Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
hot enough

Providing proof/evidence that supports the US 911 Conspiracy Theory

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Boges said:

No you provide evidence that everything I can provide on Youtube at a moments notice is fake. 

That would only come after you provide some evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's like having a debate about any "science" or "evidence" based topic. People will only accept evidence from sources they trust. It's a useless venture. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Boges said:

Let's start here. Provide evidence that this was fakes or dubbed. 

 

No proof was ever offered by the US government even though Bush, Cheney, Powell said it would be forthcoming.

Quote

Point G-1: A Claim Regarding Osama bin Laden

<< Previous Point, Next Point >>

The Official Account

Osama bin Laden was responsible [1] for the 9/11 attacks.

The Best Evidence

The FBI did not list 9/11 [2] as one of the terrorist acts for which Osama bin Laden was wanted.

When asked why, Rex Tomb, when he was the head of investigative publicity for the FBI, stated [3] that the FBI had no hard evidence [4] connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.

Also, although Secretary of State Colin Powell, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, and the 9/11 Commission promised [5] to provide evidence of Bin Laden’s responsibility for the 9/11 attacks, they also failed. [6]

<< Previous Point, Next Point >>

References for Point G-1

[1]

The 9/11 Commission Report, 2004

[2]

Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Most Wanted Terrorists.”

[3]

Ed Haas, “FBI says, ‘No Hard Evidence Connecting Bin Laden to 9/11’” Muckraker Report, June 6, 2006.

[4]

Federal German Judge Dieter Deiseroth, in a December 2009 statement, stated that no independent court has verified the evidence against bin Laden.
“Bush rejects Taliban offer to hand Bin Laden over,” Guardian, October 14, 2001. The Taliban said they would turn bin Laden over if the US provided evidence of his guilt.
“Taliban Met With U.S. Often: Talks centered on ways to hand over bin Laden,” Washington Post, October 29, 2001. The Taliban asked for evidence of bin Laden’s guilt but it was not forthcoming.
“The investigation and the evidence,” BBC News, October 5, 2001. “There is no direct evidence in the public domain linking Osama Bin Laden to the 11 September attacks.”

[5]

Powell: “Meet the Press,” NBC, September 23, 2001.
Blair: Tony Blair: Office of the Prime Minister, “Responsibility for the Terrorist Atrocities in the United States,” BBC News, October 4, 2001.

[6]

Powell: “Remarks by the President, Secretary of the Treasury O’Neill and Secretary of State Powell on Executive Order,” White House, September 24, 2001.
Seymour M. Hersh, “What Went Wrong: The C.I.A. and the Failure of
American Intelligence,” New Yorker, October 1, 2001.
Blair: Tony Blair: Office of the Prime Minister, “Responsibility for the Terrorist Atrocities in the United States,” BBC News, October 4, 2001. The government’s document stated that it “does not purport to provide a prosecutable case against Osama Bin Laden in a court of law.”
The 9/11 Commission Report (2004). All statements of bin Laden’s responsibility were based on interrogations of KSM [Khalid Sheikh Mohammed], under torture. See The 9/11 Commission Report notes at Ch. 5, notes 1, 10, 11, 16, 32, 40, and 41.

http://www.consensus911.org/point-g-1/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Boges said:

It's like having a debate about any "science" or "evidence" based topic. People will only accept evidence from sources they trust. It's a useless venture. 

Yet you aren't concerned about the US government lying to you repeatedly about WMDs, the repeated Osama bin Laden Osama bin Laden Osama bin Laden Osama bin Laden we all heard 15 minutes and on after the first plane hit. 

You aren't concerned about Rumsfeld's grand lie, fully supported by the master propagandist, Tim Russert?

Bin Ladens Cave according to Rumsfeld

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Boges said:

It's like having a debate about any "science" or "evidence" based topic. People will only accept evidence from sources they trust. It's a useless venture. 

And in this particular case, only evidence that supports their conspiracy theory bias.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Boges said:

It's like having a debate about any "science" or "evidence" based topic. People will only accept evidence from sources they trust. It's a useless venture. 

You have an awfully low opinion of people in general and yourself, Boges. Aren't you adult enough to discern facts, things illogical, things impossible?

How can providing evidence for such a rock solid US conspiracy theory be a "useless venture", Boges?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Omni said:

And in this particular case, only evidence that supports their conspiracy theory bias.

That doesn't count as evidence, Omni. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, hot enough said:

You have an awfully low opinion of people in general and yourself, Boges. Aren't you adult enough to discern facts, things illogical, things impossible?

How can providing evidence for such a rock solid US conspiracy theory be a "useless venture", Boges?

Because you've yet to provide evidence to prove any of the claims you spout. Sowing doubt isn't the same as telling me exactly how this Inside job was performed and by who. 

Watergate couldn't happen without "leakers" but we're to believe an army of people willingly killed 3,000 people and didn't say a peep about it to anyone. You'd need to provide compelling evidence that, that happened before I'd consider believing 911 was an inside job. 

Edited by Boges

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, hot enough said:

That doesn't count as evidence, Omni. 

You have provided more than enough evidence to support my comment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Boges said:

Sowing doubt isn't the same as telling me exactly how this Inside job was performed and by who. 

