Evidence thread

[Jango]

And what I meant by "irrefutable evidence", was a governmental source, which I would think you take credibly, of which, none exists to my knowledge. So speculation, free-thinking, and opinions take its place. But you of course will not accept anything to the contrary *unless* it has a government stamp on it, even if it doesn't make sense. Oh, but you've made it sound "logical" alright.

What other evidence is there that 'directly links al Qaeda to being on the planes'?

[Patriot911]

Okay, fair enough, so you find it plausible that the passport, which was "soaked in jet fuel", would not ignite nor be incinerated before floating its way on down to Vesey Street. Roger that. Good to know.
Since so much evidence was ejected out of the plane(s), why were no bodies found on the streets below? Surely at least one unfastened passenger would have been sent hurtling through the air.

Ah, the good ol' truther tactic of taking things to extremes. Since SOME stuff made it through intact, now you want to pretend MORE stuff should have made it through. You really think the bodies wouldn't be mangled during the impact? You honestly think they should have been expelled from the building whole and intact? Come on. Even you aren't THAT stupid.

[Patriot911]

And what I meant by "irrefutable evidence", was a governmental source, which I would think you take credibly, of which, none exists to my knowledge. So speculation, free-thinking, and opinions take its place. But you of course will not accept anything to the contrary *unless* it has a government stamp on it, even if it doesn't make sense. Oh, but you've made it sound "logical" alright.

What other evidence is there that 'directly links al Qaeda to being on the planes'?

More utter and complete bull(*)(*)(*)(*) lies from you. No "irrefutable evidence" exists? I ONLY accept evidence that has the government stamp on it? Congratulations! Your dishonesty and willingness to reject any and all evidence that does not fit your bull(*)(*)(*)(*) anti-American agenda has earned you the honorary title of truther!

I've pointed out irrefutable evidence. Were you able to refute the testimony of Betty Ong? Nope. Were you able to refute any of the other evidence I gave you? Nope. Were you able to present even a shred of evidence that the Al Qaeda hijackers were NOT on the planes? Nope. Instead you focused on ONE passport as the only thing that mattered.

So why should ANYONE bother with you any more? I've given you evidence. You turned your truther nose up at it. I've given you plausible explanations for the passport. You've turned your nose up at that. You've lied your ass off about the evidence and my position. You're not here to debate. You're here to try and foment an uprising just like the rest of your truther buddies. Only a matter of time before some truther cracks and takes out his pent up and misplaced frustrations on innocent people.

[DDave]

I did believe the evidence until I started looking into 9/11 more.

That is a strange statement. ALWAYS trust the evidence. Look at the evidence surrounding the evidence. If you don't trust the government (I assume this means ALL levels as there were federal, state, county and city agencies involved) then look for proof (more evidence) that the evidence that you question was tampered with.

Since so much evidence was ejected out of the plane(s), why were no bodies found on the streets below? Surely at least one unfastened passenger would have been sent hurtling through the air.

And would that have to be?

So speculation, free-thinking, and opinions take its place.

Pardon my bluntness but that's an idiotic statement. Speculation, free-thinking, and opinions are not evidence no matter how much some people would like them to be.

So say the police comes knocking on your door tomorrow to arrest you for an armed robbery that was committed across town last week. They have no evidence that you did it. But based on speculation, free-thinking, and opinion, they arrest you and charge you with the crime.

You'd be okay with that?

But you of course will not accept anything to the contrary *unless* it has a government stamp on it, even if it doesn't make sense. Oh, but you've made it sound "logical" alright.

Yes, all of those peer-reviewed papers from engineers have the "government stamp" on them and "don't make sense". Your starting to sound exactly like RtWngaFraud.

[Jango]

Ah, the good ol' truther tactic of taking things to extremes. Since SOME stuff made it through intact, now you want to pretend MORE stuff should have made it through. You really think the bodies wouldn't be mangled during the impact? You honestly think they should have been expelled from the building whole and intact? Come on. Even you aren't THAT stupid.

I didn't say intact, Mr. Straw Man. I said 'bodies'. And how exactly is that taking things to extremes, man? I am trying to understand things from the perspective that planes carrying people inside of it enters a buildings which has people inside of it which causes explosions that push a lot of things out, but not a single partially intact body. But the passport "soaked in jet fuel" survives intact. Come on. It survived the fireball bomb blast of the South Tower impact, therefore is real evidence. What would you bet on that?

