Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Vault
Time Travel Schematics
T.E.C. Time Archive
The Why Files
Have You Seen...?
Chronovisor
TimeTravelForum.tk
TimeTravelForum.net
ParanormalNetwork.net
Paranormalis.com
ConspiracyCafe.net
Streams
Live streams
Featured streams
Multi-Viewer
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Paranormal Forum
Conspiracies & Cover-ups
9/11 conspiracy
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Apogee" data-source="post: 32992" data-attributes="member: 600"><p><strong>Re: 9/11 conspiracy</strong></p><p></p><p></p><p> </p><p>The physical evidence only points that way if you choose to completely ignore and dismiss a heap of (and here's the important factor ) physical evidence.</p><p> </p><p>This is the nature of conspiracy thinking. You only get to say things like the above statement once you've effectivley thrown aside the eye witnesses who saw the plane strike and totally ignored all the aircraft wreckage that was undoubtedly at the scene. This is not the scientific method.</p><p> </p><p>Funnily enough, I kinda agree with Jurgen's comments about eye witnesses being treated with caution. But which eye witnesses are treated with caution depends on which scenario you favour. In my opinion, all the people in Dealy plaza in 1963 who said they heard 4 shots were obviously mistaken. But if your conspiratorially-minded that's the kind of witness you're likely to be sympathetic towards and take at face value.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Apogee, post: 32992, member: 600"] [b]Re: 9/11 conspiracy[/b] The physical evidence only points that way if you choose to completely ignore and dismiss a heap of (and here's the important factor ) physical evidence. This is the nature of conspiracy thinking. You only get to say things like the above statement once you've effectivley thrown aside the eye witnesses who saw the plane strike and totally ignored all the aircraft wreckage that was undoubtedly at the scene. This is not the scientific method. Funnily enough, I kinda agree with Jurgen's comments about eye witnesses being treated with caution. But which eye witnesses are treated with caution depends on which scenario you favour. In my opinion, all the people in Dealy plaza in 1963 who said they heard 4 shots were obviously mistaken. But if your conspiratorially-minded that's the kind of witness you're likely to be sympathetic towards and take at face value. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Paranormal Forum
Conspiracies & Cover-ups
9/11 conspiracy
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top