British Democracy Forum - View Single Post

youcanhandlethetruth · 17-02-2008, 07:39 AM

Mike,

You say Larry Silverstein never admitted ordering the demolition of his building.
That isn't ridiculous when you read his quote, but that's what we're arguing the toss over here isn't it ?

You also argue that because the whole building was not US government then it was not a US government building.

Whether it is or not doesn't alter the fact there was(as you and the document you posted admits) "US Secret Service" there, but that alone proves nothing in isolation of the rest of the evidence.

You're creating a smokescreen situation by asking for "Reputable sources" without defining what is reputable and what isn't reputable to YOU.

But who are you to decide what is reputable and what isn't ?

What is "reputable" is a subjective belief because evidence can come not only in documented written form but also from testimony from people.

So in courts(for example) we the jury, ultimately decide if we believe the testimony we hear and base our verdict on it.

But of course that's the whole point of how you can dismiss anybody elses argument isn't it ?

For example, I could present to you what I think constitutes evidence of (for example) insider trading
Profits of Death - Insider Trading and 9-11

with dead links to newspaper articles, "supposed" interviews with people etc

and you could argue it is not "reputable" and say that they are only "claims" made and it does not constitute proof.

But if I posted a British newspaper:
Mystery of terror 'insider dealers' - Business News, Business - Independent.co.uk

you would probably sit up and take notice a bit more.......

So what is actual proof ?
How do you know whether to trust anything that it printed at all ?
Are you saying that only "official" "government" documents can be trusted ?
Or maybe that only officials in government can be trusted when under oath in a court of law ?

Well that's quite a convenient argument that can cover up charges of govt or state corruption isn't it ?

Are you saying that if an individual writes an article based on testimony he has gathered from sources that it does not prove anything because it cannot be trusted to be "genuine" ?

Well if you've adopted that approach, why should you decide to trust government records, commitees, daily newspapers or even BBC news ?

You seem quite happy to pick the first quote you see that proves the point you've decided you want to make.

Whichever way you spin it, you're creating a phoney argument and for that reason, I suggest you do your own research and make your own mind up what it reputable and what is not.

You've already shown you've made your mind up on this thread ironically by not examining all the other evidence that no doubt you refute too.

As for the link I posted, where you ask "reported by whom" why don't you ask that question to the author of the article ? I merely posted the link, I didn't actually write the article.

You might be suprised to learn that I do not accept at face value a lot of the claims it makes in the article, about millions of gold and silver without other evidence to support it.

Equally I do not "hypothesise" like the author or you do about the chain of events.
Personally I do not believe there were any hijackers on those planes but that doesn't lead me to ask why something totally hypothetical did not occur.

I was using one example of where doubts have been raised and other cirumstancial evidence has been presented to allow people to make their own mind up about what did occur.

There is one heck of a lot of evidence that you could find if you wanted to, but too much for me to give you in 1 soundbite.

Prison Planet - 9/11 Prior Knowledge Archive

Unfortunately, once all the evidence has been gathered, and when it is ultimately the government who get decide to whether the government are guilty or not, then it is hardly going to be reputable or unbiased is it ?

But on the subject, there are a lot of people who doubt the 911 commisions findings and want an independent investigation

Representative Of Largest 9/11 Families Group Says Government Complicit In Attack

Yes I know you don't see them as being "reputable"........

17-02-2008, 07:39 AM	#123 (permalink)
youcanhandlethetruth Uber Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 2,378	Believe absolutely nothing at all ? Mike, You say Larry Silverstein never admitted ordering the demolition of his building. That isn't ridiculous when you read his quote, but that's what we're arguing the toss over here isn't it ? You also argue that because the whole building was not US government then it was not a US government building. Whether it is or not doesn't alter the fact there was(as you and the document you posted admits) "US Secret Service" there, but that alone proves nothing in isolation of the rest of the evidence. You're creating a smokescreen situation by asking for "Reputable sources" without defining what is reputable and what isn't reputable to YOU. But who are you to decide what is reputable and what isn't ? What is "reputable" is a subjective belief because evidence can come not only in documented written form but also from testimony from people. So in courts(for example) we the jury, ultimately decide if we believe the testimony we hear and base our verdict on it. But of course that's the whole point of how you can dismiss anybody elses argument isn't it ? For example, I could present to you what I think constitutes evidence of (for example) insider trading Profits of Death - Insider Trading and 9-11 with dead links to newspaper articles, "supposed" interviews with people etc and you could argue it is not "reputable" and say that they are only "claims" made and it does not constitute proof. But if I posted a British newspaper: Mystery of terror 'insider dealers' - Business News, Business - Independent.co.uk you would probably sit up and take notice a bit more....... So what is actual proof ? How do you know whether to trust anything that it printed at all ? Are you saying that only "official" "government" documents can be trusted ? Or maybe that only officials in government can be trusted when under oath in a court of law ? Well that's quite a convenient argument that can cover up charges of govt or state corruption isn't it ? Are you saying that if an individual writes an article based on testimony he has gathered from sources that it does not prove anything because it cannot be trusted to be "genuine" ? Well if you've adopted that approach, why should you decide to trust government records, commitees, daily newspapers or even BBC news ? You seem quite happy to pick the first quote you see that proves the point you've decided you want to make. Whichever way you spin it, you're creating a phoney argument and for that reason, I suggest you do your own research and make your own mind up what it reputable and what is not. You've already shown you've made your mind up on this thread ironically by not examining all the other evidence that no doubt you refute too. As for the link I posted, where you ask "reported by whom" why don't you ask that question to the author of the article ? I merely posted the link, I didn't actually write the article. You might be suprised to learn that I do not accept at face value a lot of the claims it makes in the article, about millions of gold and silver without other evidence to support it. Equally I do not "hypothesise" like the author or you do about the chain of events. Personally I do not believe there were any hijackers on those planes but that doesn't lead me to ask why something totally hypothetical did not occur. I was using one example of where doubts have been raised and other cirumstancial evidence has been presented to allow people to make their own mind up about what did occur. There is one heck of a lot of evidence that you could find if you wanted to, but too much for me to give you in 1 soundbite. Prison Planet - 9/11 Prior Knowledge Archive Unfortunately, once all the evidence has been gathered, and when it is ultimately the government who get decide to whether the government are guilty or not, then it is hardly going to be reputable or unbiased is it ? But on the subject, there are a lot of people who doubt the 911 commisions findings and want an independent investigation Representative Of Largest 9/11 Families Group Says Government Complicit In Attack Yes I know you don't see them as being "reputable"........