So states the pretend expert with absolutely NOTHING to back up his claim. Poor truthers. Another craptastic theory bites the dust!
Your needle seems to be stuck. You might begin by presenting some evidence, rather than wild speculation.
You fellas need to see that "official" ink stamp across the top of any submissions for you to consider it valid, is what I was inferring. (like beef being stamped USDA, and it not being actual beef unless "officially" stamped "official"). You dig? See, it's impossible to argue with you "official" defenders of the fiasco because A) unless it's marked "official", you all refuse to consider it to begin with, and since anything "official" is corrupt to some extent, it makes for a useless debate.,and B) You clearly have an agenda to promote which is separate and apart from any actual facts or professional opinions that are counter to your "official" agenda and your unending defense of all that is "official". In other words, we could have photos, film, recordings, tests, testimony, professional expertise and you "official" guys would not consider it and because of your agenda, you would attempt to circumvent it in any manner possible. You guys are here to dispute any and all claims that are counter to the "official" BS story.... Our objective is to get people to look for themselves and hold suspect whatever you guys dispute or support. The intelligent reader will be able to filter through it if they look past your objectives, and that is my objective....not argue the points really, because you will attempt to discredit anything and everything that is in opposition to your objective regardless. Get the objective (objectively speaking)? Now continue with your ridicule, your insults, and your rhetoric and critique of all that isn't "official".
Did you just reject a study offered by Hannibal because it wasn't official? What is this, opposite day?
Yet you have none of those things. I presented an independent study in another thread from a different country. You ran away.
Not true. The claims are judged on their merit . . . or lack thereof. Seems contradictory and certainly not objective. Who has the agenda again? Well if your case was as strong as you think it is, you would have absolutely no problem arguing the points because facts and logic would be on your side. The fact the you are unable or unwilling to argue the points seems to suggest that your case isn't really as strong as you think it is.
I can't speak for anyone else but I'm not here to promote an 'agenda'. I will be the first to admit that we should be suspicious of our gov't and that there are glaring deficiencies and flaws in the official 9/11 report. However, I firmly believe that many if not most of the conspiracies theories which attribute responsibility for 9/11 to our Gov't are not supported by the preponderance of evidence. In my opinion the evidence offered by 'truthers' on this forum is very weak. Until I come across a body of convincing and credible evidence that links or Gov't to the attacks I will remain skeptical of the 'truthers' positions.
No...It just means I've finally learned to quit arguing with shills. Talking to a wall would yield more honest conversation.
I reject anything and everything from Hannibal, as he's proven his dedication to his cause to me. He refuses to discuss anything rationally, so I've adjusted my commentary pertaining to him because I could prove the earth is round and he would insist I'm wrong, and then hurl insults, as he calls for backup...it's gotten old.
Since some people's opinions are dependent on being diametrically opposed to your own, Hannibal, perhaps you should become a truther so that they can realize how stupid trutherism is.
That'll never fly. Needs more random capitalization, poor spelling and grammar, and a few links to youtube.
You could have just saved some time and written, "I won't consider anything that doesn't agree with my biased opinion."
Shills or no shills . . . by the way, you still haven't provided any evidence to back up THAT claim . . . if your case was indeed strong and backed up by facts and evidence, then it would not matter who you were arguing or debating with. No matter what they said, if you were able to back up your claims or counter their assertions with additional supporting facts, there would be no reason not to debate them. The fact that you refuse to offer facts and evidence to support your claims, and accuse those who disagree with you of being "shills" and "calling for backup" whenever two or more posters comment contrary to your point of view speaks volumes about your position.
I have no agenda, other than the truth. The "official" BS story doesn't contain ANY truth that I can verify.
