Thread: Hoodwinked at Shanksville

Originally Posted by Patriot911

So states the pretend expert with absolutely NOTHING to back up his claim. Poor truthers. Another craptastic theory bites the dust!

You should have stayed on the porch

Originally Posted by 10aces

"The people"...what does that mean?

Read the whole sentence.

Originally Posted by 10aces

You should have stayed on the porch

Originally Posted by 10aces

You should have stayed on the porch

Your needle seems to be stuck.

You might begin by presenting some evidence, rather than wild speculation.

Originally Posted by Hannibal

Your needle seems to be stuck.

You might begin by presenting some evidence, rather than wild speculation.

USDA approved too, lest we forget.

Originally Posted by RtWngaFraud

USDA approved too, lest we forget.

Nope, investigations have taken place worldwide. 'Truthers' have yet to refute any of the evidence.

Originally Posted by Hannibal

Nope, investigations have taken place worldwide. 'Truthers' have yet to refute any of the evidence.

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".

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".

Did you just reject a study offered by Hannibal because it wasn't official?

What is this, opposite day?

Originally Posted by RtWngaFraud

In other words, we could have photos, film, recordings, tests, testimony, professional expertise

Yet you have none of those things. I presented an independent study in another thread from a different country. You ran away.

Originally Posted by RtWngaFraud

In other words, we could have photos, film, recordings, tests, testimony, professional expertise and you "official" guys would not consider it

Not true.

Originally Posted by RtWngaFraud

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....

The claims are judged on their merit . . . or lack thereof.

Originally Posted by RtWngaFraud

Our objective is to get people to look for themselves and hold suspect whatever you guys dispute or support.

Seems contradictory and certainly not objective. Who has the agenda again?

Originally Posted by RtWngaFraud

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.

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.

Originally Posted by RtWngaFraud

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".

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.