Quote:
Originally Posted by Farangrakthai
The ball is in your court. since you don't believe the "inside job" theory, it is your turn to support the government's theory.
|
What a joke. Is this the only response to criticism that works for CT?
"If you don't believe in God you must believe in the Devil", you must be able to see how shallow that statement is. Since I've never stated my preference for either you've got to realize that I'm not stuck in this two dimensional quagmire.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Farangrakthai
Go ahead, take the government's theory, post some links to support the government's theory, like Bin Laden being responsible for 911. both sides are theories at this point with circumstantial evidence, though like I posted for you before Scoop: UQ Wire: The Coincidence Theorist's Guide to 9/11 there is plenty of circumstantial evidence to support it being an inside job.
|
This is what I've been saying, as soon as anyone doesn't agree with your assessment of the incident, it's automatic response is
"the government's theory". When or where did I ever say I supported their theory, I've always stated that I'm interested in facts, but the CT theory isn't based on facts, it's based on doctrine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by keeshou
I'm neither a supporter of any official story nor are you someone who is interested in questioning your beliefs or in finding the truth. If you were you wouldn't be interested in just one hypothesis and trying to find facts that only support that belief, but you'd be looking at the facts impartially and then finding theories based on the evidence.
|
This was my response to Larkinny on April 29th and since you made the following post, I'm surprised you missed it. Before you accuse me of taking an official line please show us a quote of mine that states that I support it.