"You are the creation of your own imagination. Go fly, soar away up to the heights of your possibilities and fulfil your potential. For herein is opened the secret."
"Liberty shall not of itself flourish but for the careful vigilance of determined souls."
"All that is required for evil to triumph, is for good men to do nothing"
These entries are the ravings of a mad man. It's a shame that such a wonderful facility as the internet has resulted in people like you getting a platform for your imbecilic views.
Andy, thank you so much for taking the time to comment on my blog.You will understand that I disagree with your comment, but I do thank you for it and appreciate your time in doing so.. Are you a qualified psychotherapist? Or a psychiatrist? Have you any qualifications to back up your claims that these are the ravings of a mad man? or is it purely your own 'beliefs' that are being challenged causing you to think this?Do you not think it strange that the BBC, accurately managed to report on the collapse of a building 25 minutes before it happened? There are many many people who do and they are asking very reasonable questions that the BBC is refusing to answer. The BBC are even actively avoiding the questions to the extent of lying and contradicting themselves, adding to the notion of the possible suspicion of a cover up.I know many people believe many different things and that is good. people believe all kinds of things on pure faith alone, without any evidence to back their beliefs up. Including on 9/11.Some people (not me) believe that George Bush is responsible for 9/11 without there being a shred of evidence to prove it. They are basing those beliefs on pure faith.Some people (not me) believe that the US administration (or even some elements therof) could never ever be a part of this conspiracy and did nothing and could never ever have done anything to encourage these attack to happen. Again, there is no evidence available to support this contention either. Pure faith in an honest and democratic government is what these people are baseing their beliefs on.I would like to see actual proof, before I determine a definitive cause. I have not seen proof, but I have seen a huge amount of contradictory evidence that both supports parts of, and provides agreat deal of doubt in many other parts of the 'official conspiracy theory' of 9/11.I have never supported the no plane at the pentagon theory, nor the pod theory. whilst interesting, there is not enough evidence for me to wholey support them. Whereas the example of WTC 7 contains many areas of evidential support for an official involvement in the collapse. NOTE I am NOT claiming that this is proof, merely an example opf evidence pointing in a number of directions. This is why this needs to be PROPERLY investigated. and the laws of physics should NOT be conveniently ignored if they contradict the official conclusion.There are many reasonable doubts surrounding WTC 7.These reasonable doubts are what causes many many people to ask questions. What, prey, is wrong with that?Or do you prefer to base your beliefs in pure faith rather than rational thought and evidencial proof? That is your right, but do not expect to be taken seriously in any kind of evidential based debate.Again thank you for your assertions and faith based opinion.
Post a Comment
2 comments:
These entries are the ravings of a mad man. It's a shame that such a wonderful facility as the internet has resulted in people like you getting a platform for your imbecilic views.
Andy, thank you so much for taking the time to comment on my blog.
You will understand that I disagree with your comment, but I do thank you for it and appreciate your time in doing so..
Are you a qualified psychotherapist? Or a psychiatrist? Have you any qualifications to back up your claims that these are the ravings of a mad man? or is it purely your own 'beliefs' that are being challenged causing you to think this?
Do you not think it strange that the BBC, accurately managed to report on the collapse of a building 25 minutes before it happened? There are many many people who do and they are asking very reasonable questions that the BBC is refusing to answer. The BBC are even actively avoiding the questions to the extent of lying and contradicting themselves, adding to the notion of the possible suspicion of a cover up.
I know many people believe many different things and that is good. people believe all kinds of things on pure faith alone, without any evidence to back their beliefs up. Including on 9/11.
Some people (not me) believe that George Bush is responsible for 9/11 without there being a shred of evidence to prove it. They are basing those beliefs on pure faith.
Some people (not me) believe that the US administration (or even some elements therof) could never ever be a part of this conspiracy and did nothing and could never ever have done anything to encourage these attack to happen. Again, there is no evidence available to support this contention either. Pure faith in an honest and democratic government is what these people are baseing their beliefs on.
I would like to see actual proof, before I determine a definitive cause. I have not seen proof, but I have seen a huge amount of contradictory evidence that both supports parts of, and provides agreat deal of doubt in many other parts of the 'official conspiracy theory' of 9/11.
I have never supported the no plane at the pentagon theory, nor the pod theory. whilst interesting, there is not enough evidence for me to wholey support them. Whereas the example of WTC 7 contains many areas of evidential support for an official involvement in the collapse. NOTE I am NOT claiming that this is proof, merely an example opf evidence pointing in a number of directions. This is why this needs to be PROPERLY investigated. and the laws of physics should NOT be conveniently ignored if they contradict the official conclusion.
There are many reasonable doubts surrounding WTC 7.
These reasonable doubts are what causes many many people to ask questions. What, prey, is wrong with that?
Or do you prefer to base your beliefs in pure faith rather than rational thought and evidencial proof? That is your right, but do not expect to be taken seriously in any kind of evidential based debate.
Again thank you for your assertions and faith based opinion.
Post a Comment