Often used, easily understood.
The FBI made it public that there was no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11. CTers use this as some form of 'proof' that he wasn't involved.
This works AGAINST CTers. If the Government planned it and carried it out, they would make a CLEAR link to Osama in order to strengthen their story.
Are they the smartest Government ever, or totally, totally complacent? We return to: We would have got away with it if it weren't for you meddling teenagers!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Ok, you can say that this does not prove a conspiracy, and thats certainly true. It doesnt.
But, its pretty obvious (!!) that this does NOT prove anything in favour of the official conspiracy either. I guess you agree with this, dont you?
The question is not 'pro or contra conspiracy' as you frame it, it is: does this point contradict the official storyline? Does it fit into the bigger picture ? etc.
See, as i said before, don't think so black + white about this issue. You really seem to see the "CT's" as you call them on one side, and everyone else on the other. And then you look at things as being either 'pro or contra' the conspiracy. Now, let me ask, does this make sense? Why don't you look at things pro or contra to the OFFICIAL storyline, as this is what you take for granted.
fx9,
Would you say that Bin Laden admitting responsibility on several occasions is pretty good evidence he was involved?
http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=-4220657430794722240
the video-link doesnt work.
but anyway, there are contradictory statements from him on this, so who knows?
a faked video is good enough to fool some people, but seems like its not good enough to fool the fbi. Or how do you explain they say there is no evidence linking bin laden to 911?
Post a Comment