Could you be persuaded to change your mind?

reply to post by seanm


seanm

You're being completely disingenuous.

Despite having a theory that doesn't need me to worry about NIST, FEMA and ASCE, I've played along with you. I've answered all of your questions, often on the basis that I've had to put myself into the position of supporting claims I don't necessarily believe just to give you an answer.

Again...

I DO NOT NEED TO ADDRESS ANY ANOMALIES BECAUSE NONE OF THEM AFFECT MY THEORY.

You, on the other hand, have shown yourself to be utterly incapable of meeting the standard of proof you demand in others. This makes you the biggest fraud of the lot.

Either meet my challenge - or be big enough to admit you cannot - or stop issuing your own.

reply to post by coughymachine


i could be convinced to change my mind on just about anything because i have found myself to be in error over so many things i once used to believe as truth years ago until evidence to the contrary of that "origional truth" was brought to my attention.the scriptures say that in the mouth of 2 or 3 credible witness shall every matter be established.if the witnesses are found to be false they are to pay the same penalty that they sought to bring against an innocent party---------if someone wants to deceive me into believing a lie and bring judgement on themselves-------it is they that will pay for it in the end not me.

reply to post by yahn goodey


on the other hand it is supposed to be up to us to prove all things-------in as far as we have the ability to prove the truth--------obviously some secrets are hard to pove unless you are daniel or joseph-----special people in G-Ds eyes to whom He revealed secrets.

Well to start, I don't believe the government had anything to do with 9/11 except dropping the ball BIG TIME.

How could I be convinced otherwise??
Simple really.
Show me reliable evidence pointing toward the contrary.
I have seen many people mention a lack of evidence to try and prove a conspiracy but a lack of evidence does not prove a conspiracy only that there is a lack available information about a detail.

So, I would be happy to hear all reasonable, reliable evidence pointing toward a conspiracy and that could change my mind.

Originally posted by jfj123
Well to start, I don't believe the government had anything to do with 9/11 except dropping the ball BIG TIME.

How could I be convinced otherwise??
Simple really.
Show me reliable evidence pointing toward the contrary.
I have seen many people mention a lack of evidence to try and prove a conspiracy but a lack of evidence does not prove a conspiracy only that there is a lack available information about a detail.

So, I would be happy to hear all reasonable, reliable evidence pointing toward a conspiracy and that could change my mind.

I agree with this post a lot. A LOT of the "evidence" on this board is actually just a lack of evidence, i.e. the videos that were taken from the hotel or whatever of the Pentagon.

reply to post by jfj123


First, let me say that I believe that neither side of this debate is ever likely to be able to provide the evidence to convince the other.

For example, take the collapse/CD of WTCs 1 & 2. Given that the overwhelming majority of the buildings' materials are no longer available for examination by independent analysts, how could a CD ever be proven (short of a confession, that is)?

Further, consider the possibility that all of the CTers principal claims are wrong. In other words, WTCs 1 & 2 did collapse in the manner described by NIST; the collapse of WTC 7 was nothing more sinister than collateral damage; the Pentagon was hit by Flght 77; and Flight 93 did crash into the ground at Shanksville. Does this rule out a conspiracy? I don't think it does.

If there was a conspiracy, we would be left looking for a connection between elements within the US and al Qaeda. Do we know of any such link?

Well, we know that the CIA worked with al Qaeda's predecessor, MAK, for over a decade in Afghanistan; it worked with al Qaeda in Kosovo, Bosnia and Macedonia; and it is working with al Qaeda now in Iran. On each occasion, there was an intermediary, typically the Pakistani ISI, which just happens to be alleged to be connected to 9/11.

Would a proven link between the CIA and al Qaeda at or around 2001 convince you that 9/11 was a self-inflicted wound?

Not saying it can be proven; just asking the question.

Originally posted by coughymachine
reply to post by jfj123

 

First, let me say that I believe that neither side of this debate is ever likely to be able to provide the evidence to convince the other.

For example, take the collapse/CD of WTCs 1 & 2. Given that the overwhelming majority of the buildings' materials are no longer available for examination by independent analysts, how could a CD ever be proven (short of a confession, that is)?

Further, consider the possibility that all of the CTers principal claims are wrong. In other words, WTCs 1 & 2 did collapse in the manner described by NIST; the collapse of WTC 7 was nothing more sinister than collateral damage; the Pentagon was hit by Flght 77; and Flight 93 did crash into the ground at Shanksville. Does this rule out a conspiracy? I don't think it does.

If there was a conspiracy, we would be left looking for a connection between elements within the US and al Qaeda. Do we know of any such link?

Well, we know that the CIA worked with al Qaeda's predecessor, MAK, for over a decade in Afghanistan; it worked with al Qaeda in Kosovo, Bosnia and Macedonia; and it is working with al Qaeda now in Iran. On each occasion, there was an intermediary, typically the Pakistani ISI, which just happens to be alleged to be connected to 9/11.

Would a proven link between the CIA and al Qaeda at or around 2001 convince you that 9/11 was a self-inflicted wound?

Not saying it can be proven; just asking the question.

