I have said who "they" are and others have also yet you still just mock instead of research for yourself.
And, with that statement, we're back to earlier days on this thread: why in the world would I do research backing your assertions?
I have a position on the issue; it's a position contrary to the organizing principle of this thread and, apparently, one that you're interested in changing. Perfectly fine; I welcome your efforts. I'm here to consider alternate ideas. If you've done "research" - which, incidentally, typically suggests more investigative rigor than siphoning hysteria off of conspiracy theory websites and blogs - and you are confident that it supports the position that a/some grand conspiracy(s) are afoot, I encourage you to post them for review and, as applies, scrutiny.
But don't ask me to do your research for you. That tactic is spinelessly evasive, should be embarrassing, and at any rate has been done to death - on this thread, in particular. Recall, if you will, the last attempts of Don Earl to shore up his arguments before choosing the blissful, insulating silence of the Ignore feature.
:-)
*****
"I would suggest if these questions are truly important to you, that you contact "Knowledge Networks[."]
Message 19078035
*****
"So rather than ask me...to answer your questions, why not run some searches of your own[?]...Instead of asking me to find information related to laws prohibiting the US Government's use of propaganda against US citizens, why not look it up yourself?"
Message 19078457
*****
"[T]here is no reason why I should spend an hour digging up stuff, that has already been posted...[s]ince you openly question my credibility, sources and quality of research anyhow, why should I waste my time when you are perfectly able to look it up yourself[?]"
Message 19079893
*****
You named who "they" are in your own post when you quoted me, then you ask who "they" are. You show you are not serious.
So you're not going to get any more specific than offering such laughable, emotional obscurities as "super rich elite banking interests"?
[T]he fires in the twin towers could not have been more that 2000 degrees in temp given the fuel available to burn (jet fuel and building)...
Link to credible, supporting evidence...?
...yet it would take 4,000 degrees to melt the steel (steel is made in special furnaces designed to get that unusually high temperature) and cause the building to collapse at all...
Link to credible, supporting evidence...?
...(much less collapse in such a way that it looked like an expert demolition job, straight down).
Link to credible, supporting evidence...?
The top of the building should have folded over on the weaker side if the steel had really melted as claimed, yet it went straight down.
Link to credible, supporting evidence...?
There are a few physics facts that you can research and find that it is true.
Again: why should I support your conjectures? You're making the claims; subsequently, it's your responsibility to substantiate them.
You are falling, predictably, into the same pattern of your hobby theorist brethren.
Will you?
I note that not only haven't you addressed this previous post...
Message 19236400
...but you haven't addressed this one either.
Message 19228681
Or will you just make another nonsense post?
If there are parts of previous posts you don't understand, let me know and I'll rephrase or slow them down for you a bit.
But if that isn't the case: are you confident in your position to, in any case, judge what is and isn't "nonsens[ical]"?
Message 19152579
LPS5 |