Providing proof positive of US developed nanothermite, a product that Arab hijackers had no access to, providing proof positive that it was found in WTC dust along with the by products of such thermitic reactions, providing proof positive of the molten and vaporized steel, of the molten steel flowing out of WTC2 minutes before it was blown up, of the other molten and vaporized metals that jet fuel and office furnishings could NEVER do, isn't "sowing doubt", it is proof positive that the alleged hijackers did not cause the collapse of WTCs 1, 2 & 7. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Omni said:

You have provided more than enough evidence to support my comment.

That isn't evidence, Dop, Omni, Wilber, OftenWrong, ... . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, hot enough said:

Providing proof positive of US developed nanothermite, a product that Arab hijackers had no access to, providing proof positive that it was found in WTC dust along with the by products of such thermitic reactions, providing proof positive of the molten and vaporized steel, of the molten steel flowing out of WTC2 minutes before it was blown up, of the other molten and vaporized metals that jet fuel and office furnishings could NEVER do, isn't "sowing doubt", it is proof positive that the alleged hijackers did not cause the collapse of WTCs 1, 2 & 7. 

That's conjecture. You couldn't convict in a court of law with that evidence. Again you're setting the parameteres for what's relevant proof.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Boges said:

Because you've yet to provide evidence to prove any of the claims you spout. Sowing doubt isn't the same as telling me exactly how this Inside job was performed and by who. 

I've provided evidence that shows you were badly duped by the notion that OBL had anything to do with 911. The Taliban asked the US for evidence he was involved in 911. If it was so clear, why did Bush refuse to offer any?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Boges said:

That's conjecture. You couldn't convict in a court of law with that evidence. Again you're setting the parameteres for what's relevant proof.

No, it is proven science, peer reviewed science, published science that has never been refuted. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Boges said:

That's conjecture. You couldn't convict in a court of law with that evidence.

 

1. Do you deny that the US government developed nanothermite in the 1990s?

2. Do you deny that unreacted nanothermite particles were found in WTC dust?

3. Do you deny that the by-products of thermitic reactions were found in WTC dust, iron microspheres in volumes 1500 times greater than that of normal office dust?

4. Do you deny the molten and vaporized steel described by FEMA, pictures of which anyone can see?

5. Do you deny the molten and fused steel and concrete, one named the Meteorite and housed in a 911 museum? 

6. Do you deny the molten handguns found and stored in a 911 museum?

Quote

Again you're setting the parameteres for what's relevant proof.

Hardly. How long has this thread been open, begging for evidence/proof?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, hot enough said:

No, it is proven science, peer reviewed science, published science that has never been refuted. 

And clearly only compelling to someone on an obscure Messageboard. Why aren't America's international enemies all over it? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, hot enough said:

I've provided evidence that shows you were badly duped by the notion that OBL had anything to do with 911. The Taliban asked the US for evidence he was involved in 911. If it was so clear, why did Bush refuse to offer any?

You've provided "truther" conspiracy "evidence". Oft refuted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Boges said:

And clearly only compelling to someone on an obscure Messageboard. Why aren't America's international enemies all over it? 

You guys don't even know about these things. You and Omni are operating on rumors, "evidence that's been proven false" and a complete denial of reality. 

That isn't evidence, Boges, that is conjecture. You have enough on your plate right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Omni said:

You've provided "truther" conspiracy "evidence". Oft refuted.

You can help your position by answering these simple questions, Omni?

1. Do you deny that the US government developed nanothermite in the 1990s?

2. Do you deny that unreacted nanothermite particles were found in WTC dust?

3. Do you deny that the by-products of thermitic reactions were found in WTC dust, iron microspheres in volumes 1500 times greater than that of normal office dust?

4. Do you deny the molten and vaporized steel described by FEMA, pictures of which anyone can see?

5. Do you deny the molten and fused steel and concrete, one named the Meteorite and housed in a 911 museum? 

6. Do you deny the molten handguns found and stored in a 911 museum?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, hot enough said:

You guys don't even know about these things. You and Omni are operating on rumors, "evidence that's been proven false" and a complete denial of reality. 

That isn't evidence, Boges, that is conjecture. You have enough on your plate right now.

So if the hijackers weren't Arabs, what nationality does your crew suggest?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Omni said:

So if the hijackers weren't Arabs, what nationality does your crew suggest?

Still no evidence, OftenWrong, Dop, ... for the US conspiracy theory. Should we start a count of posts where you provide no evidence and create diversions? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Omni said:

You've provided "truther" conspiracy "evidence". Oft refuted.

Provide proof that the scientific paper describing the US government owned nanothermite being found in WTC dust, by Harrit et al has been refuted. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, hot enough said:

Yet you aren't concerned about the US government lying to you repeatedly about WMDs, the repeated Osama bin Laden Osama bin Laden Osama bin Laden Osama bin Laden we all heard 15 minutes and on after the first plane hit. 

You aren't concerned about Rumsfeld's grand lie, fully supported by the master propagandist, Tim Russert?

Bin Ladens Cave according to Rumsfeld

 

Did you, Boges, and you, Omni, buy into this fantasy too?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, hot enough said:

Still no evidence, OftenWrong, Dop, ... for the US conspiracy theory. Should we start a count of posts where you provide no evidence and create diversions? 

no I think we'll start one around how often you dodge common sense questions. Who do you think were the hijackers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...