Yes, a proven link between Al Qaeda and the CIA with a trail leading to 9/11, would convince me. Just because the two talked doesn't automatically mean 9/11 was a US sponsored job. Allegiances change all the time, double agents, informants, etc..

So, just an association doesn't automatically mean guilty.

reply to post by jfj123

So, just an association doesn't automatically mean guilty.

I accept this. But, if you drew up a timeline and plotted all known associations between US intelligence and al Qaeda (or more broadly, so-called Islamic fundamentalists), it's hard to find much of a gap. In fact, the only real gap I can see is from around 2000 to 2006, which conveniently covers the period of 9/11 through the invasion and the early struggle in Iraq.

ETA One other thing: right now, at the same time as al Qaeda are stirring things up in Iraq, they are stirring things up in Iran. Why is that interesting? Because they are acting at the behest of US intelligence in Iran.

So how can we trust the claim that al Qaeda are acting against the US in Iraq but at the same time supporting them in Iran?

[edit on 21-10-2007 by coughymachine]

Bsbray, what papers have you written on the collapses? Can you please provide me a link. I can assure you I will do my best to have it looked into by more than people from 911 CT sites.

I dont know about papers but he certainly debunked the 'jet fuel caused the explosions in the basement theory' using the actual NIST report. and i mean debunking by PROOF not 'because i said so' like so many on both sides of the fence.

Originally posted by coughymachine
reply to post by seanm

 

seanm

You're being completely disingenuous.

Despite having a theory that doesn't need me to worry about NIST, FEMA and ASCE, I've played along with you. I've answered all of your questions, often on the basis that I've had to put myself into the position of supporting claims I don't necessarily believe just to give you an answer.

Again...

I DO NOT NEED TO ADDRESS ANY ANOMALIES BECAUSE NONE OF THEM AFFECT MY THEORY.

And your theory has no relevance to the evidence.

You, on the other hand, have shown yourself to be utterly incapable of meeting the standard of proof you demand in others. This makes you the biggest fraud of the lot.

The questions I pose are for you to support your "theories."

You refuse.

Either meet my challenge - or be big enough to admit you cannot - or stop issuing your own.

Your evasions are transparent, coughymachine. You keep running away from demonstrating that you have a clue what you are talking about.

reply to post by seanm

And your theory has no relevance to the evidence.

Wrong. None of the evidence contradicts my theory. If it does, produce it.

The questions I pose are for you to support your "theories."

Indeed, and where those questions relate to MY THEORIES, I have produced evidence. That said, I admitted it did not constitute proof and that it was circumstantial.

And even where those questions HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH MY THEORIES, I still made an effort to engage.

You refuse.

Wrong - a lie.

Your evasions are transparent, coughymachine. You keep running away from demonstrating that you have a clue what you are talking about.

As shown above, I haven't evaded anything. What's more, for you to accuse me of evasion is further evidence that you are a disingenuous fraud. Look at our exchange on the other thread for an example of evasion - yours.

Originally posted by coughymachine
reply to post by jfj123

 

So, just an association doesn't automatically mean guilty.

I accept this. But, if you drew up a timeline and plotted all known associations between US intelligence and al Qaeda (or more broadly, so-called Islamic fundamentalists), it's hard to find much of a gap.

I would like to see your time line including proof of each association.
Also, there is a difference between al qaeda and islamic fundamentalists as a general group.
Once the associations are plotted, please explain as to what these associations mean, again with evidence to support what they mean.

In fact, the only real gap I can see is from around 2000 to 2006, which conveniently covers the period of 9/11 through the invasion and the early struggle in Iraq.

What is the reason for the gap? Again please provide evidence for your reasoning.

ETA One other thing: right now, at the same time as al Qaeda are stirring things up in Iraq, they are stirring things up in Iran. Why is that interesting? Because they are acting at the behest of US intelligence in Iran.

Please show evidence that they are acting on behalf of US intelligence.
Please show evidence that al qaeda is in Iran and stirring things up.
Don't you think it is possible that if al qaeda is stirring things up in Iran, it could be because they simply don't agree with the way the Iranian government is handling things and may not have anything to do with the US wants and needs?

So how can we trust the claim that al Qaeda are acting against the US in Iraq but at the same time supporting them in Iran?

I can't answer that until I see answers to my above questions.

Thanks in advance for your responses.

reply to post by jfj123


Will do. Give a while to put it all together though.

However, in advance of doing so, let me be more specific about a couple of things.

• Although I often refer to al Qaeda, I sometimes do so for simplicity. I use this term loosely to refer to both al Qaeda and other so-called Islamic organisations believed to be associated with them. In the case of the period covering the Afghan-Soviet War, for example, I am referring to al Qaeda's predecessor, MAK. In the case of their recent involvement in Iran, I'm referring to the actions of an organisation called Jundullah.
  
  This is consitent with my 'theory' that both US Intelligence and the groups I believe may be acting on their behalf work through intermediaries in order to preserve their degrees of separation.
  
  
• If by proof, you require me to produce official government confessions confirming such associations, then of course I cannot.