Question to truthers

[Ron_Tomkins]

(When attempting to answer this very straightforward question, try keeping it as concise and simple as possible)

What is so difficult about believing that a group of religious fanatics, who have a history of committing atrocious terrorist acts, committed an atrocious terrorist act?

 

[Sabretooth]

Cuz teh utoobz and interwebs tell us to no trust the gubment!

/truther mode

 

[bill smith]

(When attempting to answer this very straightforward question, try keeping it as concise and simple as possible)

What is so difficult about believing that a group of religious fanatics, who have a history of committing atrocious terrorist acts, committed an atrocious terrorist act?

On 9/11 itself I didn't think twice about it and assumed it as it was served up. Why wouldn't I ? In principle I could still believe it if the evidence really supported the narrative and there were not so many obvious flaws in the government story.

 

[TK0001]

On 9/11 itself I didn't think twice about it and assumed it as it was served up. Why wouldn't I ? In principle I could still believe it if the evidence really supported the narrative and there were not so many obvious flaws in the government story.

And what's your theory of what happened on 9/11? Surely ten years is ample time to conjure something up.

Let's see how many "obvious flaws" we can find in it.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

And what's your theory of what happened on 9/11? Surely ten years is ample time to conjure something up.

Let's see how many "obvious flaws" we can find in it.[/QUOT

heck I'd like twoofers to come up with one "obvious" flaw in the OCT, its been years now and not a single one.........but yes it would be fun if one twoofer actually came up with a comprehensive theory....but its not going to happen. They lack the mental ability to juggle that many lies at once.

 

[NoahFence]

On 9/11 itself I didn't think twice about it and assumed it as it was served up. Why wouldn't I ? In principle I could still believe it if the evidence really supported the narrative and there were not so many obvious flaws in the government story.

When deciding whether or not to answer the above challenge, billy boy, please keep in mind that 9/11 was more than WTC 7.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

I notice my question remains unanswered. It's like the topic surrounding it has been addressed but the actual question has remain unaddressed and untouched.

 

[Oystein]

I notice my question remains unanswered. It's like the topic surrounding it has been addressed but the actual question has remain unaddressed and untouched.

I think Bill Smith answered it: In a nutshell he said that believing that a group of religious fanatics, who have a history of committing atrocious terrorist acts, committed an atrocious terrorist act is not difficult at all, quite the contrary, it almost comes naturally.

 

[bill smith]

I think Bill Smith answered it: In a nutshell he said that believing that a group of religious fanatics, who have a history of committing atrocious terrorist acts, committed an atrocious terrorist act is not difficult at all, quite the contrary, it almost comes naturally.

Did I say all that ? wow..lol

 

[The Platypus]

On 9/11 itself I didn't think twice about it and assumed it as it was served up. Why wouldn't I ? In principle I could still believe it if the evidence really supported the narrative and there were not so many obvious flaws in the government story.

Vague BS. Weird how only cult kooks can see these many obvious flaws while ignoring evidence and reality.

 

[little grey rabbit]

(When attempting to answer this very straightforward question, try keeping it as concise and simple as possible)

What is so difficult about believing that a group of religious fanatics, who have a history of committing atrocious terrorist acts, committed an atrocious terrorist act?

It's not to difficult at all, in fact its precisely what I believe.

Except I tend to substitute the description religious fanatic with complete fruitloops - because a lot of these fanatics are members here and I want to use a term that will wind them up.

 

[Dash80]

It's not to difficult at all, in fact its precisely what I believe.

Except I tend to substitute the description religious fanatic with complete fruitloops - because a lot of these fanatics are members here and I want to use a term that will wind them up.

Oh the irony...

 

[little grey rabbit]

Oh the irony...

I know this is difficult to explain to an American, but its not enough to know how to spell a word - you also need to know its meaning and the correct contexts in which to deploy it.

 

[Sabretooth]

I know this is difficult to explain to an American, but its not enough to know how to spell a word - you also need to know its meaning and the correct contexts in which to deploy it.

I understood the usage and context just fine, LGR...though, I'm not surprised you didn't get it.

 

[little grey rabbit]

I understood the usage and context just fine, LGR...though, I'm not surprised you didn't get it.

Yes, but the fact is I am not a religious fanatic. I have been forced to take the Bible and the Christian tradition seriously after encountering the horror of the Illuminati, but my only personal "faith" is almost non-existent.

That must have been how it happened. Belbo decided to take the universe of the Diabolicals seriously, not because of an abundance of faith, but because of a total lack of it.

.....
Belbo, sick from so many missed appointments, now felt able to make a real appointment. An appointment he could not evade from cowardice, because now his back was to the wall. Fear forced him to be brave. Inventing, he had created the principle of reality.

Hope that helps all the JREF religious fanatics here.

 

[Dash80]

I know this is difficult to explain to an American, but its not enough to know how to spell a word - you also need to know its meaning and the correct contexts in which to deploy it.

Why do you assume I'm American? For the record (I have even told you this before), I am British.

I know exactly what the meaning and context was, ironic that you consider us fanatical fruitloops. Honestly do I really have to explain such simple things to you?

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Hey folks. I think we ought to let the truthers answer this one. We all know what we think of these conspiracy propositions; let's see if they can actually put to words what the base of their suspicions are in a way that's not based on an obscure anomaly of the collapse or a statement of an individual.

 

[Miragememories]

"What is so difficult about believing that a group of religious fanatics, who have a history of committing atrocious terrorist acts, committed an atrocious terrorist act?"

I concur with Bill Smith in my reaction to 9/11.

It was not at all difficult.

Like most of the general public, I was pre-conditioned to immediately believe that Osama Bin Laden and his Al Qaeda terrorist organization were responsible.

The controlled demolition collapse of WTC7 compelled me to think otherwise, and draw the conclusion that not all of the 9/11 terrorists had been accounted for.

MM

 

[AndrewBurley]

I concur with Bill Smith in my reaction to 9/11.

It was not at all difficult.

Like most of the general public, I was pre-conditioned to immediately believe that Osama Bin Laden and his Al Qaeda terrorist organization were responsible.

The controlled demolition collapse of WTC7 compelled me to think otherwise, and draw the conclusion that not all of the 9/11 terrorists had been accounted for.

MM

Exactly the same for me. Only the gullible or those in denial could see wtc7 fall and think its a fire induced collapse.

 

[Dash80]

Exactly the same for me. Only the gullible or those in denial could see wtc7 fall and think its a fire induced collapse.

A building hit by debris from a collapsing skyscraper and then burning unchecked for seven hours... oh sure thats nothing, wouldn't even leave a mark!