Liar. That is the precisely the opposite of what Carlitos has noted. Carlitos didn't note that you
have done that, he clearly noted that you have
not. Funny that you, who is so keen on calling nearly everything "rhetoric" would miss true rhetoric once it stares you in the face!
Nothing in the word salad you refer us to explains anything at all about DEWs
Nothing in there has anything at all to do with smells. The topic of what kinds of smells 2 weeks after their use DEWs would leave behind is not even touched in the remotest way by that gibberish that carlitos found.
carlitos quoted you to point out, as everybody except you immediately recognizes, that you did NOT say anything of relevance, and used many many words to achieve that utter nothingness.
You have not answered to a valid and necessary question:
How do you know what smells DEWs would create - sources or own experience?
Part of the reason for your failure to explain your wild assumption about smells is of course your equally utter failure to even start to explain what a DEW
is, what
kind of DEW you think was used on 9/11,
where a DEW would have been on 9/11, and
how it was put to work.
Just pointing us to some companies who do some sort of work on DEWs does not answer in the slightest any of these questions.
Do better, jammonius! Much much better.
...Fess, because you engage in rhetoric, rather than dialogue, it is entirely unclear what information you have about DEW and whether or to what extent you have researched the subject.
You make exceptional claims about DEW. If you want to make that case, then you do the research and present the result. It is good when results name names and are supported by references and links, however, just dropping names and links is no substitute for actually presenting results and making a case. Do oh so much better, jammomius!
If I need to clarify: We don't have to research DEWs to debunk your claims until the day that you have finally made your case. You will not have made your case until you at least specify what a DEW is, where one was, how it was used, and what its effects were. As long as you leave us in the dark about these things, there is utterly nothing to be debunked.
As noted in post # 2101, I have already given the answer as to what happened on 9/11 and have given the sources of where more information can be found.
No, you very definitely have not. See above.
I think debunkers are afraid of SAIC and ARA. They sure as heck don't ever comment on those companies, let alone their capacities and areas of expertise.
You make that up as you know it's silly and wrong. Since you consciously write something which you must very clearly know to be your invention and extremely unlikely, I once again conclude that you are nothing but a liar.
Side Note to Lurkers: These intials are key to understanding 9/11:
saic, ara, deps, usded, afrl
No. Initials and names are not key to anything whatsoever. You must present your beloved lurkers a narrative, a story, a theory that may or may not involve initials. Everything else is, in the truest sense,
rhetoric and a
wild goose chase.
