Willravel

Ad Hominem is an attack against the poster. I was pointing out that your source is unreliable at best. I suppose if you were to label my statement with a fallacy, it would probably be a Biased Sample Fallacy, but that's really not even applicable.

Fine, I'll break it down step by step (devil's advocate time):
Just because torture usually doesn't work doesn't mean that it never works. This is proof of nothing. Although I agree that this idiot probably had little or nothing to do with 9/11, the assertion is illogical.
Guilt by association fallacy. The BBC has nothing to do with Fox News.
Either he had nothing to do with 9/11 or he had something to do with 9/11. His denial doesn't really give an indication either way.
Wrong. If Osama wanted to be a maryter, he would have died long ago. Osama doesn't want to die. The message of 9/11 was clear enough, and didn't require Osama to die, so he doesn't need to claim responsibility. The idea that he may not have had anything to do with 9/11 makes his being targeted more meaningful for Arabs who support his causes. "He had nothing to do with it, yet the infadels still want to kill him." Etc.
The official story of 9/11 is quite simple. Arabs came over here (easy), tok flying lessons (easy), hijacked planes by using the only weapons on the planes (medium), and flew planes into buildings (hard). The 4th plane went down.
http://www.fbi.gov/wanted.htm
Sorry, Nila, but you're flat out wrong and it kills your argument.
And who did the insider trading? Do you have a list of people? How do you know that they weren't associated with the terrorists? Also, where is the evidence that the CIA knew?
[QUOTE=Nila Sagadevan]Most of these transactions were handled primarily by Deutsche Bank-A.B.Brown, a firm which until 1998 was chaired by A. B."Buzzy" Krongard, who later became executive director of the CIA.
Ah, the "From the Wilderness report". None of this information has been verified, and it's been debunked a dozen times.
Coincedence. Do you know how often FEMA runs drills in major cities? Before 9/11, if was as often as every dew weeks.
Again, NORAD runs tests almost daily.
This is the weakest argument in all of the 9/11 conspiracy theories. It represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the English language. "Pull it" was meant to say, 'pull the firefighters out of the building'.
That quote was never verified and was debunked.


This is why Rense sucks. No one is accountable to provide credible evidence. I've been asked by several people who frequently write for Rense to write an article about 9/11. I said no. Why? Rense is not credible. Good writers, credible writers, avoid it like the plague because of the reputation it's built so far as being quite simply insane. I don't want my investigations to be associated with that and I'm hardly the only writer that thinks that.

Your hart is in the right place, but you have to realize that if you're ever going to convince people, you need credible evidence and reasonable conclusions based in that credible evidence.

An example:

This is an image that I've been showing for years. The blue circle represents the only actual hole in the side of the Pentagon immediately following the crash of Flight 77. You'll notice that it's at the center of the damage and would have been the place where the fuselage made contact. Direct your eye above the hole. The tail made no impact damage at all. The window where it would have made contact is still intact.

That's an example of credible evidence. That picture was published a thousand times in magazines and shown on TV after 9/11. Make your own conclusions based on that evidence, but there you have it.