Quote:
Originally Posted by roscoe_the_first
So you are not concerned about your compliance with your Government simply due to your failure to question everything they do?
|
I'm willing to question all claims made by anyone if they smell fishy. However, you still have not defined what you're proposing as the alternative to the government story. Unless you're simply saying that the evidence for the government story is insufficient, and further research needs to be done. That's fine, but now you're stepping into positive claim territory (xyz is false vs I have no positive belief in xyz, although it may or may not be true), which means that the burden of proof still lies on you. Of course, you could also say "I don't know", which is where your argument stands until you provide (reliably sourced) evidence and a falsifiable thesis.
And, "this is not a theory" is about as positive claimy as it gets.
But, to simplify things for you:
Who is blowing the arms off of kids? Why?
Quote:
|
What are you waffling about?
|
The boxcutter theory is the standard government theory, is it not?
Quote:
|
So You'll join us all in calling for a new inquiry then. Or are you accepting the Government's story without question?
|
That depends. Will you provide a falsifiable thesis, so that we can get on with looking at evidence for the lack of evidence w/r/t the official story, as well as (if applicable), defining an alternative to said story? We can have a look at the evidence once you tell me what you're trying to prove.
Quote:
|
But you are questioning me Chum instead of the people you should be questioning. This is compliance by remaining silent. So how do you justify blowing the arms and legs off kids. Show me your evidence?
|
I'm questioning you because you're the one I'm talking to right now, and you're asking for some pretty big leaps of faith. I have no problem with questioning the other side of the argument, provided that you provide a reason for me. Also, can you please stop avoiding my questions? This is a clear dodge, and you know it.
Quote:
|
So tell me the FACT that two of the aircraft were flying (one over Pittsburgh) 25 minutes AFTER they had supposedly crashed. Explain that one to me please?
|
Citation needed.
Edit: you edited your post with a citation, sure, but the 911 pilots for truth is no more a reliable source than something like answers in genesis. For all I know, you made that website just to have something to link to when someone asked for a citation. Otherwise, it's just another person on the internet making claims that also need citations.
Quote:
|
Don't care anymore. Not long for this forum anyway.
|
Got turned off by people asking you to justify things before they believe you?
Oh, and what does any of this have to do with the Beatles?