Smeg wrote:1. Not supported by the vast majority? Whats that got to do with anything? You then mention the "o" word... so because its an "official source" that makes it unquestionable?
You then again mention credibility... Why? Whats not credible about asking questions and suggesting other answers than the ones you are given by the media? How about, maybe, just maybe these people are in area's where some of them have actually seen things that make you want to question something. Does that not occur to you? Does it not occur they become suspicious or they have an "agenda" (if they do) because they may well have seen something to make them have this agenda.
Having read the BBC's report about WTC7 collapsing, do you honestly believe its was purely coincidence and no questions should be asked on how the building was reported collapsed a full 23 minutes before it did, then five minutes before the building actually did collapse, they "lost the transmission" think how often that happens on TV... VERY RARE... then, to top it off, the video's are missing?
And no questions should be asked because the official BBC statement says it was a coincidence and aup?
Please.
2. Prove the evidence is false. Its false in your opinion. No fact, no "official statements" to back it up. You can't be 100% certain the evidence is false, which is why its silly to not only dismiss it, but call others names when they bring it into the arguement.
3. The official review? What exactly is an official review? A person's opinion as to what happened is what. Whether qualified or not, its still opinion. And as I've already said, and will say again, if something is "official" does that mean its not to be questioned?
4. Again, like I said but you're unable to comprehend... Does that make it impossible, unfeasable or whatever other word you want to throw in there? No it doesn't. You're basing you're opinion on the fact something like this "may not" have happened before in this particular country. As I've said, first time for everything. Its not my belief there is a motive, I'm not sure what I believe on the matter. My issue is with the ignorance you dismiss other peoples views. Especially people you don't know, who could well have actually been there.
5. Keep name calling, its all you've got because you had your "answers" completely ripped to shreds with reasonable debate. You've done nothing but repeat yourself in your last post which proves you don't have the answers to any of the questions I asked you.
For you to come into an area you know absoloutely nothing/very little about and start name calling is a bit daft really. At least when I do it, its when people talkabout an area in which they firstly, aren't qualified in or secondly, generally know nothing about and fellow general opinion.
1) BANNED STU says: 'You're typical arsewhole dismissive attitude towards everything is clear for everyone to see'
You wonder why I reply with a response clarifying the view of the majority of people?
I mention the 'O' word, absolutely, those who are privvy to the information tend to be able to form the most reliable judgements. They know the facts. At the very least it gives them a greater capacity with which to form a judgement.
If you knew anything about U.S. politics you'd know why I question the credibility of the left wing media.
2) Look at the offical sources, view the reports composed by those privvy to the information, not those who have a speculative eye on the issue.
3) An official review, those who are privvy to all the information available. Of course you should question official sources, however, I will trust those who had access to actual transcripts of flight discussions, those who had access to the black box at the Pentagon, those who had access to DNA records proving that a plane did in fact crash at the Pentagon......Not those who speculate on the basis of comments made by a Dutch engineer who said it looked like a classic 'controlled exploision'.
4) Your issue is with me, like it always has been, no change there. If those speaking in this thread were at the site of the collapses, let it be known. I don't display ignorance on this issue, I am replying to people who accuse the U.S. gov't of killing fellow U.S. citizens. I have every right to respond to what I believe to be utter sh!te.
5) No Stu, that would be your tactic. You specialise in getting banned, coming back, saying you're not posting again and then re-appearing under the pseudonym 'Smeg'.