i actually think it is good that people like you ask questions about they things the government says... but when people start adding very illogical logic to the equation, then i can't really believe anything from some truthers...not you in particular, because your just reading what other people say, and adding it what you think you know, and bam... the wild theories start to really flow...some things you say make sense, while others are just to far out there to even begin to try to believe... thats why i keep saying to read from both sides, and make a balanced point of view...

As I have said, I don't know what happened. But when the official story falls apart, curiosity gets the best of people and they try to imagine what may have really happened.

A lot of people come up with theories of their own because they want answers, and the official account does not have them.

So the only thing you can do is get hard core about the evidence. Demand the evidence. Demand the proof.

THE REAL PROOF THAT WOULD STAND UP TO SCRUTINY. IT DOES NOT EXIST.

The government does not have proof to back up their account. That is the bottom line. You can't give their theory any more credibility than anyone elses.

For one what makes you think this is the most heavily guarded airspace? It's about 1-2 miles from Reagan National Airport. Planes fly there all the time. Have you ever been to DC?

Again, this mantra is often repeated and it is immediately questionable. Do fighter aircraft constantly patrol the skies? Are there anti-aircraft batteries dotted every couple of blocks? Searchlights to help AA batteries counter night raids? Ground to air missile batteries strewn throughout the city?

No? The most heavily defended airspace huh?

A plane that was hijacked and turned around near the West Virginia and Ohio border and for 40 minutes had no radio contact.

So, how do you interpret this?

I interpret it as another piece to the puzzle of why 911 truth has grown over the years. Not to mention the plane disappeared from radar. Even when the hijackers turned off the transponders on the other three planes those planes are still visible on radar.

So, even if this is true, applying logic, how does it become evidence of a conspiracy? Have any other factors been considered before this conclusion was reached?

When you add everything up. No debris at Pentagon. Impossible to fly 757 into pentagon. Flight 77 no commotion or transmitting when plane being hijacked. Hani Hanjour had difficulty flying Cessna plane. Ted Olson changing his story about Barbara Olson and the calls he received. Plane not being intercepted.

Whether the above are true or not, how do these points denote a conspiracy? I mean this is not evidence of a conspiracy directly is it? They're just random occurrences connected to the same incident. It would require far more evidence to suggest a conspiracy took place.

This is extremely interesting.

Some very strange data on flight numbers, departures etc.

http://serendipity.li/wot/aa_flts/aa_flts.htm

Of course a conspiracy took place. geeeeze.

Do you know what "conspiracy" means? Two or more people planning a crime is a conspiracy.

The direction of conspiracy is in New York with the Mossad agents filming The 1st plane before it even hit. The trucks with explosves in New York with Mossad agents. I made an accusation that is fact with police reports. Why where no charges filed?

Of course, your definition is a given, but the points posited do not denote a conspiracy. To label it thus is merely a leap of logic. Even your claim that two or more people planned a crime is a leap of logic and based solely on faith, not evidence.

No charges were filed probably because it was not the case, or there was a lack of evidence. Did you consider that as a possibility?

Now look who is talking about lack of evidence.

Oh and if people want to complain about the fires they should take it up with Professor Dormant Williams. Who is he? He is a current professor at the University of California, San Diego. Has a PhD from the California institute of technology, he taught at Harvard, was the chair of the department of mechanical and aerospace engineering at Princeton. But you may ask, how would he know about fires? Well his specialization is combustion. He is the author of Combustion theory ( Addison Wesley second edition) and Co author of fundamental aspects of combustion (Oxford 1993). He is deputy editor of Combustion and Flame and a member of the editorial advisory boards of Combustion Science and Technolog, Progress in Energy and Combustion Science, and Archivium Combustionis. Bit I am sure you guys know more than him right?

Please let me remind all once again to keep your post to a debate and do not direct it towards other members or post just pictures. If you want to post please make sure it is in debate form and it has to do with the Topic..

Site Mod
Kristi

Kristi, political satire techniques are some of the most effective debate tools. They often come in comic comparisons and graphic highlighting of points difficult to make in text.

It's also fun!

I have no evidence that they did. IS there ANY supporting evidence or just a loaded question like 'when did you stop hitting your wife?'