• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Reasonable doubt...All truthers(and whoever esle) please read

tmd2_1 said:
I'm sorry I forgot you guys don't like documentation here. You're evidence is "twoofers" dumb official story must be true government told me so. "twoofers" are delusional...they have to be..official story is true. See I have all the documentation you guys present right there.

Next time I'll just make sure to make up lies, clear bold faced ones at that, much the same way you did.
Click to expand...

Lol,ten years of failure and many more to come.
 
Sceptic-PK said:
Clearly you didn’t understand the political situation in Afghanistan at the time (I doubt you were even 10 years old) or the fact that Bin Laden has often denied attacks that he had a hand in. Once the cat was out of the bag and the invasion of Afghanistan had begun, he had no qualms admitting responsibility (as did KSM and all the cronies). You are using your own ignorance and incredulity to cast doubt when there is absolutely none.
Click to expand...

Also look you have the FBI saying there is no hard evidence against him right? By implication that would mean the tape is bogus. If someone commits a murder and then makes a video, to do nothing but brag about it, I'd say that's hard evidence. So the conclusion one draws is that those videos are faked...or at least questionable authenticity.
 
tmd2_1 said:
He was blamed from day one...
Click to expand...

Correct. I figured out more about 911 in 30 seconds on the day than you have in 10 years. OBL was always the most likely candidate. I doubt you’d even heard of him before the attacks.

tmd2_1 said:
It's not like he "admitted" it publicly it was just found lying around the house.
Click to expand...

He has admitted it publically many times. As did the hijackers in their martyr videos. You have no clue.
 
tmd2_1 said:
Also look you have the FBI saying there is no hard evidence against him right? By implication that would mean the tape is bogus. If someone commits a murder and then makes a video, to do nothing but brag about it, I'd say that's hard evidence. So the conclusion one draws is that those videos are faked...or at least questionable authenticity.
Click to expand...

Yes, that is the conclusion drawn by congenital idiots.
 
WildCat said:
Can you describe how to get water on drywall buried 80 feet under a pile of rubble?
Click to expand...

First of all water seeps through things..go get a pile of crap(not literal crap) and soak it. See if what's on the bottom is wet. Second of all, you don't think they made any dent in that rubble by 99 days? I mean non at all...so as they got closer and closer, they soaking things more and more.
 
tmd2_1 said:
First of all water seeps through things..go get a pile of crap(not literal crap) and soak it. See if what's on the bottom is wet. Second of all, you don't think they made any dent in that rubble by 99 days? I mean non at all...so as they got closer and closer, they soaking things more and more.
Click to expand...

That smacks of desperation. Do you have a full theory of the events of 911? I ask every truther that and have yet to receive an answer. No,I do get answers but they all boil down to. 'I disagree with the official story,it was a CD but I don't have a clue how it was done and I refuse to formulate a theory about it. Meanwhile I will concentrate on one tiny bit of the story and ignore everything else.'
 
Last edited:
BStrong said:
I fail to see any point in your assertion.
Click to expand...

What don't you understand...I was told once that cat was out of the bag bin laden didn't care. Well that video was just found, it's not he made it and mailed it in. Speaking of videos how's yours coming along?
 
dafydd said:
That smacks of desperation. Do you have a full theory of the events of 911? I ask every truther that and have yet to receive an answer.
Click to expand...

A trap you guys use..you do not an to prove or suggest an alternative theory, to disprove the official story. Anything I say will just lead to the same stuff over and over again, same questions....you want me to say something just to hinder the debate.
 
tmd2_1 said:
What don't you understand...I was told once that cat was out of the bag bin laden didn't care. Well that video was just found, it's not he made it and mailed it in. Speaking of videos how's yours coming along?
Click to expand...

How's your full theory coming along? Convince me that the official story is a lie.
 
tmd2_1 said:
A trap you guys use..you do not an to prove or suggest an alternative theory, to disprove the official story. Anything I say will just lead to the same stuff over and over again, same questions....you want me to say something just to hinder the debate.
Click to expand...

So you don't have a clue what happened. No surprise there.
 
tmd2_1 said:
A trap you guys use..you do not an to prove or suggest an alternative theory, to disprove the official story. Anything I say will just lead to the same stuff over and over again, same questions....you want me to say something just to hinder the debate.
Click to expand...

