Wow, I'm shocked. I didn't think anyone could that gullible. I guess all the spam in my mailbox should be proof otherwise.
Well you grossly underestimated just how many believed in it. My mind is still open on the matter, but it's clear that the proverbial ball was dropped too many times for people not to start asking questions. I wouldn't call such people "nutters".
Are you suggesting that a government that couldn't even fake any evidence of WMD in a war zone that they occupied managed to pull off something like this?
No, they stated they had proof that there were WMD's and there wasn't (this "proof" was never made public either)... then they invaded anyway. Make of it what you will.
Pearl Harbour ... yeah, it was Americans bombing Pearl Harbour ... get real. There's some evidence that someone was asleep at the switch and didn't react to warnings they should have ... but isn't that always the case?
Perhaps you should read Robert Stinnett's Day of Deceit. Government documents prove that the US wasn't just asleep at the wheel, they were tracking the Japanese Navy the entire time. Again, make of that what you will.
None of this is "circumstantial" evidence. In fact, it is just a jumble of faulty reasoning. Saying that you think something is so does not automatically mean it is so. Your suspicions are not a valid stand-in for evidence.
Simply put, you are a true believer in conspiracy theories.
gristle, this isn't the first time you've made wild assumptions about me. The Pearl Harbour stand down isn't a "jumble of faulty reasoning", neither is Hitler's Reichstag fire. These are now well documented, well supported events. I don't subscribe to JFK assassination theories, fake moon landing or even 9/11 theories... I simply stated that corruption and deceit has always existed and likely still does exist. Your reading comprehension skills need an adjustment because you're drawing some wild conclusions.
Really? Did it ever occur to you that a belief in god stands as a type of statement that there is a purpose for the existence of the universe? A reason for its existence? While not scientifically valid, this mindset essentially speaks to the idea of a search for structure and meaning - if not truth (since you brought up that word earlier).
So a belief in the flying spaghetti monster or invisible pink unicorn stands as a type of statement that there is a purpose for the existence of the universe? A reason for its existence? While not scientifically valid, this mindset essentially speaks to the idea of a search for structure and meaning...
I might as well just believe that Russel's celestial teapot is out there orbiting the sun too right?
To quote Russell himself:
If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time
I'm sure that poll is more a reflection of Canadians' dissatisfaction with US foreign policy than a true belief that the US government planned 9/11.
What about the UT poll? All of the other countless polls? Everyone just re-interpreted the question to have an entirely different meaning (all coincidentally arriving at the same interpretation), then answered accordingly?
