Conspiracy theory versus Conspiracy facts of 9/11

Really?? Why is that?

Originally posted by Vushta
Really?? Why is that?

Too obvious.

And since it can't be backed up, then it's useless since we don't have a clue as to whether he actually made those statements.

So it can't be considered "proof".

That makes no sense.

What do you mean "it can't be backed up"?

You say we can't be sure he made THOSE statements----but you're sure he made the other? Why?

How does that work?



[edit on 4-7-2006 by Vushta]

Originally posted by Vushta
That makes no sense.

What do you mean "it can't be backed up"?

You say we can't be sure he made THOSE statements----but you're sure he made the other? Why?

How does that work?

Actually it does.

It can't be proven that CNN actually had an interview with Atta's father. Those "alleged" statements he made sounds more like hearsay.

You can't tell me that CNN always report "facts".

That "alleged" celebration from the Palenstians(sp?) on 9/11 turned out to be FALSE......it had nothing to do with 9/11.

But that's the point I'm making here. We don't know if the interview was conducted or not so it can't be considered as "proof". It's just a matter of "beliefs" in which truth/facts doesn't need as a foundation because IT CAN BE PROVEN.

[edit on 4-7-2006 by 2smooth4ya]

Originally posted by 2smooth4ya

Originally posted by Vushta
That makes no sense.

What do you mean "it can't be backed up"?

You say we can't be sure he made THOSE statements----but you're sure he made the other? Why?

How does that work?

Actually it does.

It can't be proven that CNN actually had an interview with Atta's father. Those "alleged" statements he made sounds more like hearsay.

You can't tell me that CNN always report "facts".

That "alleged" celebration from the Palenstians(sp?) on 9/11 turned out to be FALSE......it had nothing to do with 9/11.

But that's the point I'm making here. We don't know if the interview was conducted or not so it can't be considered as "proof". It's just a matter of "beliefs" in which truth/facts doesn't need as a foundation because IT CAN BE PROVEN.

Well actually it doesn't.

If you don't believe the one report, why to you believe the report that says he talked to his son on the 12th.?