Finally !!! ASK QUESTIONS, DEMAND ANSWERS.

Quote from hapaboy:


Too easy. Instead of pointing out the gaping holes in your pathetic theories that are easily accessible to anyone with the inclination,
More...


More of the same. Avoid, avoid, avoid.

All I ask is you start elucidating these 'gaping holes' in my 'pathetic theories'.

That should be a cake walk for you, right?

Instead, you'd rather waste your time with insults than rip me apart for all to see and be done with it.

It appears you enjoy wasting your time?

And yea, every question posed was based on mainstream articles.

Reading you question this shows how little digging you've actually done.


Honestly, you think Sibel Edmonds is full of shit?


ahh.. its ok. You can lead a horse to water.

Not my fault if you wanna ignore the facts.
 
Quote from achilles28:

And yea, every question posed was based on mainstream articles.
More...
I repeat, post the URL's for all those "mainstream articles."

Or do you want to avoid, avoid, avoid?
 
Quote from hapaboy:

I repeat, post the URL's for all those "mainstream articles."
More...

Whats the point? You haven't even mustered a half-hearted response to questions you claim are 'gaping with holes'.

In all honesty, all insults aside, I sincerely welcome your reservations or explanations for those questions I posed.

What I don't understand is:

1) If the holes in my questions/ 'theory' are so obvious, why can't you just explain them for me?

and

2) Why do you need URL's to discredit claims you already know to have 'gaping holes'? Shouldn't the answer already be obvious to you?

Of course, the question is rhetorical.

You haven't done your research which is why you're asking for 'proof'. Making all your prior 'iron-clad' rebuttals really consisting of uninformed speculation at best.

But thats ok.





Quote from hapaboy:

Or do you want to avoid, avoid, avoid?
More...


Nope. Thats clearly you - by a long shot.

Waiting on you.
 
Quote from jzlucas:

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/green/loose_change.html
More...

Thanks for the link. Its a good one and i will go through it.

Please keep in mind, that critique is centered on one of the weakest areas in the 9/11 skeptic account - missiles on the plane based on a small sample, of grainy, easily distorted, low res vid captures.


There are far more solid topics that suggest, in total, Government complicity. They include multiple, specific pre 911 warnings received by CIA, FBI, NSA from domestic and foreign Governments. Whistleblowers and leaked documents stating FBI higher ups and Bush Admin instructed agents not investigate Bin Laden/ Saudi families prior to 911. And active, ongoing conspiracy existing within FBI mid-to-high level management to protect 9/11 accomplices from prosecution (google Sibel Edmonds). President told multiple times of impending Bin Laden attack. These threats deemed significant enough Pentagon and Gov officials told not to fly in and around 9/11. Despite these aviation threats heeded by top Gov levels, norad aircraft wholly unprepared on sept 11th. Nowhere to be found. Bush remaining in a publiclly disclosed location for 30-45 mins after the US comes under confirmed attack. Secret service would have got him out of there pronto. Neocon thinktank manifesto desires Pearl Harbor type of attack to catalyze American public into accepting massive military spending/projected long term presence in middle east. Declassified operation northwoods document already proves executive US Government contemplating execution of terror attacks against own citizens to rally support for cuba invasion. etc etc.
 
Quote from achilles28:

Whats the point? You haven't even mustered a half-hearted response to questions you claim are 'gaping with holes'.

In all honesty, all insults aside, I sincerely welcome your reservations or explanations for those questions I posed.

What I don't understand is:

1) If the holes in my questions/ 'theory' are so obvious, why can't you just explain them for me?

and

2) Why do you need URL's to discredit claims you already know to have 'gaping holes'? Shouldn't the answer already be obvious to you?

Of course, the question is rhetorical.

You haven't done your research which is why you're asking for 'proof'. Making all your prior 'iron-clad' rebuttals really consisting of uninformed speculation at best.

But thats ok.

Nope. Thats clearly you - by a long shot.

Waiting on you.
More...
Laughable. And extremely disingenuous.

You are the one claiming that all your questions derive from "mainstream sources."

As such, it should be an easy task for you to provide links to these mainstream sources.

Unless you have a reason not to....hmmm, I wonder what that could be?

If you are being truthful, you will post the links. If not, well, no surprise.

Waiting on you.
 
Quote from achilles28:

There are far more solid topics that suggest, in total, Government complicity. They include blah, blah, blah
More...
Links please.

Waiting on you.
 
Here is a chance to vote your thoughts on 911
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Please vote in CNN Poll
http://edition.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/showbiz.tonight/


QUICKVOTE

Do you agree with Charlie Sheen that the U.S. government covered up
the real events of the 9/11 attacks?
---------------------------------------------------------------------


So far over 80% of the voters believe YES
14 thousand votes and counting.

If you agree or disagree sent them an e-mail too, describing your point of view and why.
 
What's wrong with all of us conservatives? How dare we not believe everything celebrities say... why would we even consider getting our information from anywhere else? Whatever Charlie Sheen says MUST be true. Keep us uninformed repub's updated the next time Streisand speaks as well so I can become politically astute just like the rest of Hollywood. I'd appreciate it. Tell ZZZzzzzzzz and the slaves that we have been OWNED.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top