Quote:
Originally Posted by Stimpy
Thanks for the links. They're interesting but they really don't prove anything more than the links that the truthers are using in this thread. They pose a premise and then make a definitive claim at the end of the page even though they have no evidence one way or the other.
I appreciate your enthusiasm for the subject matter, but I have to know why this is so important to you that you would try and convert someone to your position with so much vigor? As you mentioned to another poster, you're not changing your mind so why do you think other people should change theirs to align with your perspective?
As I said earlier, the truth is somewhere between your narrative and that of the truthers. I have no idea where that truth is but I am certain neither camp is correct in their assumptions of what happened on that September morning. What I am 100% certain of is that the details of the story behind the attacks broke way too early, with too many concrete details, and the government in power at the time had trouble with the truth. That in itself is more than enough to know that the official story is not what it appears and not worthy of recognizing at truth.
|
So why exactly are you using phrases such as "cold hard facts"? Which one is it? You claim you think the truth is in the middle, yet you use definitive terminology when presenting arguments. Make up your mind.