Osama bin Laden is dead - no graphic/violent images.

Deific said:
On CNN it might not give you that information, but when I looked at it a while back, there weer various other sites that did have the poll information.

It's a bit hypocritical for you to say to me about taking facts at face-value in inverted commas, yet you've just done a quick google and gone to one article rather than doing your own research.
Click to expand...

I don't understand. What article have I supposedly looked at? I have searched for the stat on Google and couldn't find any reputable source nor an explanation of where it came from or who formulated it.

When I see stats like that the alarm bells of reason in my head start ringing and I choose not to buy into it until I know more. Surely this is the sensible, rational approach to such things?
 
Deific said:
These two sentences in your post are comedic value.

I'll just quote those as I think it pretty much sums up what I think of your reasoning.
Click to expand...

How's about this for reasoning:

Either

A close knit cell of terrorists hijacked planes and crashed them into buildings.

OR

The US goverment performed a massive cover up involving thousands of people in an effort to make a direct attack on its citizens look a a close knit cell of terrorist hijacked planes and crashed them into buildings.

Which is more likely?
 
Well, I think I'm going to withdraw from this debate. I've foolishly got myself into one of these debates with people who aren't willing to even question oddities in what we're told, and simply bash instead of debate. Unfortunately it's turned into half the thread members vs. me. I am clearly derp because of my opinion.

It's okay, I expected it.
 
Last edited:
Sure we haven't questioned :rolleyes: please post what you see as flaws in 9/11 in one of those threads I bet some can be debunked with photos alone and nothing else.
 
Strangely this Japanese video is the last surviving footage of that press release I mentioned on the previous page by Dana Perino (White House Press Secretary for the Bush administration):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYMesAwqLog

I will keep digging to find the original as it will immediately dispel any myths that the Bush administration had any proof Osama was to blame for the attacks.
 
samir_ansari said:
Strangely this Japanese video is the last surviving footage of that press release I mentioned on the previous page by Dana Perino (White House Press Secretary for the Bush administration):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYMesAwqLog

I will keep digging to find the original as it will immediately dispel any myths that the Bush administration had any proof Osama was to blame for the attacks.
Click to expand...
They never did, the only link was the video in 2004. However he was the figurehead for most Muslim terrorist groups, with the money to finance. Not sure what you are trying to prove.
 
Deific said:
Well, I think I'm going to withdraw from this debate. I've foolishly got myself into one of these debates with people who aren't willing to even question oddities in what we're told, and simply bash instead of debate. Unfortunately it's turned into half the thread members vs. me. I am clearly derp because of my opinion.

It's okay, I expected it.
Click to expand...

Not surprised, having dipped into this thread a few times since yesterday it seems to me to be a litany of fatuous opinion and speculation rather than facts.

Not too dissimilar to the BBC's coverage of the Royal Wedding and any other "rolling news" that catches them on the hop ;)
 
Deific said:
Well, I think I'm going to withdraw from this debate. I've foolishly got myself into one of these debates with people who aren't willing to even question oddities in what we're told, and simply bash instead of debate. Unfortunately it's turned into half the thread members vs. me. I am clearly derp because of my opinion.

It's okay, I expected it.
Click to expand...

Aww, don't be like that. :mad:

You had one of the best trolling runs in a thread I've ever seen.
 
Deific said:
It's actually more like plethora of evidence, considering engineers and architects who worked on the construction and maintenance of the towers, aswell as various engineering physics experts, are in this group of 'people who don't know what they're talking about'.


Yet bizarrely, you on OCuk forum, do know what you're talking about.


Hmm.
Click to expand...

Righto.....

I have just made a scan of the 9th May 2002 Edition of New Civil Engineer (NCE) Magazine I had in my drawer at work which outlines the official report on the collapse of the WTC.

I have uploaded it to Scribd - Please find it here:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/54528605/New-Civil-Engineer-11-September-WTC-The-Official-Report

I have the original article in PDF if anyone wants it emailed to them.

It presents a compelling case that Aircraft impact, fire and structural failure destroyed the towers. Make of this article what you will, but bear in mind that the NCE is a highly reputable Civil and Structural Engineering periodical; probably the biggest in the UK. As an engineer myself, the findings of the offical study make perfect sense and I have no reason to question them.

I only ask that you read the article with an open mind.
 
Probably best remove that - family forum (and there have been repeated warnings from the mods regarding the other picture).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom