Yes I did say that.. Honestly I feel this is kind of a diversion because I would think you'd know about the polls that are out there. Nevertheless, since you asked, here's a link to a poll for you. http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/international_security_bt/535.php Now you know at least one poll exists.. I've satisfied my claim.. Now can you back up YOUR claim or not?
Sure I understand it now.. Sorry I didn't before because you did NOT make it clear.. In fact it was ambiguous, because on the one hand you said it was rhetorical, yet on the other hand you mentioned how you COULD show me proof of a "decline in 9/11 conspiracy belief", as opposed to saying you didn't actually mean to claim any sort of decline in 9/11 conspiracy belief you were just being rhetorical.. So you don't actually claim a decline in 9/11 conspiracy belief.. Okay then, nvm and sorry to waste your time.
So the most current you could find was 2008. Perfect, it explains a great deal about your positions ... You're still three years behind. What specific claim are you so worried about? Link please.
Is that what I said? Hmm. Let's see. I did not say that I COULD show you proof of a decline in 9/11 conspiracy belief. In point of fact I said the exact opposite. For a guy who likes to play the semantics game, you suck at it.
Meanwhile, back on the topic of the thread: Which expert's evidence in this film do you find the most compelling?
Except when it comes to buildings falling at near freefall speed, going along to get along supercedes the logic. You can't have your cake and eat it too
Having your cake and eating it is easy, anyone can do that. It's eating your cake and still having it, that's what's impossible. Why can't 'truthers' get even the simplest things right? At any rate, back to the topic: Which expert's evidence in this film do you find the most compelling?
There will be one for sure. Look for Cheney to do his "I'm so sick so please don't think about indicting me" sick act around the time of the 10th anniversary. Hey man..quick question. You ever see shills fighting FOR the "official" BS story as hard as they do in here anywhere else? Seriously...do they all serve the agenda with such dedication, day and night?
So, the answers to my question: .. just what exactly are these 'experts' actually achieving? seem to range from absolutely zip/zilch/nuttin, to 'raising awareness' and 'lining some pockets'.. It seems the common attribute of all the 'expert's who deal with issues like this, 'chem'trails and the like, is complete incompetence/impotence/ineffectiveness. As NOTHING ever gets achieved. No court case (let alone a victory), no smoking gun, no convinced celebrity - anyone willing to take a stab at why? (I'll give you a hint - the usual answers about TPTB are the lame excuses of the impotent and ineffective.) I think 'smoking gun' is now a euphemism for a product of the vivid imagination of the ill-informed. Oh and by the way, which expert's evidence in this film do you find the most compelling? And please give your reasons in your own words, to illustrate your expertise in the matter...
What is the point of this post? I clearly said I understand you now, that I have no dispute if you're not claiming that and so we were done.. But had to get a last little cheeky quip in huh?
I never said there were any CURRENT polls that support your position. I just said have a look at the polls and see if there is evidence for your position. You seem to be forgetting an important thing.. I DIDN'T CLAIM any opinion trends. YOU claimed there was a decline in a certain public sentiment and are clearly making wild goose chase diversions in leue of providing any evidence of any decline in public opinion that you claim. YOU need to be the one googling polls right now.. Because at the end of the day you made a claim and you have no evidence to support it. Simple as that.. This is not MY job to find evidence for your claim. I've had a look.. Latest poll I can find is in '08, so have YOU got a more current poll? What position of mine do you disagree with? There have been multiple times you pretend like you know the numbers and try to make other people believe that people who believe other than you are on the decline, in what looks like an attempt to make your own position seem so great. Here's what you said in this thread: Ok.. So what exactly was the first "quick fade".. When was that?
Actually the phrase is "having your cake and eating it too" as it's been used for cliche purposes for however many decades/centuries and 10aces used the antiquated cliche properly. I've never heard anyone say eating your cake and still having it.. So it seems like YOU are the one who couldn't get this simplest thing right. FYI it's an idiomatic figure of speech; it doesn't have to make literal sense.
The first quick fade was when Bush left office. I suppose the next will be mid September of this year.
Speaking of achievements.. What have the "official story" skeptical "debunker" squad achieved again? No court case you say.. That's a good one.. Kind of like how you've still not got who the 9/11 commission claim is the "principal architect" of the 9/11 attacks convicted.
A tiny bit of research would help 'truthers' actually get something right, once in a while. So anyway: Which expert's evidence in this film do you find the most compelling?
LOL Good one! They don't seem to like it when their own tactics are used against them, do they? You should have followed it up with a "cite this", followed again by another what film"?
It is pretty numerous when you repeatedly fail to support your own threads. (in case you forgot, the film is mentioned in the title) So ... Expecting you to continue to flee in cowardice, I'll ask again: Which expert's evidence in this film do you find the most compelling?
Nothing there refutes what I said at all. Your link clearly says that the reversal of the clauses into its current version happened ALL THE WAY back in 1812. Since then THIS has become the established colloquailism.. That's why I've never heard it any different. The fact is that through widespread usage over long periods, words and phrases gain their legitimacy in language. It's how idioms come about. This is an established phrase as it was used by the poster you tried to correct, and you're wrong to try to correct someone just for using a common, widespread and centuries established figure of speech. Screw the film.. I'm more curious what the numbers are for that big belief crash of '08.
