My God. Look at those sources. No wonder you have bad information. Remind me to use some blogs and call that a source. Now look at the sentence the columist uses:
"Odigo, the instant messaging service, says that two of its workers received messages two hours before the Twin Towers attack on September 11 predicting the attack would happen"
But where is the quote? What did the guy actually say? The quotes you do find from him (Micha Macover) are all of him saying that the was nothing related to the WTC in the message. Yet isn't it funny how you ONLY look for vague articles by vague sources that paraphrase? And YOU are the one who is claiming misrepresentation? YOU? The one who goes and sorts through all the reports and finds the ones that are the most misleading? You're a con artist. It's that simple. You don't bring up any credible articles because you just wanted the ones that make it look like there was some kind of conspiracy theory. hence the need to use archives because the sources don't even last long enough.
Depends what you claim Im saying about the pancake theory. What do you think they are?
Are you on drugs? What does what I think pancaking is have to do with anything? You are claiming the pancaking graphics were wrong. They are NOT. This again stems from FEMA initially guesing that the collapse was started by pancaking. it wasn't. But the conspiracy sites which you use for your research try to mislead people by claiming that there wasn't pancaking period. This is 100% wrong. And this proves you are using conspiracy sites as your source.
What do you say my claims are regarding the instant messages?
You said that warnings of the attacks were sent. Why are you asking me what you wrote in this very thread?
Read what I wrote, i didnt say NIST made the pancake theory I said they were shown to be inaccurate by NIST. Inaccurate doesnt mean totally wrong.
And there you are WRONG. 100% WRONG. I have pointed out WHY you are wrong. You haven't bothered to read. And you said NIST backed away from the pancake claim. Which means that at some point they were behind it. That is WRONG. And there is no dispute over inaccurate here. There is the difference between the initiation and post-initiation. There was absolutely pancaking. No one denies this except the conspiracy sites. NIST points this out very clearly. Nothing inaccurate about it. You're simply mis-using a popular conspiracy claim.
No, you're pretending I said something I didnt.
There you go pretending again. Stop being such a coward.
Evolution can still be right while the "theory" is flawed. Its also the graphic itself that is inaccurate, but I said I was being picky! I explained it was to point out a possible factual error. Yet you keep harping on about it as if its some big point of mine.
Once again, the graphic is in no way inaccurate. Please back this claim up for once. Don't just make ignorant statements that it's inaccurate. WHY is it inaccurate? I keep harping about how it's a big point of yours? Like you keep harping about people saying you are saying something you aren't or calling you a truther?
YOU are the one making baseless claims about the film. YOU are the one using false information to do so. YOU made the point, you made many points. You can easily claim that none of them are a big point. But you made them. You made a lot of false and baseless claims. And it's not a factual error except for on your part.
Why do I have to repeat myself to show Im not saying what you say Im saying?
Because you're clearly delusional. Oh the irony in you complaining about repeating yourself. I think everything I have had to say in the past 10 posts of mine are me repeating to you everything I already said because you don't get it. You're a typical troll.
Several people have disagreed with me, I dont care. Its the way they do it.
So then by your logic you are wrong because people disagree with you. Wouldn't that make sense since you implied that since others agree with you it must give you merit? It was your response to me saying you were wrong. And I don't care what you think about the way people do it. If you can't handle people pointing out your false and baseless claims, then you shouldn't be in a discussion forum. If you want to come in calling people liars and using false information as an excuse to make your opinion seem more valid, then expect to be called on it.
Well you gave an analogy and decided to pick a "KKK member", then you did the same with a murderer. Not the nicest way to make your point, is it? And you also didnt call be a truther either. I know I know...
And anyone who doesn't get the simile is a complete idiot. It seems you don't understand the simile. All you see is "KKK" and not the point. Gosh, you're just a genius.
Trying to teach me a "lesson" again by acting this way?
Wow, you don't get anything do you? I treat you the way you treat others. The real crime here is your ignorance of your own behavior.
No I was implying other people agree with me but that you arent attacking them like you are me. I can see how you might misunderstand me, but but Im glad you do understand what "implication" means. Maybe you should apply the same standards to yourself as you do to others.
Those other people (which I think is 1 person) are not making false claims. As has been pointed out but you are incapable of reading is that the issue is not people thinking the film is unfair. It's you using false information to mislead people as to why.
Except 1. I never said it made them correct. 2. Saying KKK members agree with each other is implying its easy to find truthers that agree with each other.
Only a complete idiot would think that's what it means. Anyone who has at least a 1st grade education would understand that it simply means having someone agree with you does not make your claims correct.
Really?
"He's using typical wooer tactic by exploiting the fact that it's impossible for any documentary to include every possible issue,"
" then the standard wooer tactic of making the argument that because they didn't include all of the nonsense theories that somehow it legitamizes the ones they did show."
"it's impossible to have a documentary that brings up everything.
" your argument that unless they include EVERYONE that YOU deem right somehow makes it unbalanced is a completely bogus argument on your part.
Once again pointing out your strawman argument in that anything short of "everything" would allow your argument.
[emphasis mine]
Ahh so only a complete idiot would look at the quotes from you above and think my interpretation was right? Really... well you sure showed me.
{snipped rest, no point repeating myself}
{i also snipped most of the insults and personal attacks}
Thank you for proving my point with those quotes. Notice the terms such as "using xxx tactics", "standard xxx tactic". Notice the attack is on the tactics used. This is what you claim is directly calling you something. This is where you become a hypocrite. The claims didn't accuse you of being a truther, they accused you of using such tactics. But only an idiot wouldn't get that.
Now learn to read. Learn the difference between personally attacking someone and a behavior. And lastly, please grow up.
Apparently thats the same as attacking someone without bothering to ask what they think.