked up!
It means that, unlike you, I don't already have my mind made up. It means that if credible evidence were to come forth that contradicted my understanding and belief of the events, I would consider the evidence and change my belief accordingly. Okay, would I bet my life right now with what evidence has been presented up until today that the government was not involved in the crimes of 9/11? Absolutely. Keep your insults to yourself. Well since you clarified the terms to mean with what evidence exists right now, I'll bet my life on it as I stated earlier. Pretty safe bet since you can always claim that they are hiding something somewhere. You can't prove it though, can you. Good for you. I"m assuming you enlisted in the military? If so, I thank you for your service. So . . . research the hell out of it. By the way, you say you are doing a lot of reading on your own. By the questions you are asking it seems as if you're only reading one side of the story. Read as much as you can from both sides and decide for yourself. Although it seems you're pretty much convinced already that the government is evil and can't be trusted so it may be a waste of time for you to read anything you don't agree with anyway.
No, his mind isn't made up at all...nor the rest of the....fellas. They just spend enormous amounts of time advocating the 'official" position, probably just because they're "good Americans"....no other reason I'm sure.
So why are you always on here preaching against the government and trying to get people to rise up against it? Bad American?
From the 9/11 Commission Report: So what is that you're trying to spin? From the 9/11 Commission Report: How do you know they had a blade shorter than three inches? And I doubt very seriously that mace, which comes in a metal can, was allowed on flights. I said a "passport or two". I was off by one. Relax. I guess if you want to believe that a passport survived the fiery inferno as well explosion that killed the building, then so be it. It is just so coincidental that identification necessary to blame someone was found at the crime scene. How many people would really believe that something like that is probable? Everyone I've talked to, it was immediate skepticism and, "No way Jose." You keep talking about evidence as though it was holy. You're a professed college educated man. You've also admitted that people would protect themselves, as well their organizations from the chopping block. Start filling in the blanks, Patriot. The Muslims who pulled off 9/11 weren't the only bad guys on the block. For (*)(*)(*)(*)s sake, man, evidence isn't the only God (*)(*)(*)(*) thing in the world. I mean, I use it to fill in most of the void, but the rest of the picture I use my own analysis. As you've noted, people would protect themselves from the neck chopping, so how could you observe something like that? I'm still reading the report. Remind me to answer this later.
Shame on you. You must be absolutely perfect in every detail of any opinions or possible explanations when you go against the OCT. If you're "pro" OCT though, you're "officially" permitted to make as many broad jumps as you like.
Shame on you. You must be absolutely perfect in every detail of any opinions or possible explanations when you go against the OCT. If you're "pro" OCT though, you're "officially" permitted to make as many broad jumps as you like.
Could be because no one has presented any credible evidence to the contrary. So much for that new leaf, eh RWF??
When I see respect given, perhaps I'll return it. We know that doesn't play well with the "official" attack mode of the pro OCTers. Why respect the disrespectful and the liars?
Obviously you didn't read that directly from the 9/11 commission report. Page 102 of the PDF, page 85 of the report clearly states that while the FAA required cockpit doors be locked, it was rarely enforced and the standard response to a hijacking was to cooperate. Besides.... I thought you didn't believe the truther theories. Why are you now doubting the hijackings? Ah. So now you're characterizing the stewardesses as "panicked women". These "panicked women" were the stewardesses with the flight manifests that stayed on the phone the entire time describing what was going on. It is their job to know who is sitting where. Why is it you find this strange? Because several were stopped and searched and were allowed to continue on with their weapons. Have you read the results of the investigation showing that the airport couldn't even identify mace? So the rules are you get to be nit picky and nobody else can be? Interesting.... The passport was not needed, much less necessary, to identify one of the hijackers. The hijackers did nothing to hide their identity and flew under their real names. So you want us to ignore evidence and go off half cocked while lynching people based on suspicions and hatred? For (*)(*)(*)(*)s sake, man, evidence isn't the only God (*)(*)(*)(*) thing in the world, but it should be the only thing used to convict someone of wrongdoing! What kind of seriously (*)(*)(*)(*)ed up world do you want to live in where people can go around blaming people for whatever they want based on paranoid delusions and no evidence? That isn't America. It is hard to believe any American can think that way. So we should just whack everyone involved based on the suspicion someone did something wrong on purpose? Will do.
So you're going to start disrespecting truthers now? They are the most disrespectful bunch of liars around! You ought to know, right?
I don't recall ever having attacked you. But I know I have been called a "shill" and an "OCTA" by you many times. It's a shame you have returned to your old ways. I was rather enjoying your spirit of civil debate.
"We have some Planes" The Hijacking of American 11 5th Paragraph Well, when I read in the Commission Report itself that they don't even know how the hijackers got into the cockpit, and use speculation themselves, I too begin speculating. I'll admit, I am being a bit sexist here. It just seems odd that these women, given the extreme nature of the stress they were under, would be able to recall with precision what seats the hijackers were sitting in, on a flight with 81 passengers. It is probably a no-nothing subject, but it struck me as odd when I read it going through that section of the report. No I have not. You caught me. The thing that bothers me is that you willingly admit that government workers protected their necks from the chopping blocks, yet, you fail to see how there is anything wrong with that in the long run, as in, maybe there were things that should have been brought to light that would have blown this whole thing open. And no, I'm not saying that we should be prosecuting or incriminating people based off loose subjective theory, evidence is important, but any detective relies on his own analysis too, to complete the picture. You just seem to look at the wall of evidence and that's it. There are no "What If's". You claim you're not trying to protect the government, but I find that claim dishonest.
Speculating what? That they didn't get in? That all the evidence of the hijackers in the cockpit were really faked because the hijackers obviously couldn't get into the cockpit? There are a lot of little unknown facts about 9/11 like the exact method of getting into the cockpit. Does that somehow change the facts we do know? I am trying to understand the importance of dwelling on how the hijackers got into the cockpit. Flight attendance have the flight manifests so they know who is who. Panicked or not, they can still look it up. Betty Ong was on the phone with the AA emergency line for 23 minutes. Panic usually doesn't last that long. Read it. Airport security prior to 9/11 was a joke. Many, myself included, still think airport security is a joke. Maybe is a big word. You can apply it to anything and pretend it is important. The few times people lied, the other evidence exposed the lies and the truth was found out. Now, is it POSSIBLE that there is some lie out there that is cleverly conceiled that would show the government was behind 9/11? Possible yes. Probable no. The possibility of someone being able to hide all the evidence from the largest investigation in US history that would blow some big conspiracy open is pretty remote given just how much would have to be covered up to hide participation by the government. You can think my claim is dishonest, but who is the expert on what I am or am not trying to protect? It sure as hell isn't you! The evidence has been analized, re-analized, re-re-re-analized etc. etc. There is no scenario where the evidence implicates the government. I ask repeatedly for ANYONE to show me this evidence everyone pretends exists, yet nobody can produce it. Looking at minor, unimportant facts like exactly how they got into the cockpits as evidence of some big conspiracy is absolutely retarded and is a dishonest tactic used by truthers to distract from the fact they have no evidence. ANY discrepancy, no matter how trivial, is presented as "evidence" of some bigger conspiracy. You like to rely on analysis. Tell me what analysis presents a different theory when the exact means of entering the cockpit is unknown, yet all kinds of evidence exists that the hijackers DID get into the cockpit?
