2 ms·

It is one thing to reject critical thinking, it is another level of "mindset" to ridicule those who refuse to part with it. Whether aliens with lasers blew up

by _8j50 3y ago

It is one thing to reject critical thinking, it is another level of "mindset" to ridicule those who refuse to part with it. Whether aliens with lasers blew up WTC or if the buildings didn't even exist to begin with or whatver wild theory is not relevant, only evidence is. Did intel agencies conspire to blow it up, in the process maligning their closest ME ally and risk theirs and the US's credibility for a century to come just because they like to conspire? Where is your evidence? Is it possible? The silly things I said earlier are also possible. Even without the buildings collapsing thousands died from fires and debri and tens of thousands saw it first hand which is enough for invading afghanistan. As for the hijackers and bin laden, the fact that they pepared for this and held jihadist islamist beliefs aligned with binladen is enough. The US IC and terrorist connection you are claiming has no evidence so why should anyone believe it? If there is a conspiracy, it's more likely that a lot of Saudi ruling family and government people funded or knew about the attacks. Bin laden not only documented his desire and reasoning to go after WTC, he attempted to bomb them just a few years before 9/11. People don't belive what you do because reason isn't on your side.

valianteffort 3y ago
> Where is your evidence? I would ask the same. The evidence saudi nationals did attack the WTC is weak at best. Some indestructable passports they found amongst the rubble at ground zero? The burden of evidence is much higher because of the CIA's shennanigans throughout the world, and lies told to engage in previous unjustifiable wars like Vietnam. Having faith in a government composed of people who have repeatedly lied to you is stockholm syndrome.
- _8j50 3y ago
  The passenger list, security footage, passenger descriptions, blackbox all prove saudi nationals hijacked the planes. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim so the ball is in your court to disprove existing evidence and prove CIA involvement. Proof and evidence mean things other people can take and corroborate independently without speculation,presumption or bias.

by _8j50 3y ago

valianteffort 3y ago

> Where is your evidence? I would ask the same. The evidence saudi nationals did attack the WTC is weak at best. Some indestructable passports they found amongst the rubble at ground zero? The burden of evidence is much higher because of the CIA's shennanigans throughout the world, and lies told to engage in previous unjustifiable wars like Vietnam. Having faith in a government composed of people who have repeatedly lied to you is stockholm syndrome.

_8j50 3y ago
The passenger list, security footage, passenger descriptions, blackbox all prove saudi nationals hijacked the planes. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim so the ball is in your court to disprove existing evidence and prove CIA involvement. Proof and evidence mean things other people can take and corroborate independently without speculation,presumption or bias.