9-11

[Skashion]

But what would it achieve ? Each time an investigation is undertaken it is immediately discredited by those whose theories differ from it as has been seen over and over again it is not possible to have a perfect investigation that answers all questions by its very nature perfection only exists within imperfect systems, It's fair to say that most people who claim they want the truth have said this so many times they no longer know why they want that truth. People consistently mention the motives for the government to cover up 911 etc but never look at the reasons so called "truth seekers" and conspiracy advocates have for continuing to debunk official explanations, the conspiracy market in itself is now a million pound industry, why is it so easy to believe governments lie for greed yet those espousing the so called truth are never eyed with the same suspicion, people have made careers out of churning out ever more spurious claims about 911, the more incredible the more it sells. A new investigation would solve nothing as the people who believe in the cloak and dagger government will never believe the outcome anyway

How can you trust data which hasn't been released?

 

[THEBLUEDONKEY]

by the same token how can you assert data that has not been released falsifies the outcome so as not to be trusted ? I'm not saying it should not be made available but until such time as it is speculation either way is credible surely ?

 

[TheMightyQuinn]

The fact is, none of us know the truth.

Anyone claiming the US version of events as gospel is clearly as deluded as someone who claims it's a 'fact' that it was an inside job.

Unfortunately it's cool to laugh at people who think a little bit different and it's cool to be seen to swallow every last bit of cum from the bell end of your leaders.

 

[THEBLUEDONKEY]

It does not really come down to that though does it? Thinking differently is good and to be encouraged but it has to be based within a definable reality, the best method we have for defining our reality is reasoning based on demonstrable evidence, if we choose to disagree with that evidence we must produce evidence of our own that stands up better to review than that previously offered. Do I believe that our leaders ore infallible purveyors of the truth, absolutely not, unquestioned authority is disastrous and dangerous, questioning is good but only useful if you are willing to accept the answers based on the evidence presented by those with the best authority to do so.

 

[TheMightyQuinn]

It does not really come down to that though does it? Thinking differently is good and to be encouraged but it has to be based within a definable reality, the best method we have for defining our reality is reasoning based on demonstrable evidence, if we choose to disagree with that evidence we must produce evidence of our own that stands up better to review than that previously offered. Do I believe that our leaders ore infallible purveyors of the truth, absolutely not, unquestioned authority is disastrous and dangerous, questioning is good but only useful if you are willing to accept the answers based on the evidence presented by those with the best authority to do so.

In this case though, the US government are confirmed liars which renders any evidence they offer as suspicious.

Don't get me wrong, in general, I'm not an unbelieving or cold person, I'm more than happy to take people on face value but if I know someone is a liar then it's only natural I'll struggle to believe them.

I'm not professing to know anything more than anyone else, I just think that there's nothing been said or done since 2001 to render me less suspicious.

It's profiling, I admit that, when looking for a mass murdering liar, history points you time and time again towards Washington.

 

[Ronnie the Rep]

It does not really come down to that though does it? Thinking differently is good and to be encouraged but it has to be based within a definable reality, the best method we have for defining our reality is reasoning based on demonstrable evidence, if we choose to disagree with that evidence we must produce evidence of our own that stands up better to review than that previously offered. Do I believe that our leaders ore infallible purveyors of the truth, absolutely not, unquestioned authority is disastrous and dangerous, questioning is good but only useful if you are willing to accept the answers based on the evidence presented by those with the best authority to do so.

In this case though, the US government are confirmed liars which renders any evidence they offer as suspicious.

Don't get me wrong, in general, I'm not an unbelieving or cold person, I'm more than happy to take people on face value but if I know someone is a liar then it's only natural I'll struggle to believe them.

I'm not professing to know anything more than anyone else, I just think that there's nothing been said or done since 2001 to render me less suspicious.

It's profiling, I admit that, when looking for a mass murdering liar, history points you time and time again towards Washington.

