The 100% Impossible 9/11 Inside Job

LSSBB said:
I knew what it meant, but believe it or not I will really show my age.






My older son had it on his Facebook. He also showed me the book.

While he was in high school.

5 years ago.
Click to expand...


You're not old. My oldest brother is.....55, my youngest is 30. My parents?? They're old!
 
SpringHallConvert said:
Not really. You imagine, but don't truly know.
Click to expand...

SHC, I think I see your problem (at least one of them): this is a forum for skepticism, not existentialism. If you wish to have a conversation on an "anything is possible" or "how do you know what's really real?" level, you may want to try a different forum. There may even be threads within JREF; I've never looked.

However, in a skeptics forum, one is expected to bring some facts or evidence to support their beliefs. "I don't accept that" or "You don't REALLY know" are not acceptable responses as they are unsupported assertions. What goes on here is agreed upon facts due to a preponderance of the evidence (something that has been pointed out to you on multiple occasions). Simply dismissing evidence because it doesn't meet a double-negative level of proof you feel you get to determine does not make you a free- or broad-thinker; it makes you a grade school level adolescent refusing to eat his/her vegetables because "you can't make me!".

So while a "What's really real?" discussion may be interesting to have while getting high in a college dorm room, it does nothing to further the argument you are [poorly] trying to make. Namely, the logical fallacy prove a negative you are asking us to make. An argument, BTW, that you have contradicted yourself on on several occasions.

There are accepted facts that have resulted from the 9/11 investigation. They are not in dispute. It is now your turn to dispute them.

Feel free.
 
Originally Posted by SpringHallConvert
You're in good company, government truther!

This is what the flat-earthers used to say!
Click to expand...
I have to admit, SHC, you are comedic gold! What makes it all the more hilarious is that you have no idea how utterly contradictory that statement is to proving your point (whatever it is).

Please, please keep it up! If this were a political arena, you'd be a late-night comedians wet dream!
:)
 
Last edited:
000063 said:
Moving goalposts. You've been crying from the rooftops about how government sources are unreliable. When it's pointed out that you use government sources, it takes you several days to actually respond to such a post with the rationalization that "everyone involved is dead or not working for the government!" (Unsupported)

Yet you have no problem accusing people who apparently don't work for the government and never have of being part of the government and ignoring their evidence because of it. I mean, Al Qaeda was formed 25 years ago. That's not so far off from 30. But you still say all the primary sources from the Soviet-Afghani War were made up.

:boggled:

The only reason you accept government sources for Northwoods is because you think can twist it around to support your argument. Government sources become reliable only when you think they support you. I'll bet you never even considered why Northwoods was good evidence and any accounts supporting 9/11 were not until I pointed it out.

And now your hypocrisy's on record.

#000063bookmark
Click to expand...
911 truth is getting better at screening believers. Their search for followers with no evidence and zero skills in logic has succeeded.

The Northwoods Logic fail, a standard 911 truth issued skill, another failed 911 truth supporter, fails faster than free-fall. 10 years of failure, evidence empty posts, dots connecting 911 truth to eternal failure. This truther will have to step over the evidence that surrounds him, pepper spray it in the face, and claim victory.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom