9/11 Conspiracy theories debunked (they say) by the BBC

[Neimad9]

Well, I guess I'll let you guys argue with our new friend here. This is someone who has no intention at all in believing anything other than the official story. After as many people as I have spoken to, you just kinda get a feel for them. I think he said it best himself, that he is only here so that he can be content that he viewed this from all angles. Problem with that is, it's real easy to bullshit yourself. IMO there are plenty of people to talk to about this that are receptive, without wasting time on flat-earthers.

Was just pointing out why familys may be upset, I mean I would be. :S Doesnt make it any less true/false. Also, I do not belive in the official story, but am also not convinced about the non-official story either. I require a high standard of proof to convince me on something like this.

You must understand you are saying that the government of the United States murdered 3000 of its people and people from around the world. The covered it up. To require anything less than a high amount of proof would be insane, surely you agree? Now the official story has a load of inconsistances which Is why I am wary of it and why I am here. But I need a lot of proof, to accept the answers that the 9/11 movement gives. (I also do not know all the answers, or inconsistances yet)

[AuGmENTor]

There are enough inconsistencies in the official story taht I think they need to come clean to clear themselves.

[thumper]

Was just pointing out why familys may be upset, I mean I would be. :S Doesnt make it any less true/false. Also, I do not belive in the official story, but am also not convinced about the non-official story either. I require a high standard of proof to convince me on something like this.

You must understand you are saying that the government of the United States murdered 3000 of its people and people from around the world. The covered it up. To require anything less than a high amount of proof would be insane, surely you agree? Now the official story has a load of inconsistances which Is why I am wary of it and why I am here. But I need a lot of proof, to accept the answers that the 9/11 movement gives. (I also do not know all the answers, or inconsistances yet)

i hear this 'proof' argument all the time.

"consistent lying and covering up proves nothing"

"foreknowledge proves nothing"

"making tons of money off of insurance fraud proves nothing"

"a controlled demolition proves nothing"

i think many are forgetting that we are dealing with CRIMINALS, and that they don't usually have signed affidavits where they say they will be killing a bunch of people.

please put 2 + 2 together and judge them by their actions.

[Neimad9]

Proof is proof! its golden, its the way you can help uncover the truth. Its not a argument its a requirement for an argument to hold

[Neimad9]

There are enough inconsistencies in the official story taht I think they need to come clean to clear themselves.

Indeed

[Gold9472]

Proof is proof! its golden, its the way you can help uncover the truth. Its not a argument its a requirement for an argument to hold

Sibel Edmonds, the most gagged person in American History (gagged by the Bush Administration no less) has been quoted as saying that if 9/11 were truly investigated, we would be seeing no less than 10 American people that we know stand trial, and face prosecution criminally.

What kind of proof do you want?

[Gold9472]

Keep in mind Neimad9, we're only regular citizens. We do not have the access to that which we need to find out the whole truth. I have no doubt, however, that if that day ever comes, we will be proven more than right.

[Gold9472]

Neimad9... why do you think the Bush Administration specifically fought against the family members for an investigation into the attacks? Do you realize that if the families didn't fight, we would have never have had any kind of investigation at all? How does that sit with you?

[Neimad9]

Sibel Edmonds, the most gagged person in American History (gagged by the Bush Administration no less) has been quoted as saying that if 9/11 were truly investigated, we would be seeing no less than 10 American people that we know stand trial, and face prosecution criminally.

What kind of proof do you want?

Was not that about gross incompertence rather than a direct intention to down the towers?

Anyway, I was talking about proof in general. from both sides and how important it is

[Neimad9]

Neimad9... why do you think the Bush Administration specifically fought against the family members for an investigation into the attacks? Do you realize that if the families didn't fight, we would have never have had any kind of investigation at all? How does that sit with you?

Look, I am not saying they were not responsible. I said I wanted high standards of proof before I make a judgement either way. I have already said I find too many inconsistances, and I Guess they blocked a investigation because they were 1) did it 2) knew about it 3) made a lot of mistakes.