I don't disagree with your suspicion Quinny but in this case, the evidence we can see is pretty conclusive. It beggars belief to say that it was missiles not planes, or that it must have been remote control because it's too difficult to hit a building even that big or that the government set it up but nobody at the Pentagon knew etc, etc

 

[Maintainin]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yVG3nX8MJI[/youtube][youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmBPN5pI8xo[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRhz6To99XU&feature=related[/youtube][youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wi9p__7_qf0&feature=related[/youtube]

 

[THEBLUEDONKEY]

In this case though, the US government are confirmed liars which renders any evidence they offer as suspicious.

Don't get me wrong, in general, I'm not an unbelieving or cold person, I'm more than happy to take people on face value but if I know someone is a liar then it's only natural I'll struggle to believe them.

I'm not professing to know anything more than anyone else, I just think that there's nothing been said or done since 2001 to render me less suspicious.

It's profiling, I admit that, when looking for a mass murdering liar, history points you time and time again towards Washington.[/quote]

I hear you fella and I agree washington has plenty of blood on it's hands but i just cant in this case see them being behind this specific attack, did they know an attack was coming? almost certainly, did they know its exact nature ? probably not, more telling did their own arrogance lead them to take fewer precautions against such an attack? again who knows but its not hard to imagine given all their posturing. I also have no doubt that in 911's aftermath most governments not just the usa have used it as a political tool to engineer outcomes profitable to themselves and their cohorts. But the sheer logistics of something this huge to be orchestrated from the inside for me just makes it unreasonable in the sense of how i draw my own conclusions.

 

[pauldominic]

It does not really come down to that though does it? Thinking differently is good and to be encouraged but it has to be based within a definable reality, the best method we have for defining our reality is reasoning based on demonstrable evidence, if we choose to disagree with that evidence we must produce evidence of our own that stands up better to review than that previously offered. Do I believe that our leaders ore infallible purveyors of the truth, absolutely not, unquestioned authority is disastrous and dangerous, questioning is good but only useful if you are willing to accept the answers based on the evidence presented by those with the best authority to do so.

In this case though, the US government are confirmed liars which renders any evidence they offer as suspicious.

Don't get me wrong, in general, I'm not an unbelieving or cold person, I'm more than happy to take people on face value but if I know someone is a liar then it's only natural I'll struggle to believe them.

I'm not professing to know anything more than anyone else, I just think that there's nothing been said or done since 2001 to render me less suspicious.

It's profiling, I admit that, when looking for a mass murdering liar, history points you time and time again towards Washington.

There's certainly a narrative to suggest that 11/9 has some internal involvement and opportunism.

Dubya had funding from convicted criminals, a personal agenda involving Iraq, a helpful brother in Florida and could easily have seen the attacks as an opportunity to attack ....

 

[bringer678]

It does not really come down to that though does it? Thinking differently is good and to be encouraged but it has to be based within a definable reality, the best method we have for defining our reality is reasoning based on demonstrable evidence, if we choose to disagree with that evidence we must produce evidence of our own that stands up better to review than that previously offered. Do I believe that our leaders ore infallible purveyors of the truth, absolutely not, unquestioned authority is disastrous and dangerous, questioning is good but only useful if you are willing to accept the answers based on the evidence presented by those with the best authority to do so.

In this case though, the US government are confirmed liars which renders any evidence they offer as suspicious.

Don't get me wrong, in general, I'm not an unbelieving or cold person, I'm more than happy to take people on face value but if I know someone is a liar then it's only natural I'll struggle to believe them.

I'm not professing to know anything more than anyone else, I just think that there's nothing been said or done since 2001 to render me less suspicious.

It's profiling, I admit that, when looking for a mass murdering liar, history points you time and time again towards Washington.

I don't disagree with your suspicion Quinny but in this case, the evidence we can see is pretty conclusive. It beggars belief to say that it was missiles not planes, or that it must have been remote control because it's too difficult to hit a building even that big or that the government set it up but nobody at the Pentagon knew etc, etc

Maybe the government didn't control it or set it up but it certainly seems like the allowed it happen at least.