re: Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth - eta Final Study Released

quote:

---

I mean, Kerry is a dumbass politician. He doesn't know his arse from a hole in the ground. What does it mean that he would make this statement?

---

Kerry is a big mucker in the spook circles...despite losing an election, he went on to lead the 7th Floor Group

This group was identified in FBI documents as an affiliation with a shadow government element...
It was also mentioned by Roberta Jacobson in the Hillary emails on wikileaks (2010)...Jacobson is the ambassador to Mexico

Note, to all the "jump the gun" excitable jackholes...this does not implicate the Group for doing nefarious things, just a claim by the FBI that they work outside direction of the POTUS...

quote:

---

Your link says the HSCA concluded that he was killed by conspiracy.

It expressly states that there is no evidence to indicate the CIA, etc was involved.

You then cite it in response to a statement about him being assassinated by a group including the CIA.

---

Wow, I guess I should be flattered that you would take time out of your life to nitpick one of my posts.

Yes, the CIA was included in a very large group of potential conspiracy suspects on the topic of whether or not there was a conspiracy at all.

quote:

---

You see, shite like that is why you get dismissed as a nut job.

---

Yes, semantics is an excellent reason to dismiss someone as a nut job.

You seem mentally stable.

quote:

---

Wow, I guess I should be flattered that you would take time out of your life to nitpick one of my posts.

---

Not really. You flatter yourself enough thinking your posts need to be nit picked to fall apart.


You can't crawfish your way out of it. In trying to defend another tin foil cap post, you posted a citation that directly contradicted the "military industrial complex/CIA assertion. And then made an ironic ad hominem attack about reading comprehension.

That's it. There was no semantic tangents being attacked. That is almost the verbatim content of your post. Which is also why people don't listen to you.

You attack, you insult, you offer no substance ever except snide insults that half the time when you are called out on it you disappear.

If you want to call that semantics, go for it.

Personally I think it's more of a character/integrity thing.

quote:

---

In trying to defend another tin foil cap post,

---

Fake news and government corruption are tin foil cap?

quote:

---

you posted a citation that directly contradicted the "military industrial complex/CIA assertion.

---

The assertion included more than that. But keep nipicking you'll come up with something eventually.

quote:

---

That is almost the verbatim content of your post.

---

Key word there being "almost." Keep digging. I am entertained.

quote:

---

You attack, you insult,

---

Sheople should be attacked and insulted at every opportunity.

quote:

---

when you are called out on it you disappear.

---

I'm right here. And have been for 13 years. Funny how you equate personal attacks with being called out. But that's how the poliboard works. We both know that.

I am more than willing to discuss specifics. Fire away. In fact I encourage it. Unfortunately, you and those like you honestly believe that calling someone a conspiracy kook is a meaningful rebuttal. And then go crying because I retaliated.

quote:

---

And he's gone. Maybe went to worship the guy who was born to a virgin, then was murdered and came back to life and now lives in the clouds with his dad. I feel certain he'll be back, though, to call me the conspiracy kook. This board never disappoints.

---

Today you laugh, tomorrow you cry.

quote:

---

quote: when you are called out on it you disappear. And he's gone. Maybe went to worship the guy who was born to a virgin, then was murdered and came back to life and now lives in the clouds with his dad. I feel certain he'll be back, though, to call me the conspiracy kook.

---

You're not a kook. You are just sick. You can get better if you want.

quote:

---

And he's gone.

---

The only ROFL hilarious thing about this line is you waited less time to post this than the time it took for yourself to reply.

And for all of your talk about me nitpicking (for talking about your post at all) you go full foaming irrational attack mode going quote one line and reply. That part was pretty hilarious too.

And you still manage to say nothing. No misunderstanding in my post or a correction that would make the simple logical flaw non-applicable.


The closest you came to that was you admitting you cherry picked what you chose to reply to in the original post(again, while everyone else apparently "nitpicks." The post to which you responded to indicated general incredulity to an definitively asserts give statement that "a conspiracy by the military industrial complex was getting mainstream acceptance." (Paraphrased BTW, Mr. Nitpicker)

Zero indication if he was speaking to a general idea of a conspiracy, or just the "military industrial complex" being at the center of it.

You are apparently now saying that you chose to ignore parts of the post, assume he meant all possibility conspiracy, and use that to attack as some kind of smoking gun. Which you try to deliver as some kind of smoking gun.


Oh, and about that false equivalency you tried to pull: the difference is that this time I didn't offer an opinion, or even a debate. I simply called you out on your link not refuting the post you were responding to, and did not support what you said in the post.

There really isn't anything to discuss further that particular topic. It is what it is.


Oh...found another element of hilarity: that you think my lack of response in ~15 minutes is automatically due to going to church. Not only did you chose to portray it in the most unnecessarily insulting manner, supporting one element of why people don't listen to you, you missed one big detail:

I am a vocal agnostic here, whose historical shitck on the Poli-Board was to patiently correct creationists for misrepresenting science. Well, patient at least to the people honestly willing to learn. So for you to make the leap and assume based on no facts other than no posts for 15-20 minutes on a Sunday was worthy on an condescending remark on people of faith....well that's the other reason why people typically don't listen to you: you are so often hilariously wrong.


G'day sir. I know you justify your existence by getting some visceral fulfillment with these "debates" but I truely have better things to do than play over something that isn't subject to opinion or interpretation.

Y'all are arguing with a guy whose entire existence is dedicated to finding order in life. He can't mentally tolerate disorder and randomness. Mass shootings, hurricanes, earthquakes all represent intolerable disorder. He needs to believe someone is in control even if it is a nefarious Elite.

He calls us sheep, yet he is the one desperately wanting there to be an actual herding.

All of your conjecture and defense is built for WTC 1/2, not WTC7.

quote:

---

No it isn't. You spend too much time giving attention to liars, like the OP and his fake analysis video.

---

So FEA is a lie unless it agrees with the official government story or the NIST results?

It's pretty obvious to anyone with technical understanding that they aren't lying. This isn't how you describe an engineering study. If they screwed up then it will come out later when the study is peer-reviewed. Why would they allow a "lie" to be peer-reviewed?