Discussion in '9/11' started by Scott, Sep 12, 2015.
Yes, you posted "No, I'm not" and "No I'm not" again. Very explanatory I'm sure -.-.
I referred to the original post you replied to. Will this take all day?
This will take only as long as we both find enough interest to respond. Your original post was unclear, which is why I brought up the points I did, trying to get you to clarify. You clarifed a little bit by your "No I'm nots", but only a little bit. So, going back in time, you stated: "I don't consider the JFK thing to be similar to a modern conspiracy theory (except the truly irrational stories)." I took this to mean that you didn't believe the official story concerning the JFK assassination, but when I intimiated as much, you came up with your first "No I'm not". So, are you saying that you fully believe the Warren Commission's Report? And what of the findings of the Select Committee on Assassinations?
It is a matter of fact not belief and your previous posts are all just as devoid of logic and evidence.
You need to learn what evidence means. Evidence is not an anomaly or assertion which is repeated endlessly. Yet this is all you have ever presented as evidence.
No, I'm not saying that. Read the conversation leading up to my post and it should all become clear. Don't parachute in, go off on an irrelevant tangent and then ask to me to go through it all again. Just read and comprehend.
What of it? I'm not interested in following you down rabbit holes on your pet CT.
I personally have no problem explaining what I've said to a newcomer, but if you're not interested in doing so, just let it be.
No point in going into it if you're not going to explain what you believe happened in the JFK assassination.
I will. Just revise the conversation you interrupted and it should become clear to you.
I don't have the slightest interest in the JFK canards. The thread title denotes the subject of 9/11.
they admitted foreknowledge
I wouldn't go as far as saying that Mossad admitted foreknowledge, though many signs point towards foreknowledge, while others point towards playing a key role in the event. My favourite article on the subject is this one: http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/fiveisraelis.html
well thats called admitting it, no possible way they could be there in advance without foreknowledge
The fact that some of the israelies mentioned in the article were all set up to "document the event" and seemed to be quite happy when the Twin Towers fell into their own footprints (something buildings have only ever done in controlled demolitions, both before and after 9/11) and seemed to be quite happy after seeing it happen does strongly suggest that they had foreknowledge of the event, but it's not the same thing as admitting to having foreknowledge.
Oh right.....more 9/11 troofer propaganda
Another sneaky tactic: "Ridicule and humiliate your opponent. This can be very effective in front of an audience but will never win over the opponent himself." Source: http://www.lifehack.org/articles/co...n-arguments-dos-donts-and-sneaky-tactics.html
called the truth...
"Believe those who are seeking the truth. Doubt those who find it."
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/andregide107141.html#SmUiQdmjQoDDqqLL.99
one can find quotes to justify any position.........still doesn't make it the right one
they most certainly did, look up the israeli interview.
It was the Israeli interview that I was quoting ... **Several of the detainees discussed their experience in America on an Israeli talk show after their return home. Said one of the men, denying that they were laughing or happy on the morning of Sept. 11, "The fact of the matter is we are coming from a country that experiences terror daily. Our purpose was to document the event." (26)** Source: http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/fiveisraelis.html
More troofer rumor,built out of erroneous news reports of 9/11
Separate names with a comma.