UN Official Accidentally Dies Right before Testifying against Hillary

[mak2]

I like to think it is more of a mistaken belief. Why call people liars?

It's about as substantive as what you consider to be (in your opinion) "facts". And honestly, I highly doubt that the circles (which is probably full of conspiracy theorists such as yourself) you run in place a high importance on substance.



Here's two for you:

1. The collapse of the twin towers was a controlled demolition. That is a lie.

2. Sandy Hook is a hoax. That is also a lie.

 

[Thoreau72]

It's about as substantive as what you consider to be (in your opinion) "facts". And honestly, I highly doubt that the circles (which is probably full of conspiracy theorists such as yourself) you run in place a high importance on substance.



Here's two for you:

1. The collapse of the twin towers was a controlled demolition. That is a lie.

2. Sandy Hook is a hoax. That is also a lie.

You cannot prove, and neither can the government prove, that the twin towers were brought down by gravity and office fires.

You cannot prove that SH happened the way they said it did.

In both cases you are unable to prove your assertions. The simple truth is that those towers were brought down by some force other than gravity and office fires. The simple truth is that SH has so many holes in it that it's laughable.

So I'm not lying Governess. I am stating the essential truth--both events cannot be proved by you or anybody else.

When you are able to offer a persuasive explanation to support your position, get back to me. Until then, name-calling proves only one thing--the desperate state of your chosen position regarding those events.

 

[TheGoverness]

I like to think it is more of a mistaken belief. Why call people liars?

Fine, I won't call him a liar.

But can I at least call him dishonest? That's a better word for to use, isn't it?

Is it really mistaken beliefs.

 

[mak2]

Just try to be more civil. It makes it nicer for everyone around here.

Fine, I won't call him a liar.

But can I at least call him dishonest? That's a better word for to use, isn't it?

Is it really mistaken beliefs.

 

[Mark F]

It is you who seems to be quite bothered about the story regarding my 'conversion' from OCT believer to OCT doubter. It means so much to you that you must call me a liar about it, and continue posting about it.

The comical part is that by so doing, you demonstrate that you don't know the truth when you see it.

In so doing, you validate what Soren Kierkegaard noted decades ago regarding the 2 ways a person can be fooled. One is to believe what is not true, and the other is to refuse to believe what is true. I've told a simple but true story of how I became involved in the 911 controversy, and you refuse to believe it. You are allergic to the simple truth, but I've known that for at least a year. :roll:

Still trying to :beatdeadhorse I see, trying desperately to miss the point.

Speaking of believing what is not true and refusing to believe what is true, lets go back to Sandy Hook - you know, that topic you have been avoiding like the plague recently. You reached a conclusion about what you believe really happened at Sandy Hook based on a gross misunderstanding of the official story supported by outright lies like pre-positioned Porta Potties, Participant Check-in Signs, ADA non-compliance, faked FEMA excercises, etc, etc,etc,...

In each of those cases (plus others) you chose to believe what is not true without any attempt at due diligence, then when shown those claims were false, continued to repeat them as if they were true - refusing to believe what is true.

When you are wrong it is always for the exact same reason - you don't take the slightest amount of time to perform even the most rudimentary due diligence. Instead of doing it yourself you rely on others to do it for you, then ignore them if you don't what they find.

Given your record of appallingly poor judgement, unwillingness/inability to perform even the most rudimentary level of due diligence, refusal to accept new evidence contrary to your belief system and indeed, to accept what is true, why should anyone care about Richard Gage's,...er,... I mean your origin story? Even if true it really is nothing more than an admission of what everyone already knows - you are easily fooled and not easy to un-fool. As toppers, because of your poor judgement and intransigence, you don't even know who was fooling you!

 

[TheGoverness]

You cannot prove, and neither can the government prove, that the twin towers were brought down by gravity and office fires.

You cannot prove that SH happened the way they said it did.

In both cases you are unable to prove your assertions. The simple truth is that those towers were brought down by some force other than gravity and office fires. The simple truth is that SH has so many holes in it that it's laughable.

So I'm not lying Governess. I am stating the essential truth--both events cannot be proved by you or anybody else.

When you are able to offer a persuasive explanation to support your position, get back to me. Until then, name-calling proves only one thing--the desperate state of your chosen position regarding those events.

I hope you realize that the burden of proof is not on me. You are making the claims that 9/11 was a controlled demolition, and Sandy Hook was a hoax, so it's up to YOU to provide the evidence for that, not me. There's already ample evidence to show that 9/11 and Sandy Hook happened the way they did, it's just you don't believe it. And even though you've been refuted numerous times already, you still cling to your conspiracies like they're somehow based in trutht, which they clewrly aren't. Nothing you've stated so far is "truth". Like I said before, all you've been doing this entire time is making baseless claims and assertions without any proof to back them up.

 

[Mark F]

I hope you realize that the burden of proof is not on me. You are making the claims that 9/11 was a controlled demolition, and Sandy Hook was a hoax, so it's up to YOU to provide the evidence for that, not me. There's already ample evidence to show that 9/11 and Sandy Hook happened the way they did, it's just you don't believe it. And even though you've been refuted numerous times already, you still cling to your conspiracies like they're somehow based in trutht, which they clewrly aren't. Nothing you've stated so far is "truth". Like I said before, all you've been doing this entire time is making baseless claims and assertions without any proof to back them up.

