News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.4K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 39K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 4.7K     0 

Was 9/11 an inside job?

  • Yes

    Votes: 46 33.8%
  • No

    Votes: 90 66.2%

  • Total voters
    136
Status
Not open for further replies.
And yet again, all you said in all of your separate responces was the same thing worded differently and I already gave you a responce to it. And accusing me of not responding to do which I most obviously did...

Because you have failed to answer the direct challenge: do you have verifiable evidence to support your conspiracy claims regarding government involvement in the events of 9/11? So far you presented nothing and you plainly evade the obvious fact that you don't have any such supporting proof.

Either start producing the evidence or finally admit that you have none and that your accusation is baseless and founded on your own personal paranoia.

You automatically consider things like the 9/11 commission report to be evidence because it was released by the US government and shown to us in the media, that's proof to you.
If someone claims that something or many things in that report are not true, they must show evidence.

K'moo, as a propagandist, you really are a minor leaguer. I'm not defending evidence of any kind. I am challenging you to produce YOUR evidence that supports YOUR claim of a government conspiracy. The evidence should be verifiable - something that can be examined by all, and verifies a systematic government involvement - as you claim. If you don't have that, then you can't assert the existence of a conspiracy. That must be proven. Conspiracies don't exist simply as a function of your ability to fantasize.

If you want to refute the Commission Report, you have to first read it so as to know what's in it. You haven't done that. Then you have assemble a body of evidence that can refute the information contained within it. You haven't done that. Then you have to produce evidence that supports your conspiracy claim. You haven't done that. So far, you have failed to even describe the nature of this conspiracy you claim exists, never mind produce one iota of proof for its existence. Forget logic, there is neither reason nor content to your accusation.

Do you see what i'm saying? According to you whatever evidence I show you must be backed by the government.

According to you whatever evidence I show you must be backed by the government.

You want media/government backed evidence, THAT'S the problem.

As I have repeated to you over and over again: verifiable evidence. I have never specified "government" or "media" evidence. You're the one who keeps qualifying the sources. Don't blame me if you are too stupid to understand this. The fact is Kammy, you simply do not understand what evidence is, nor are you capable of shaping a reasoned, evidence-based argument. That's why you hide behind this excuse.

What's more, it's pretty clear that you repeatedly cite "government" and "media" because you have no knowledge of any other sources of information, knowledge or evidence. You have no evidence of your own that can support your baseless accusations and your only recourse otherwise is disbelief or paranoid accusations. This would suggest that, as much as you hate the government and media, you are profoundly attached to them. You're hatred of them gives you meaning. Without them, you'd be nothing.

So where is your verifiable evidence K'moo? You know, something that proves your accusation and illustrates the existence of a conspiracy. Some attestation and substantiation that we all can see and examine.

More than ten years on and you can't produce a single shred.

Pathetic!
 
And yet again, all you said in all of your separate responces was the same thing worded differently and I already gave you a responce to it. And accusing me of not responding to do which I most obviously did...

Read this carefully:

You automatically consider things like the 9/11 commission report to be evidence because it was released by the US government and shown to us in the media, that's proof to you.
If someone claims that something or many things in that report are not true, they must show evidence.

So in other words, our government or corporate controlled media must release or admit that it lied to us in order to prove something like this OR the government must release a document that prooves that they infact lied

Do you see what i'm saying? According to you whatever evidence I show you must be backed by the government. But you see tons of people in different professions anywhere from archetechs, scientists, doctors, professors, engineers, judges, military, police etc.etc have come out against the official 9/11 story and other things do and not to do with 9/11. Not to mention all the people who were there and witnessed different things. But you have to research these things because the mainstream media doesn't report on it and instead labels anyone who comes out against 9/11 a conspiracy whatever. Don't you get it? I'm not asking you to beleive me, i'm asking you to think for yourself instead of beleiving whatever you're told without question!!! There's also tons of people who are affriad to come out because look what happends when people do.

But back to the evidence thing.. You want media/government backed evidence, THAT'S the problem. Imagin trying to convict someone of... the murder of someone, and no matter how much evidence YOU have against him, the only way to convict him is if the accused murderer provides or approves evidence against himself. Of course in this case we're dealing with a growing government and large corporations who have much influence over the media/education etc.. But THAT'S Griss logic right there.

Read this carefully:

You want media/government backed information, THAT'S the problem
 
Seriously Kamuix, you need to work on your reading comprehension. Not once has Gristle said he wants media/government backed evidence. He has repeatedly asked for VERIFIABLE evidence which you have not produced. You said it yourself: if someone claims that something or many things in that report are not true, they must show evidence. Well, you are claiming that something or many things in that report are not true, so therefore YOU must show evidence. It's that simple.

So far, all you've done is share some links to some videos that ask questions and pose theories but which do not have any verifiable evidence for their claims. Yes, people have "come out against" the official story, but all they have are theories and idea, they have no verifiable evidence from any source to support their claims.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top