View Single Post
Old 21-07-2013, 07:31 PM   #38
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)

Originally Posted by skulb View Post
I guess you`re right. It`s just that the two alternative interpretations of the evidence, that the drills didn`t really happen or that it was all just coincidence, seem to me to be so insanely unlikely I have discarded them completely in my mind.
To the extent anything can be truly proven I think this has been because of the glaring lack of any other way to interpret the evidence. I agree it doesn`t show you Wile Y Coytote pushing the plunger so in that sense it`s not conclusive proof. But not even the shills have been in here to suggest some other way to apply the evidence that doesn`t make 9/11 an inside job. I mean, aliens or just anything! Maybe you can think of something, but I can`t.
As soon as somebody presents a believable alternative interpretation of the evidence I will keep considering the combined evidence strong enough to be proof. When they do I will agree that it`s just evidence again.
Well are you judging the whole 'conspiracy' based on the drills, I mean if the drills were not at those times, would you be stating that the official report is correct?
The one thing about this whole 9/11 event that appears to get over looked quite often is that, yes your analysis in the absence of 100% proof seems logical, If we're to use logic, where proof is lacking, and treat the most logical result as if it were proof, then we have to use the same logic for everything that lacks proof in relation to 9/11. I hope you agree.

So a logical conclusion is that people would work out it's an inside job.
In such case where is the logic of the conspirators, when they create a false flag event, and indeed do have drills, as the drills are likely to attract the attention of the investigator, thus being illogical.

Imo the drills and the event have been tied together this way to keep people off track. There is also debate about flight paths, tracking radar

Again it causes debate.
Debating drills and radar tracking.

It seems to me that all this is a side issue. What really happened on 9/11 is that some type of weapon/technology was disclosed to the world.

The aeroplanes were meant to divert the eye of the public, make no mistake the US showed one of their cards.
You've probably guessed that I'm in the Judy Wood camp on this subject, Bin Laden's 'Punch & Judy' show is distraction.
Something charred cars that were parked half a mile away, not heat, if it were heat people and other objects would have been charred/scolded/burned also. . . There sure is more to this than meets the eye.
I rather think a logical conclusion is that US ops wanted to demolish the WTC's anyway, they wanted to try out their new technology on that. . And the aeroplanes (including drills) were supplementary agendas that were attached politically to gain in the middle east region and to conceal their real drill.

Last edited by cousin_frothy; 21-07-2013 at 09:00 PM. Reason: grammar
cousin_frothy is offline   Reply With Quote