Moderator's Warning: |
Moderator's Warning: |
"This investigation represents 10 months of careful study, research, analysis, source verification and logical deduction. Every event and quote presented here is 100% accurate. " T
That does not mean the data is not misrepresented or misused by the author. IMO, Just another rant peice.
BM, it is sites like this that causes me to not give much creedance to the movement.
There seems to be ONLY sites like this one on the side of the movement though, is that not the case?
"This investigation represents 10 months of careful study, research, analysis, source verification and logical deduction. Every event and quote presented here is 100% accurate. " T
That does not mean the data is not misrepresented or misused by the author. IMO, Just another rant peice.
BM, it is sites like this that causes me to not give much creedance to the movement.
You are most likely correct. It has been awhile since I went digging into 9/11 theories. If I recall some were not so radical (format/content).
One would think that "independent" would imply "unbiased"......
Well, duh ! or "that ship has sailed", or "umm, we pretty much knew that some time ago. :2razz:Sorry... got a little carried away.
Well, duh ! or "that ship has sailed", or "umm, we pretty much knew that some time ago. :2razz:
How do the inmates type on a keyboard while wearing straightjackets?:2wave:
Ok... fine... I'm crazy, now, explain to me where my analysis is flawed in that last post rather then this simple non-answer to the points raised.
Look, if someone comes up and tells me 'the world is flat'... I don't just tell the person that he's crazy, I explain, "no that's crazy because..." and then illustrate the ways in which it's self-evident that the world is not flat. So, are you saying that UNDER THOSE FACTUAL circumstances THAT IS ADDRESSED IN THE OFFICIAL VERSION, that it's crazy that under the circumstances previously illustrated that "no conceiveable ties to alquaida" is even close to an explanation as to how this individual came across this information?? The fact that this individual NEVER cashed on in those 'bets' is the ONLY reason why this didn't become an FBI investigation, BTW. It was mainstream news that the FBI said they would look at anyone who made ANY illigitmate money off 9-11... so, by not cashing in on the money, is it unreasonable to suggest that doing this in such a conspicuous way as to evade investigation MIGHT be an implication of guilt that is worth a deeper conclusion then that "has no conceivable ties to al-quaida" that the official version makes of that evidence???
Ok, remember, I'm slow and a bit crazy, so remember to explain how come this is a flawed conclusion to draw from the FACTS. I honestly only disagree with the official account on a few very specific details... the ones that are undeniably flawed, either in that it contradicts what was seen on film, or because it defies all logical consideration, or deals with undeclared flawed assumptions that are required for the conditions to be met as suggested by the NIST report.
BTW - I will not simply 'chill out' or some sort of other copout non-answer... I don't WANT to be a 'truther'... I WANT to believe the official version. I really do... I just cannot accept the official account because nobody wants to deal with my very specific issues.
USDA - Of course you had to chime in... I bet you were so happy to see me say that I'm crazy... "HA! He said it... I GOT HIM." Like the rest of my post that you in all likelyhood (based on previous conversations) completely glossed over like it doesn't matter...
You must be like those people that go to the keg to only eat the steamed veggies that they put next to the steak, and just throw out the steak.
Once I read your post I'm gonna laugh SO HARD when I see some sort of smug one liner
EDIT : BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!.
Personally I think "crazy" is a bit too vague. Chemically unbalanced to the point of being delusional, incoherent, and basically an ashole is more on the money.
Delusional--Example (the "truth" movement is now an anti-tax movement)
Incoherent--Example (the legacy media is dying and if it prints the truth about 9/11, it will be killed)
Ashole--Example (you pick 'em)
The first step is admitting you have a problem though and you seem to be there. I"m not sure what steak has to do with it but then again, why would you start making sense now.
You should have told me you were a PhD in psychiatry... no, I'm not legitimately crazy, unbalanced, suffering any mental condition, I was making the point that the attempt is to call me crazy to avoid the argument... like usual you jumped on the predictable, so I laughed.
Yeah okay...were you guys protesting immigration a few years ago? Nuke proliferation? Hands off Cuba? 'Nam? You may as well try to take credit for all of them since you're lying about some of them. Its entirely likely that fewer than 5 percent of the "protesters" ever have to cut a check on April 15. I know you haven't.More accurately I was pointing out that like how anti-globalist protesters became the organisers of many 9-11truth marches, and how 9-11 truth protestors were among the first to make 'tea part' / anti-tax protests... before glenn beck stepped in.
Yet somehow this last weekend, BP bought a minute of ad time on the US Open final round. A major ad buy. Yet NBC News has lambasted them in commentary after commentary all month for their handling of the oil spill clean up. Amazingly, they are funding the same company that is being relentlessly hard on them. Just goes to show yet again you haven't got a ****ing clue of what you're talking about. Over and above that example...conglomerates rarely let one of their businesses die...thats how they become conglomerates dumbass.No, I pointed out how media is 95+% controlled market share by 5 conglomerates, who are in bed with a wide variety of interests, and so they'll keep stories silent in order to protect their friends, even if it means they are a dying enterprise because they don't represent 'informing the people' as much as they are interested in protecting their friends. Don't worry, if media companies go bankrupt Obama will just nationalize them.
Like you bother to hear the other side of any argument. If you did...I know....I never said I wasn't... but I did also say that someone who refuses to read sources but makes determinations about them without reading is at the very least a fool. Someone who defends an issue without even understanding key elements of the position being defeded is arrogantly foolish. So much so that any attempt to enlighten is a wasted effort.
I'm sorry that analogies are too far out there... I was saying that you don't deal with issues, you pick some minutae that you can criticize as though that creates a valid argument... it's childish to say the least...
Better luck next time...
"This investigation represents 10 months of careful study, research, analysis, source verification and logical deduction. Every event and quote presented here is 100% accurate. " T
That does not mean the data is not misrepresented or misused by the author. IMO, Just another rant peice.
BM, it is sites like this that causes me to not give much creedance to the movement.
Someone who refuses to read sources but makes determinations about them without reading is at the very least a fool. Someone who defends an issue without even understanding key elements of the position being defended is arrogantly foolish. So much so that any attempt to enlighten is a wasted effort.
read it, then find something wrong about it, then come and say if you can find some lies in it, but dont just say that it can be misrepresented, i never said that its total truth, i just posted it here, so that everyone can read it, then say his opinion about it, but no need for predetermined judgement, judge only after you read.
That is not my job. As I have said in other posts, it is nearly impossilbe to disprove a negative. example ( Prove to me beyond a shadow of doubt that their is no afterlife or afterlife, take your pick). In other threads the Mossad connection has been discussed.
none said its your job, its ur choice to take a part in the discussion or not, so if you want to be a part of it, then you would read it, and say if its true or not, thats all, but none is forcing you to discuss anything
Noticed you really didn't make a comment on your OP. So what is your take on it? You posted it.
My orginal statement stands. I think it has some facts, with lots of opinions.
any comment that i will make, will be opposed, so i am just leaving it for you guys to read it, and when someone have any comment about it, i will be ready to reply and discuss, and i dont claim that this investigation is all true, i never claimed that, i am just saying, that we should read it, then decide ourselfs instead of judging without reading, am i right ?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?