[Jango]

More utter and complete bull(*)(*)(*)(*) lies from you. No "irrefutable evidence" exists? I ONLY accept evidence that has the government stamp on it? Congratulations! Your dishonesty and willingness to reject any and all evidence that does not fit your bull(*)(*)(*)(*) anti-American agenda has earned you the honorary title of truther!

I've pointed out irrefutable evidence. Were you able to refute the testimony of Betty Ong? Nope. Were you able to refute any of the other evidence I gave you? Nope. Were you able to present even a shred of evidence that the Al Qaeda hijackers were NOT on the planes? Nope. Instead you focused on ONE passport as the only thing that mattered.

So why should ANYONE bother with you any more? I've given you evidence. You turned your truther nose up at it. I've given you plausible explanations for the passport. You've turned your nose up at that. You've lied your ass off about the evidence and my position. You're not here to debate. You're here to try and foment an uprising just like the rest of your truther buddies. Only a matter of time before some truther cracks and takes out his pent up and misplaced frustrations on innocent people.

Yes, paint me a terrorist. The irony.

[Jango]

That is a strange statement. ALWAYS trust the evidence. Look at the evidence surrounding the evidence. If you don't trust the government (I assume this means ALL levels as there were federal, state, county and city agencies involved) then look for proof (more evidence) that the evidence that you question was tampered with.



And would that have to be?



Pardon my bluntness but that's an idiotic statement. Speculation, free-thinking, and opinions are not evidence no matter how much some people would like them to be.

So say the police comes knocking on your door tomorrow to arrest you for an armed robbery that was committed across town last week. They have no evidence that you did it. But based on speculation, free-thinking, and opinion, they arrest you and charge you with the crime.

You'd be okay with that?



Yes, all of those peer-reviewed papers from engineers have the "government stamp" on them and "don't make sense". Your starting to sound exactly like RtWngaFraud.

It's not like I am trying to say that I know everything or have evidence for everything, there are a lot of opinions. But these opinions are formed with knowledge of the things I am generally forming an opinion on, not just some loose cabal of unrelated and unreliable data points. Please, give me some more credit than that.

[leftysergeant]

But these opinions are formed with knowledge of the things I am generally forming an opinion on, not just some loose cabal of unrelated and unreliable data points. Please, give me some more credit than that.

You obviously lack knowledge of some important aspects of the case which leaves yourt opinion useless. You obviously lack the knowledge of fire science to asess the possibility that thermite was used. You lack the knowledge of chemistry to recognise paint chips.

Try getting your sources from those qualified in the area on which you arre commenting.

Notihng about the collapse looks the least bit odd to a fire fighter or a chemist.

[Patriot911]

I didn't say intact, Mr. Straw Man. I said 'bodies'.

Bodies implies a whole body, i.e. intact. Body parts would be body parts. I did not change a thing. Nice attempt to dodge, but you've failed.

And how exactly is that taking things to extremes, man? I am trying to understand things from the perspective that planes carrying people inside of it enters a buildings which has people inside of it which causes explosions that push a lot of things out, but not a single partially intact body. But the passport "soaked in jet fuel" survives intact. Come on. It survived the fireball bomb blast of the South Tower impact, therefore is real evidence. What would you bet on that?

First off, get your facts straight. I hate it when truthers prove their ignorance of the events by getting the facts wrong. The passport was from Flight 11. It was what Satam al-Suqami used to check in.

Second, for you to not understand the difference in extremes between a light item such as a passport being blown around and a human body or body parts being blown around, well, there I cannot help you. Ignorance is something that is hard for some to overcome. Some don't even try.

Third, the passport is evidence Suqami was on the flight, not that there is some grand conspiracy. Apparently you need to understand that evidence is used to prove a claim. It does not back up your retarded claim in any way, shape or form despite your paranoid delusions that it is proof positive the government was behind 9/11.

So. It is your claim that the passport is proof positive of a conspiracy because it survived the fire. What if other things survived the fire without even being ejected? Would that change your mind or are you so focused on your beliefs that evidence is pointless?

[Patriot911]

Way to run away from my post. I knew you couldn't address it, so you go for the straw man. Where did I claim you are a terrorist? Another blatant lie by you. I made a statement and I stand by that statement. It is only a matter of time before some truther cracks and takes out his pent up and misplaced frustrations on innocent people. If I thought that was you, I would have said so. Did I? No. Did you claim I did? Yes. Did you lie yet again? Yes. Are you going to man up to that lie? If your history is an example, no, you will run away.