Reply #61: Look, you're making my point [View All]

[SDuderstadt]

No one is talking about the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution here, except for people who are trying to divert attention away from their own weak arguments. The problem here is that, in the absence of evidence, you are beginning with the conclusion and working backwards frantically trying to make the evidence fit the conclusion. I shouldn't have to explain how that assaults Logic.

What compounds the problem is that when skeptics like myself point out the obvious logical errors, not to mention the lack of evidence, we're quickly accused of having our heads in the sand or, worse yet, being shills for W (whom I despise). When pressed for proof of your claim, you reply with things like "it takes time". You're literally admitting my premise in doing so, to wit, you're literally conceding you have no hard evidence but you've concluded 9/11 was an inside job nonetheless. Upon what basis? The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution? Are you arguing that because something could happen and something similar has happened before, that proves your claim must be true? I have never said that 9/11 could not have been an "inside job", I'm simply not going to embrace such a conclusion without some convincing evidence.

I have often heard from CT's that the reason they cannot produce the evidence is because they haven't had enough time, they lack the financial resources needed or the evidence they need has never been declassified. Frankly, those all sound like rationalizations to me, without further specifics. If what you claim is true, wouldn't that be the story of the century...no, wait...make that the story of all time? If that's true, why isn't 6 years enough time to come up with one piece of hard evidence that stands up to scrutiny? Why doesn't the ASCE blow this thing wide open? What evidence needs to be declassified? Where is some sort of coherent alternative hypothesis that explains what happened on 9/11. Just because the CT community finds supposition and speculation to be self-satisfying, doesn't mean the rest of us do. Don't you guys advocate questioning everything? Well, so do we. When you develop hard evidence that withstands close scrutiny, as I proclaimed earlier, I'm all ears.