Why do people believe 911 was a conspiracy?

<< < (4/9) > >>

kennyg (February 09, 2007, 17:21:16 PM):
Especially when there's a confluence of evidentiary lines.

It is incumbent upon those who make the first claim to prove their claim, not upon others to disprove it.

You're dodging the bullet here. Please provide proof that it was Al Queda and Osama bin Laden who demolished the WTC and part of the Pentagon on 9/11. The FBI, the White House and the State Department have failed to provide any substantial proof of their allegations even after 5 years have passed. Why should anyone believe them?
bluegray (February 09, 2007, 17:28:14 PM):
Why do you believe that the WTC was demolished by terrorists? Because you saw it on TV? Because George W. Bush said so?
No, and I never actually said I believe that. Although most indications point in that direction.
What proof have you seen that it was a group of Al Queda terrorists sent by Osama bin Laden that hijacked aircraft and flew them into the twin towers?
I never said I had any. But still it's a likely explanation.
Either way, it was a conspiracy. People think that it's smart to label ideas that originate outside of the mainstream media "Conspiracy Theories", pronounced with a sneer.
We've been through this in the other thread haven't we? Please stay on topic. What do you get out of believing it was the US Government and not Al Queda terrorists?
It isn't smart at all to be closed minded and believe only what you see on TV or read in YOU magazine. Or Popular Mechanics, for that matter.
If they publish good evidence in YOU magazine, I'll believe it. Same goes for Popular Mechanics.
Mefiante (February 09, 2007, 18:17:18 PM):
It is incumbent upon those who make the first claim to prove their claim, not upon others to disprove it.
Which is what they have done to the satisfaction of many experts from a diversity of disciplines. But not, apparently, sufficient to your exacting standards.


You're dodging the bullet here.
No, I'm afraid you are. You contest the official version of events with nothing so far but loose conjecture, a suitably affected mien of righteousness and lots of hot air. It is, as you say, "incumbent" on you to provide evidence that the current account is wrong. In this regard, it works the same way science does: a new theory must be thoroughly convincing before the old one is abandoned.


Please provide proof that it was Al Queda and Osama bin Laden who demolished the WTC and part of the Pentagon on 9/11.
I'm not an investigator, and so no doubt will fail to provide you with evidence you consider compelling ("proof" is the domain of mathematicians, logicians and philosophers). Nevertheless, there's much been written on the Internet about the subject that a sincere search will reveal. Google exists for this purpose.


The FBI, the White House and the State Department have failed to provide any substantial proof of their allegations even after 5 years have passed.
And doubtless they have good strategic reasons for withholding certain items of evidence.


Why should anyone believe them?
You may wish to direct that question at yourself.

'Luthon64
kennyg (February 09, 2007, 23:29:36 PM):

The FBI, the White House and the State Department have failed to provide any substantial proof of their allegations even after 5 years have passed.
And doubtless they have good strategic reasons for withholding certain items of evidence.

So we're back at "Trust us. We're experts".

These are the same people who told the world that Saddam Hussein had WMD.
Mefiante (February 12, 2007, 07:09:05 AM):
So we're back at "Trust us. We're experts".
Not quite. What you conveniently disregard, as pointed out to you before before, is the multitude of independent experts' assessments. I'll grant you that any one of them may be mistaken, but all of them together and in the same way? Or, worse yet, they're colluding to deceive the world? I think not. The other thing you seem to forget is that history has shown that it takes only a single whistleblower to expose a huge cover-up like the one you're suggesting. Where is he or she?

And, more importantly, you keep shying away from presenting a credible alternative. You expect that you will be taken seriously when all you can do is keep shouting, "Liars!" without offering any evidence that your accusation is in fact sustainable.

You're starting to sound like a stuck record.

'Luthon64

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Skeptic Forum Board Index

Non-mobile version of page