text: The state of 9/11 Truth: not pretty, page 5
  posted on Mar, 12 2008 @ 07:06 PM
  Originally posted by coughymachine
  I just wanted to demonstrate that, when one of the entities suspected of a crime develops and controls the evidence, clearly there is a conflict of interest.
  Therefore, as coughymachine eloquently states above, the government IS the suspect (because the 9/11 Truth Movement says so)...
  This was the only piece worth responding to, since it is good evidence of your dishonesty.
  Actually, you'll want to retract that accusation.
  I very clearly did not eloquently state that 'the government IS the suspect' but that it was 'one of the entities suspected of a crime'. There is a very big difference between those two statements.
  The thrust of your post stems from this falsehood.
  Every post of yours in this thread refers only to one "entity". I suggest you re-read what you wrote than get back to me with your retraction.
  You are perfectly capable of revealing who your "other entities" are, but when you refer to only one - the government and it's "official story" - you are taken at your word.
  posted on Mar, 12 2008 @ 07:22 PM
  I agree that the government is obilgated to prove IT'S conspiracy theory.
  The government has no obligation to "prove" anything. Much less because you declare it has to, against all reason.
  911 Truthers have theories but our main objective is to get to the TRUTH, whatever that happens to be.
  If you have chosen this as your mission, you have to play by the rules. That means producing evidence to support your claims. You haven't.
  Just because we can't prove our theories are correct, doesn't make them false.
  Just because you make claims without supporting them doesn't mean anyone has to accept them. All you are saying in your statement is, "We propose A, B, & C as theories. We cannot prove A, B, and C are correct. But because we thought of them doesn't mean they are false."
  The government on the other hand claimed it had the evidence to prove it's case but never presented that evidence in court in to the public.
  The government has never been in any position to have to "prove" any case. It is not a defendant in any case real or imagined as much as you wish it were. YOU are the ones making the claim that the government is responsible for 9/11 or "allowed" it to happen, therefore, by the rule of law, YOU have to make a case that the government is responsible for anything and you must have sufficient grounds to even get a court case heard.
  By the rule of law. This is still a free country and lynch mobs are illegal.
  Again, you are not even thinking about what you are writing.
  posted on Mar, 12 2008 @ 07:28 PM
  Originally posted by percievedreality
  Besides, even I have got entrapped by jthomas lame arguments and unlogical denial of the fact that their is an "Official Story" provided by the "government" and it is THEIR job to prove it conclusively, which they have not....
  I know it's hard for truthers to give up the myth of the "Official Story." Perhaps if you took the time to ask yourself where YOU got that term to begin with and WHY it is used as the FOUNDATION of "9/11 Truth", you might decide it's time for you to examine what you have been told and believed.
  Think of it as the "Official Story" of the 9/11 Truth Movement, but with skepticism.
  Do so only if the "truth" is your actual goal.
  [edit on 12-3-2008 by jthomas]
  posted on Mar, 12 2008 @ 07:41 PM
  At this point, I am going to agree with Griff. This thread was a trolling expedition from the start.
  In my view, the intent of the OP was to provoke, not discuss. While the OP continually harps on about "logic and critical reasoning", he seems to be unable to formulate a coherent premise. The discussion has devolved into pettiness and argumentum ad infinitum, because no formal argument was posited to begin with; merely a thinly veiled insult.
  posted on Mar, 12 2008 @ 07:57 PM
  On the contrary. If you had read my posts, I offered to discuss logic and critical thinking as it applies to 9/11 Truther claims. Why have you refused that opportunity to discuss your claims?
  And do you actually want to state that the video I presented is not REAL nor representative of the views of many of us on the state of your political movement?
  SButlerv2
  posted on Mar, 12 2008 @ 08:01 PM
  Do you have any idea of how many of us are disgusted with the answers we have been given?
  We have lost Friends, Family and our health and people like you want to tell us to shut up and go home to die.
  Do you think smirk comments and deflection of valid questions makes you some type of expert whose opinion we should value?
  S. 1955 was created to criminalize the only people who have tried to help us get the truth.
  The media is blathering how they hope that the Gov puts the truthers in a "secret prisons' and that is what brought me here.
  I am in the process of getting verified as a survivor by the site admin in the hopes that the lies of you and cohorts will be exposed
  If you are not working towards the truth then you are working against it.
  posted on Mar, 12 2008 @ 08:04 PM
  Unless this thread starts generating content which is discussed, and the veiled insults are tabled, this thread is in danger of closing.
  And further displays of attitude will not be viewed lightly.
  I trust this is crystal clear to all involved?
  posted on Mar, 12 2008 @ 08:19 PM
  You have offered to apply logic and critical thinking to the claims of others, yet you have shown none of it yourself. If you are truly interested in debate, drop this thread and create a new one, taking care to craft a solid formal argument, based upon those lofty attributes -- logic and critical thinking. Perhaps then, we might engage in an argument worth having.
  "These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman." - Thomas Paine