Ex-CIA Pilot - No Planes Hit The Twin Towers


Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm currently at work, but to be short, I have no firm opinion what happened on the day / who was responsible.

I have an open mind to criticism of all arguments (including the OP)

That's the problem. It's easy to try to find small inconsistencies in the evidence and you're more likely to find them if you're basing conclusions on a limited understanding of the underlying science (Professional Mackem is the master of this). However, as it stands there is only one series of events that has been put forward to explain what happened that day. Until there is a credible alternative to explain everything and not just some perceived flaw in the evidence there's no reason to suppose the 'official' version of events isn't what happened.
 
That's the problem. It's easy to try to find small inconsistencies in the evidence and you're more likely to find them if you're basing conclusions on a limited understanding of the underlying science (Professional Mackem is the master of this). However, as it stands there is only one series of events that has been put forward to explain what happened that day. Until there is a credible alternative to explain everything and not just some perceived flaw in the evidence there's no reason to suppose the 'official' version of events isn't what happened.
There are many versions of events which have been put forward, many have major flaws and can be completely discredited. All of the versions of events have inconsistencies to an extent and points of interest which are reasonable for discussion.

Not been able to provide an all encompassing version of events doesn't mean that we / people should not question fragments of the bigger picture.

For example, if I took the version of events as stated by the USA as the truth and , as @Tadger puts it, radged up Muslims were responsible - does that mean we shouldn't question who knew what afterwards? Or if the attacks could have been prevented but were instead allowed to happen?

Everything should be questioned.
 
There are many versions of events which have been put forward, many have major flaws and can be completely discredited. All of the versions of events have inconsistencies to an extent and points of interest which are reasonable for discussion.

Why has no-one ever put forward one on any of the many threads about it on here then?

All that happens is people find an 'inconsistency', it gets comprehensively debunked then the person that suggested it says something along the lines of 'well I'm still keeping an open mind' and we start again a few months later.

For example, if I took the version of events as stated by the USA as the truth and , as @Tadger puts it, radged up Muslims were responsible - does that mean we shouldn't question who knew what afterwards? Or if the attacks could have been prevented but were instead allowed to happen?

So who knew about them, how easily could they have been prevented, how many people were involved in this cover up, what was the motivation and what's the evidence for your answers to all of the above?

Can't beat a good question, I agree.
 
Everything should be questioned.

Ah, the default fall-back argument of the conspiracy theorist. Almost always used by people who steadfastly refuse to believe in things for which there is an overwhelming amount of evidence yet post, apparently without having paused to question any of it, the deranged ramblings of discredited fantasists under unequivocal and declamatory thread titles.
 
Ah, the default fall-back argument of the conspiracy theorist. Almost always used by people who steadfastly refuse to believe in things for which there is an overwhelming amount of evidence yet post, apparently without having paused to question any of it, the deranged ramblings of discredited fantasists under unequivocal and declamatory thread titles.

Watch this one carefully, I reckon he works for them.....
 
I cannot conceive the mind of a person that buys into this bullshit. Have they nowt better to do?

There's a lad gets in my local that's absolutely convinced that its a government cover-up. He won't listen to anyone who debunks the bullshit he comes out with.

He was trying to convince me the other Sunday that the Holocaust didn't happen. His reasoning was that it takes 8 hours for a body to be burned to dust. When I mentioned the countless records, pics & videos of it happening, and that I'd been to Auschwitz-Birkenau and seen the evidence, he said I'd been brainwashed by the Illuminati. I was half expecting him to tell me the lizard people ruled the world.
 
I could give a sworn testimony that today is Thursday, doesn't make it true.

True, but this is like a maths professor giving a sworn testimony that 2+2 = 5.

It looks absolutely wrong but this guy obviously knows in and outs that most people don't know.

As @Occam's Razor says though, if the bloke has a previous of believing/promoting bullshit conspiracy theories then it weakens his testimony, expert pilot or not.
 
And yet you feel no inclination to question a claim made by someone who also believes that the moon was towed into its orbit around earth by aliens from Venus, with whom he's in regular contact.
tiptoad - I've seen on here before that you are a bulldog when it comes to debate and by bringing such a ludicrous comparison into the fray I am afraid I can no longer respond to you on this thread

Even the OP's backtracked to 'it probably was terrorists but what if the US government knew about it' now.
You'll find I haven't offered any opinion at all on the issue, so back tracking isn't possible. You've simply not had the rise you wanted from asking me to explain what happened
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top