Be careful you don't fall for Henry's very deliberate bit of dishonesty. Did you catch the strawman in his first challenge?

And yes, Henry is employing reverse burden of proof, trying to weasel his way out of his own responsibilities to support his own claims.

 

[TheGoverness]

Be careful you don't fall for Henry's very deliberate bit of dishonesty. Did you catch the strawman in his first challenge?

Oh I assure you, I caught it.

And yes, Henry is employing reverse burden of proof, trying to weasel his way out of his own responsibilities to support his own claims.

Yep. But it's not unlike many other CT's I know, since their claims are pretty much baseless to begin with.

 

[Mark F]

Oh I assure you, I caught it.

Yep. But it's not unlike many other CT's I know, since their claims are pretty much baseless to begin with.

You gotta love the logic of claiming no one can prove something no one is claiming actually happened in the first place.

 

[Quag]

I like to think it is more of a mistaken belief. Why call people liars?

Because he has been repeatedly shown that the statements are untrue and he continues to make the claims.
Thus he is lying.

 

[Thoreau72]

I hope you realize that the burden of proof is not on me. You are making the claims that 9/11 was a controlled demolition, and Sandy Hook was a hoax, so it's up to YOU to provide the evidence for that, not me. There's already ample evidence to show that 9/11 and Sandy Hook happened the way they did, it's just you don't believe it. And even though you've been refuted numerous times already, you still cling to your conspiracies like they're somehow based in trutht, which they clewrly aren't. Nothing you've stated so far is "truth". Like I said before, all you've been doing this entire time is making baseless claims and assertions without any proof to back them up.

No ma'am, that's not the way it works.

You defend the official story, which is the NIST story, which is that gravity and office fires in that part of the building struck by airliners brought down the buildings. Like it or not, understand it or not, that is your position.

My position is that the official NIST explanation cannot be proved, either by NIST itself or by you. That means the burden of proof is upon you, to prove the official story. All the facts work against the official story.

My goodness we are way off topic. Apologies to the mods.

 

[Mark F]

No ma'am, that's not the way it works.

You defend the official story, which is the NIST story, which is that gravity and office fires in that part of the building struck by airliners brought down the buildings. Like it or not, understand it or not, that is your position.

My position is that the official NIST explanation cannot be proved, either by NIST itself or by you. That means the burden of proof is upon you, to prove the official story. All the facts work against the official story.

My goodness we are way off topic. Apologies to the mods.

False.

You have proposed contrary, alternative explanations. When you do that it is your burden of proof to show how they are superior to the default hypothesis, not run away at every single challenge.

 

[Thoreau72]

False.

You have proposed contrary, alternative explanations. When you do that it is your burden of proof to show how they are superior to the default hypothesis, not run away at every single challenge.

Dear Mark,

The standard, official explanation, the one you defend furiously, cannot be proved. You cannot, the government cannot, and Governess cannot.

Therefore, a contrary and alternative explanation is the ONLY POSSIBLE CHOICE.

 

[Quag]

Dear Mark,

The standard, official explanation, the one you defend furiously, cannot be proved. You cannot, the government cannot, and Governess cannot.

Therefore, a contrary and alternative explanation is the ONLY POSSIBLE CHOICE.

Not only has it been proven your alternate CT involves non exploding radioactive mini-nukes that emit no radiation.
Or in other words sheer stupidity

 

[Mark F]

Dear Mark,

The standard, official explanation, the one you defend furiously, cannot be proved. You cannot, the government cannot, and Governess cannot.

Therefore, a contrary and alternative explanation is the ONLY POSSIBLE CHOICE.

Is it possible for you to concentrate for more than 5 seconds?

At issue here - no matter how much you wish to avoid it - is the ease and frequency with which you are fooled by absolute nonsense. This probably explaining your consistent refusal to ever support any of the preposterous claims you make, to meet your burden of proof. Given your track record, not being able to prove something to you shouldn't be the standard. Luckily, it isn't.

 

[Thoreau72]

Maybe for you that's the issue Mark, but the thread title says otherwise.

 

[Mark F]

Maybe for you that's the issue Mark, but the thread title says otherwise.

The OP says a man who was set to testify against Hillary Clinton died mysteriously on the day he was set to testify. You apparently agreed.

Well sure, it's just a coincidence that so many friends and acquaintances of the Clintons have ended up dying mysterious deaths. Whether this is another example or not, it is interesting that he was preparing to testify.

And you were as usual, dead freakin' wrong. John Ashe did not die mysteriously. He did not die the day he was set to testify against Hillary Clinton. He was not set to testify against Clinton at all. 2 minutes of fact-checking is all it would have taken. You don't even put in that little effort. Once again you demonstrate your sole standard of evidence is does it fit my fantasy worldview.

The ease with which you take in utter bull feces without the slightest bit of vetting or due diligence and never admit you were wrong then is very much the issue.