It's not a trap. I just would like to hear once from a truther what they think happened on 911,in detail.
 
tmd2_1 said:
What don't you understand...I was told once that cat was out of the bag bin laden didn't care. Well that video was just found, it's not he made it and mailed it in.
Click to expand...

Sheesh. Osama was under pressure from the Taliban to deny the attacks (they were also rather miffed they had been kept in the dark regarding his plans) because the Taliban knew there would be swift and brutal reprisal from the US and tried everything to avoid it. Once the evidence clearly pointed to Al Qaida’s involvement, and the invasion began, Osama had no reason to deny his role in the attacks. Osama denied the attack initially because that’s what the Taliban, his hosts, wanted him to do.

You were a child who wasn’t paying attention at the time this all occurred.
 
gumboot said:
Except it is. By one of the primary sources for the original story.




There's nothing remotely convoluted about the update. It is entirely consistent with the facts, logical, and supported by evidence.




No there aren't. If you think there are, prove it. Just a hint, the mainstream media is notorious for band-wagoning; that is one outlet leads with a breaking story, and following media refer to it. You'll need to provide evidence of mainstream media reporting their own independent story about hijackers still being alive, not ones that reference back to the same original mistake.

For what it's worth, I have addressed the "hijackers alive" claim in quite comprehensive detail, so I'm familiar with this claim. I am happy to work through it with you, if you can demonstrate a willingness to learn.




Yes, I understand this.




The problem is the basis of your quantifying is horrendously flawed and unjustified.




Except you're not. When dealing with an event as complex, and well documented as 9/11, assigning 1% to a single fact is a horrendously high percentage. Which is my point. The value of a percentage is, by definition, relative.

Assigning a value of 1% to a person's opinion, out of a classroom of 30, is severely undervaluing the person's opinion. Giving the same opinion 1% out of the entire population of the world (some 6 billion people) is severely overvaluing the opinion. Exactly the same opinion, but its value changes enormously depending on context.

What you have failed to grasp, or have deliberately ignored, is that the prosecution case is so large, and consists of so many different pieces of evidence that the points you raised, even if true, don't equate to a 1% rating, but rather deserve a fraction of a fraction of a percent of weighting. This is because each of those points, individually, is insignificant by comparison with the scope of the prosecution case.

It's because of this that your entire methodology is flawed. You have an over-inflated view of the importance of the points you raised, and an under-inflated view of the individual pieces of evidence in the prosecution case. This is because, despite your pleadings to being objective in the OP, your post is not remotely objective, at all.
Click to expand...

I'll say it again, he is 100% guilty, the prosecution presented it's case, there's no doubt in the jurors mind he is guilty. That is until the defense goes. I assigned the lowest possible value, many of those should be much more.

As far as all the evidence goes. That can be summed up in one of my points. The FBI says they have no hard evidence against Bin laden. So if they say they have no hard evidence, who am I to argue.
 
dafydd said:
How's your full theory coming along? Convince me that the official story is a lie.
Click to expand...

I already gave you one..see that previous thread. As I said I know the traps you guys set, trying to get things off topic. I will say something you will go on and on, focusing on the stupidest of details. I wouldn't be surprised if you would come with something like "well bin laden's kidney problems means he couldn't do something prove he could do this" This is of course assuming I suggest Bin laden did something that would contradict the official story. I mean it's absurd, it really is absurd. Yet there's holes the size of the Grand Canyon (if your not from the US...it's a very big hole) in the official story and that's ok.
 
tmd2_1 said:
...The FBI says they have no hard evidence against Bin laden. So if they say they have no hard evidence, who am I to argue.
Click to expand...

In what year did the FBI say they had no hard-evidence tying Bin Laden to 9-11?

And by the way, I have found this fascinating little statement by the Executive Assistant-Director
of Counterterrorism and Counterintelligence of the FBI, in 2002 to the Senate Select Commitee on Intelligence:

"The evidence linking Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden to the attacks of September 11 is clear and irrefutable."

http://www.representativepress.org/FBITestimony.html
 
Last edited:
tmd2_1 said:
Show me one report or picture of cladding melting? Just one...I would like to compare it.
Click to expand...

you do know the melting point of Aluminium is lower than that of steel? You cannot claim molten steel without by default also claiming molten Al.:rolleyes:

however none of us are even claiming there was proof of molten Al. just molten something :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom