Do you have anything relevant to add to the topic? Can you address my response to Koko? Or, like always, did you come here to try to change the subject to your fantasy that we're trying to confuse you?
The last time someone actually got you to admit you were wrong you claimed ignorance as the excuse. It appears that ignorance is willful. You can address the topic, or remain ignorant. Your choice.
I choose to treat shills with the same integrity they shower non shills with. I do it willfully, and it's the only way to engage a shill.
No shills here, just regular people with intelligence and life experiences trying to make sure that the correct information is provided to those who wish to read it. I think it's comical that if "debunkers" or as you call us "shills" come here day after to day to post than that automatically means we work for the government. However, if twoofies come here every single day than there is nothing weird about it. It's just internet warriors fighting for da twoof
Would it surprise you that the Inside Job theories actually inhabit a very small corner of the internet in real life? Truthers live in their own version of an echo chamber that overvalues the "reach" of their supposed message. Ergo: shills be everywhere!!!11 I would suggest they take stock and focus on the reality that surrounds them and their message, but I suspect that would fall on deaf ears.
Discussion wise, probably not. But the study of the topic of 9/11 is bound to lead to those corners. While the reach is incredibly small, media wise, the ability to be absorbed by others remains high. I've said this before: I don't like thinking about conspiracies. But I like to know information. And when there are conflicts in the information, whether it is presented by the government or the media, I naturally am curious and want to get the correct information. And when obstructions prevent said information from being disseminated into the public brain trust, questions arise. Do they not?
What, this: http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/files/387.pdf See, I don't understand how you could be satisfied with the explanation for what occurred on 9/11, given the controversy around the FAA and NORAD. Some alarming discrepancies occurred on that day, and then, there were efforts to conceal evidence. Al-Qaeda were on the planes. They crashed four planes, three of which were into buildings. Three buildings collapsed entirely, and the one side of the Pentagon collapsed. Thousands of people died that day, including hundreds of emergency personnel. Where I start to raise questions is with the air defense response our country responded with. I mean, do you think it was satisfactory? But as I've mentioned before, 9/11 is just one day. There's more to 9/11 than just September 11th, 2001. The majority of my questions lay in the time frame before 9/11. Again, there's more to 9/11 than just September 11th, 2001. And you can try and downplay "A Clean Break" as "some weird coincidences," but that would be like example #6,097 of your side using that cliched and lame excuse. How about, as I've challenged you before, you make a thread and actually debunk "A Clean Break" once and for all. If it's nothing but "some weird coincidences" as you say, it should be easy for you to debunk it, no? Your turn.
Isn't there already a thread for shills? I'm pretty sure this one is about demolition preschool. I know the "teacher" has left the classroom to run amok, but I was hoping that someone from the truther side would at least try to address the gaping ignorance in Koko's post(s).
I didn't start the $hill conversation in this thread. And, what am I supposed to say to Koko? I don't understand the OP, so... - - - Updated - - - That's not true.
Ah, changing the goalposts, are we? But alas, I still have that covered too. Look in the no-plane or no-victim or hollow-tower or CGI or lady scientist threads where I've posted. I've challenged their thesis. And you know I've done the same thing over at Let'sRoll. So please, quit over-generalizing about people, man.
You have to realize that youtube or gifs are the only things important for the true believer conspiracy theorists. Physics need not apply.
So you consider yourself a truther? I didn't lump you into that category. I stand corrected. Truthers never challenge each other except for Jango, and he only does so when the lunacy is extreme.
I'm actually not a fan of Youtube or .gif presentations. And I would probably enjoy the physics side of 9/11 more if I could understand it. Maybe you or someone else could do a layman's version? I mean, if you have the technical expertise, that is, and are willing.
