The evidence of destruction of evidence, and a multitude of examples of cover ups and intimidation of witnesses, is as hard as it gets.
What documentation do you have showing that evidence was either "destroyed" or that witnesses were "intimidat[ed]"?
The evidence the WTC complex was destroyed by explosives is rock solid.
What "evidence" - of the 'rock solid' variety, in particular - is there that the WTC was "destroyed by explosives"?
The evidence that investigations were intentionally derailed is rock solid.
What evidence is there that investigations were "intentionally derailed"?
The evidence that our defense network was intentionally compromised is rock solid.
What "rock solid" evidence can you provide that our defense network was "intentionally compromised"?
The evidence Bush knew the attacks were coming is rock solid.
If the attacks of September 11th, 2001 were in fact an orchestrated, home-grown conspiracy, he would have to have known, wouldn't he?
Even so, I'd love to see this "rock solid" evidence you're referring to -
The evidence Bush appointed members of PNAC to positions which gave them direct control over allowing the attacks to proceed is rock solid.
Who, and to what positions? And isn't the relevance of this - assuming it's true, which it may be - completely predicated upon evidence, which I'd expect that you have, of PNAC being involved in the so-called conspiracy?
The evidence that Mossad agents were directly involved in operations related to 9/11 is rock solid.
What evidence is there that "Mossad agents were directly involved" in the terror attacks of September 11th, 2001?
[T]here s a ton of circumstantial evidence that ties everything together in a neat package that completely eliminates any possibility of reasonable doubt.
If the package were as "neat" as you are asserting, you wouldn't have to cite editorials and rumors as "evidence." In addition, I have to believe that you wouldn't be so reluctant to address simple challenges for documentation if, in fact, the 'evidence' was so "neat" as you're suggesting.
There was considerably less evidence in the Scott Peterson trial of a few months ago.
And there was heavy circumstantial and direct evidence in the O.J. Simpson trial roughly ten years ago. What's your point?
You've looked at as much of the evidence an anyone. I'm now appointing you to the jury. Is Bush innocent or guilty?
How I could I convict anyone without having been shown any evidence?
e |
