Foreknowledge to the OKC bombing.

Revolutionary91 said:
What are the other possibilities?
Click to expand...
1. One of his aids checked into the room.
2. He rented rooms for more than one person.

It matters that there's been no follow-up because the only two options to this explosive evidence just being thrown away are everyone who tried to follow-up on it was snagged by the conspiracy and dropped it, or there was nothing substantiative to report and it has a very mundane explanation.

Where I'm sure we'll always disagree is which one of those alternatives is the most likely.
 
Revolutionary91 said:
I have posted the reciept. He lied and said he was in texas. Foreknowledge has been proven. Lets move on to the inside job, or would you rather just pretend I didnt post the reciept?
Click to expand...



As I’ve already explained (twice now), this doesn’t prove foreknowledge. You’re claiming that either he wasn’t in Oklahoma before the bombing (and didn’t lie about his whereabouts) or he had foreknowledge of the bombing. This is an example of the false dichotomy fallacy.
 
I can think of one.

He was having an affair and didn't want his wife to know about it.

It's certainly as possible as him knowing in advance about the bombing.
 
Sabrina said:
I can think of one.

He was having an affair and didn't want his wife to know about it.

It's certainly as possible as him knowing in advance about the bombing.
Click to expand...
About ten thousand times as possible actually.
ssh.gif
 
Sabrina said:
I can think of one.

He was having an affair and didn't want his wife to know about it.

It's certainly as possible as him knowing in advance about the bombing.
Click to expand...



Well, I already suggested that. It didn’t go down well.
 
Par said:
I’m sure you can imagine reasons for going to Oklahoma (and lying about it) that don’t include the prospect of the bombing of a federal building.
Click to expand...

He wasn't Joe Public, he was the FBIs head of terrorism. Is there any coincidence you wont believe in.

After he lied, the FBI said he was actually there on a secret investigation, further conradicting him.
 
Par said:
Well, I already suggested that. It didn’t go down well.
Click to expand...
Because it doesn't implicate him in an all-encompassing conspiracy. Therefore, that couldn't possibly be the explaination. Too mundane.
 
Revolutionary91 said:
So 911myths is a crazy source? They have contributions by an AIDS denier.
Click to expand...

Logical fallacy. What does the 911 related content have to do with the personal beliefs of this aids denier (who would that be BTW)? If someone writes an accurate technical analysis of something I can't try to discredit it by saying "Well he reads his horoscope every morning". It may well reflect poorly on the person but it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with his other work.

WND's content is consistently biased and poorly supported. Even if one of its contributors accepted the idea that aids is a real condition that would not lend credibility to WND's other claims. Each source must be judged according to its own content.
 
Revolutionary91 said:
He wasn't Joe Public, he was the FBIs head of terrorism. Is there any coincidence you wont believe in.

After he lied, the FBI said he was actually there on a secret investigation, further conradicting him.
Click to expand...
Why are you withholding this information from the police, the media, lawyers, anyone who could bring justice?
 
Revolutionary91 said:
He wasn't Joe Public, he was the FBIs head of terrorism.
Click to expand...



So, are heads of terrorism units appreciably unlikely to have affairs or to sleep with hookers?

After he lied, the FBI said he was actually there on a secret investigation, further conradicting him.
Click to expand...



I see. Well, perhaps he was on a secret investigation then.
 
Revolutionary91 said:
I have posted the reciept. He lied and said he was in texas. Foreknowledge has been proven. Lets move on to the inside job, or would you rather just pretend I didnt post the reciept?
Click to expand...
Let me get this straight. There is no way I can go to a hotel and claim (and show ID) that I am whiney you? What does that reciept prove besides the fact that it's a reciept?
 
I'm still trying to figure out myself how his lying proves foreknowledge. It only proves he lied. Maybe not even that.

Why did he lie? That's where the conspiracy theorist parts with reason. Why declare it was because of foreknowledge? And why add a whole bunch of stuff exactly like that and try to make a case?

You would get eaten alive in a courtroom with antics like that.

This isn't TV
 
Foster Zygote said:
Logical fallacy. What does the 911 related content have to do with the personal beliefs of this aids denier (who would that be BTW)? If someone writes an accurate technical analysis of something I can't try to discredit it by saying "Well he reads his horoscope every morning". It may well reflect poorly on the person but it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with his other work.

WND's content is consistently biased and poorly supported. Even if one of its contributors accepted the idea that aids is a real condition that would not lend credibility to WND's other claims. Each source must be judged according to its own content.
Click to expand...

So, does the receipt I have posted cease to exist because of WNDs reputation?
 
Sabrina said:
The difference is, Rev, being an AIDS denier has absolutely NOTHING to with 9/11, whereas a man with no medical or nutritional training claiming something that requires training in those two areas is highly suspect.
Click to expand...

Exactly. If 911myths published an article about architectural matters regarding the 911 attacks by someone with no technical training in the subject of the article that would indicate incompetence on the part of 911myths. WND publishing an article by a man with no training making wild claims about soy causing homosexuality does indicate incompetence on the part of WND.
 
Par said:
So, are heads of terrorism units appreciably unlikely to have affairs or to sleep with hookers?





I see. Well, perhaps he was on a secret investigation then.
Click to expand...

So why lie?

You have no problem that the head anti terrorist honcho booked into the OKC hotel 9 hours before the bombing in OKC, then denied it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom