Bin Laden: Shoot To Kill

[Retired_member41]

Your answer wont end in a ban, not answering will be worse.

I would actually like to hear you tell us some good things Holland has done, not a country I know much about, people seem nice though.

 

[retired_member33]

Your answer wont end in a ban, not answering will be worse.

I would actually like to hear you tell us some good things Holland has done, not a country I know much about, people seem nice though.

I never said anything about Holland so not going down that road.

 

[BREWSTERS]

Not wanting to restart the debate - just thought that it's worth noting, that for all the sniggering and name calling, NO ONE HAS BEEN ABLE TO SAY WHY THEY BELIEVE THE OFFICIAL STORY OF 911 which must mean that the only reason is that they cannot believe the alternative.

Sorry guys but not believing one thing does not prove another.

And remember, the only guy here answering any questions, was me.

 

[philipp]

It comes down to burden of proof. Your extraordinary hypothesis requires strong evidence - and there is none at all, just a bunch of crackpot theories.

P.

 

[mat]

Sorry guys but not believing one thing does not prove another.

You can't seem to grasp that this also applies to you, yet you believe everything you tell us is FACT.

The way you portray your views is very arrogant.

Your facts only stand up in your head, they are based on assumptions. But of course you will dispute that and what can we do?? That is the most frustrating thing about people like you.

How do we debate with someone who will never admit they are wrong?

 

[BREWSTERS]

You can't seem to grasp that this also applies to you, yet you believe everything you tell us is FACT.

The way you portray your views is very arrogant.

Your facts only stand up in your head, they are based on assumptions. But of course you will dispute that and what can we do?? That is the most frustrating thing about people like you.

How do we debate with someone who will never admit they are wrong?

Mat, will 350 degrees of heat have the same affect as 1000 degrees?
(The official story at some stages uses 1000 degrees in their model when by their own calculation, that area never exceeded 350 degrees - proof of hiding the truth; can you see that?)

Will 4 inch steel be stronger that 2 inch steel?
(the official report claimed 2 inch steel was used for areas where 4 inch was used - proof of hiding the truth; can you see that?)

These facts and numerous others have been pointed out to the authorities who instead of asking for the report to be re-done, are happy to leave such glaring inaccuracies in and accept it as is. There is only one reason for them doing so - to hide the truth.

How do we debate with someone who will never admit they are wrong?

Please qualify this - specificaly what do you think I'm wrong about?

 

[BREWSTERS]

It comes down to burden of proof. Your extraordinary hypothesis requires strong evidence - and there is none at all, just a bunch of crackpot theories.

P.

You think that pointing out glaring inaccuracies in the official report that proves their theories are wrong...are 'crackpot theories'?

Adding 2 and 2 and getting 7 is ok in your book is it?

Whereas 2 + 2 = 4 is a crackpot theory?

 

[Pred]

You can't seem to grasp that this also applies to you, yet you believe everything you tell us is FACT.

The way you portray your views is very arrogant.

Your facts only stand up in your head, they are based on assumptions. But of course you will dispute that and what can we do?? That is the most frustrating thing about people like you.

How do we debate with someone who will never admit they are wrong?

do your research
here
http://www.infowars.com/category/september-11/

read, learn, question

then come back and debate

 

[jasman]

Too many people on here have been quick to ridicule others for putting forward the numerous points which discredit or disprove the official version of events. Yet many of these points are backed up with facts. Even some of those involved in the 911 commission have said there was a cover up.

So not surprisingly the uninformed get fed up with arguing because they don't know whether the evidence presented is true or not because they haven't put the effort in to do the research themselves, and so for them the debate appears a tiresome cycle of hearsay. If people were better informed they would be able to engage in the debate in terms of the available facts, using the facts to see whether certain parts of the official version can be proven or refuted. That is the open-minded way to proceed in an investigation, not making up your mind first then refuting anything that disagrees with it.

 

[GreyWing]

Too many people on here have been quick to ridicule others for putting forward the numerous points which discredit or disprove the official version of events. Yet many of these points are backed up with facts. Even some of those involved in the 911 commission have said there was a cover up.

Of course there was a cover up, nobody is arguing there was not a cover up, in fact I would say that there is loads of stuff still being covered up. What we are saying is that just because some people covered some highly embarrassing stuff, it doesn't mean that they blew down the towers with explosives.

Some of the hijackers may have even been on the CIA payroll, that would be embarrassing and needs covering up. That kind of stuff does happen, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...mber-was-Jordanian-al-Qaeda-triple-agent.html Sometimes these people turn rogue, it happens....

That does not mean that the Government was in on it, a million miles away and fantasy land.

Like I said at the start of this thread, 99.99999% of conspiracies refer to covering up mistakes in the past, they are not proactive conspiracies.

 

[Sound]

Of course there was a cover up, nobody is arguing there was not a cover up, in fact I would say that there is loads of stuff still being covered up. What we are saying is that just because some people covered some highly embarrassing stuff, it doesn't mean that they blew down the towers with explosives.

As Greywing has said so well above no one is disputing that events, people and the past were covered up to save embarrassment to Bush and the USA.

*News agencies appeared to be working from scripts - in a couple of instances reporting events before they occured.

I work in the broadcast industry and their is no way the media were in on events or reading from scripts or mentioning events before they happened.

When you see a newscaster talking on the news there is a team of people directing them via their earpieces telling them what to talk about and what coming next it would be impossible to work from scripts on a live event of this magnitude with so many unknowns.
I believe some of what you say has some truth and should be investigated but I don't believe the world trade centre buildings were blown up by explosives on live TV.

 

[mat]

do your research
here
http://www.infowars.com/category/september-11/

read, learn, question

then come back and debate

Do research on a site promoting water cleansing kits for poisoned water, self defence training, phantom stock ebooks, evacuation and survival kits for an armageddon.

Doesn't that kind of some up the kind of people running and providing information on such a site?

Im not even making up the above, go look at the banners they promote for yourself.

 

[BREWSTERS]

Of course there was a cover up, nobody is arguing there was not a cover up, in fact I would say that there is loads of stuff still being covered up. What we are saying is that just because some people covered some highly embarrassing stuff, it doesn't mean that they blew down the towers with explosives.

Are you agreeing that someone blew down the towers using explosives?

Some of the hijackers may have even been on the CIA payroll, that would be embarrassing and needs covering up. That kind of stuff does happen, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...mber-was-Jordanian-al-Qaeda-triple-agent.html Sometimes these people turn rogue, it happens....

That does not mean that the Government was in on it, a million miles away and fantasy land.

Like I said at the start of this thread, 99.99999% of conspiracies refer to covering up mistakes in the past, they are not proactive conspiracies.

Given that you knew nothing about WTC7 until a day or so ago, you shouldn't be suprised that there are so many inaccuracies in the official report (I've not touched on 1% of them), that show that this was a 'proactive conspiracy'.

 

[BREWSTERS]

As Greywing has said so well above no one is disputing that events, people and the past were covered up to save embarrassment to Bush and the USA.


I work in the broadcast industry and their is no way the media were in on events or reading from scripts or mentioning events before they happened.

When you see a newscaster talking on the news there is a team of people directing them via their earpieces telling them what to talk about and what coming next it would be impossible to work from scripts on a live event of this magnitude with so many unknowns.
I believe some of what you say has some truth and should be investigated but I don't believe the world trade centre buildings were blown up by explosives on live TV.

You're entitled to your opinion, but we are just finding out what the leading media houses are capable of. It is a matter of record that some events were being spoken about as having happened, prior to them happening.

 

[BREWSTERS]

Do research on a site promoting water cleansing kits for poisoned water, self defence training, phantom stock ebooks, evacuation and survival kits for an armageddon.

Doesn't that kind of some up the kind of people running and providing information on such a site?

Im not even making up the above, go look at the banners they promote for yourself.

So, nothing to say against the content - just the advertising?

 

[jasman]

Do research on a site promoting water cleansing kits for poisoned water, self defence training, phantom stock ebooks, evacuation and survival kits for an armageddon.

Doesn't that kind of some up the kind of people running and providing information on such a site?

Im not even making up the above, go look at the banners they promote for yourself.

That stands to reason. Firstly, there is a market amongst people who do not trust the government, for survivial equipment and supplies because such people are often self-reliant and have little faith in the authorities to act responsibly in times of need. Take the Bush administration's handling of Hurricane Katrina where armed troops were flown in to shoot looters several days before water and food supplies were delivered (pretty obvious whose interests that administration were looking out for), or the recent events in Fukushima as examples. Those people who survived and had their own emergency supplies were in a much better position than the sleepwalkers who thought the authorities would look after them.

Secondly, the corporate and banking sectors that buy the bulk of the advertising in the mainstream media are regularly criticised in the independent media and hence are not going to support them by buying advertising.

 

[GreyWing]

Are you agreeing that someone blew down the towers using explosives?

You can somehow interpret my statement as agreeing that the towers were brought down explosives. hhhmmm interesting, it simply says everything about the way you interpret information.

You couldn't have provided us with a simpler demonstration to the way you process your thoughts.

 

[mat]

You should look a bit deeper into the kind of people who are running these sites you get your "Facts" from. Most of them are millionaires now thanks to you lot feeding them. Alex Jones for example, what a guy!!

 

[mat]

David Icke is even associated with Infowars.com. Pretty credible site I would say!

 

[BREWSTERS]

You can somehow interpret my statement as agreeing that the towers were brought down explosives. hhhmmm interesting, it simply says everything about the way you interpret information.

You couldn't have provided us with a simpler demonstration to the way you process your thoughts.

What we are saying is that just because some people covered some highly embarrassing stuff, it doesn't mean that they blew down the towers with explosives.

You are agreeing here that they (the authorities) were complicit in a conspiracy. The way it reads, you suggest that whoever they were complicit with, blew the towers - just not the authorities. If you'd written 'it doesn't mean that someone blew down the towers...' etc it would have been more specific.
But this is splitting hairs - how about telling us what it is that convinces you that the US wasn't behind the attacks? That would be something meaningful.