The best 9/11 video that you are ever likely to see.

[Blue in the Face]

[goslow]

Rebranding never works as we've discovered.

Back to Blue I mean Hebrew with them

Heblues ? 🇮🇱

[Blue in the Face]

[Blue in the Face]

[lardy]

Hey Blue In The Face, you must have missed the memo. They're not doing the missile Pentagon thing any more.

Now the Splottatron is going to have to make yet another embarrassing U-turn on this.

[Splott David]

Hey Blue In The Face, you must have missed the memo. They're not doing the missile Pentagon thing any more.

Now the Splottatron is going to have to make yet another embarrassing U-turn on this.

Lardy, you know nothing is ruled out or ruled in. The only thing that we know for certain is that the official 9/11 Commission Report cannot be treated seriously.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3yzKeM5pVUQ

[Dr Lecter]

Lardy, you know nothing is ruled out or ruled in. The only thing that we know for certain is that the official 9/11 Commission Report cannot be treated seriously.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3yzKeM5pVUQ

So we can rule that in?

[lardy]

Lardy, you know nothing is ruled out or ruled in. The only thing that we know for certain is that the official 9/11 Commission Report cannot be treated seriously.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3yzKeM5pVUQ

I was only joking but, fair play, you are going for the U-turn. I doff my cap to you.

[Splott David]

I was only joking but, fair play, you are going for the U-turn. I doff my cap to you.

In the light of fresh, new or compelling irrefutable evidence we all have to look at what it was we thought was likely as a scenario. No one on here has ever stood by the official 9/11 Commission Report. How could they when members of that very Commission now distance themselves from what was in effect their own report.

[Splott David]

So we can rule that in?

Of course. If you want to. It's just that its credibility is slightly tarnished when those who were involved with the report distance themselves from it.

[lardy]

They're happy to swallow the 'official' account of what happened even when you can drive a coach and horses through it.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/fourtee...ut-911/5468108

In the light of fresh, new or compelling irrefutable evidence we all have to look at what it was we thought was likely as a scenario. No one on here has ever stood by the official 9/11 Commission Report. How could they when members of that very Commission now distance themselves from what was in effect their own report.

Splott 'cover all angles' David at his very finest.

[TruBlue]

In the light of fresh, new or compelling irrefutable evidence we all have to look at what it was we thought was likely as a scenario. No one on here has ever stood by the official 9/11 Commission Report. How could they when members of that very Commission now distance themselves from what was in effect their own report.

Did anyone who can apply the "logic" Gluey was speaking about the other day really believe all the witness on the motorway besides the Pentagon were all lying about it being a plane?

[Splott David]

Did anyone who can apply the "logic" Gluey was speaking about the other day really believe all the witness on the motorway besides the Pentagon were all lying about it being a plane?

A Plane? The question is was it one that was piloted, or hacked into and remote controlled.

[TruBlue]

A Plane? The question is was it one that was piloted, or hacked into and remote controlled.

That might be your question now, it certainly wasn't always.

[Splott David]

That might be your question now, it certainly wasn't always.

It certainly wasn't on 9/10.

[Splott David]

Splott 'cover all angles' David at his very finest.

There are too many angles that have been created Lardy, which is why the controversy rages on some fifteen years later.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-911...ttacks/5303012

[lardy]

There are too many angles that have been created Lardy, which is why the controversy rages on some fifteen years later.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-911...ttacks/5303012

I was referring to you saying, on the one hand, that we are swallowing the official report and then that no one here has have ever stood by it, as you would know if you could debate properly and read/understand what others are saying to you. How can it be both?

[Splott David]

I was referring to you saying, on the one hand, that we are swallowing the official report and then that no one here has have ever stood by it, as you would know if you could debate properly and read/understand what others are saying to you. How can it be both?

I'm not aware of making any such assertion. I've never seen anyone attempt to defend the official report, debate it in detail, or provide any evidence to substantiate its findings. I don't class attempts to discredit any other alternative explanation for 9/11 as an effort to justify or defend the official report. The two are entirely unconnected.

[lardy]

If you're not aware, try reading the posts I quoted.

[Splott David]

If you're not aware, try reading the posts I quoted.

"Swallowing" refers to a lack of intellectual curiosity, intellectual laziness in other words, an unwillingness to critically analyze detail and arguments that were put forward in the report.
No one at any time on here has ever defended the official 9/11 report.

[lardy]

"Swallowing" refers to a lack of intellectual curiosity, intellectual laziness in other words, an unwillingness to critically analyze detail and arguments that were put forward in the report.
No one at any time on here has ever defended the official 9/11 report.

Now I do agree with you there, Mr Splott. There are too many people on this board who think that posting up a link to a blog is sufficient for debate. Allow me to give you an example:

A few weeks ago, someone was saying that the Russians were banned from the Olympics without anyone from Russia being spoken to. I thought this was odd and, being intellectually curious, I naturally read the article he linked. It turned out, believe it or not, that he was entirely mistaken.

Was this deliberate subterfuge or did he simply misunderstand basic English? Impossible to say, of course.

[LordKenwyne]

He often claims others are idiots.

And most of his posts are links to opinions and articles not his own.

[Splott David]

Now I do agree with you there, Mr Splott. There are too many people on this board who think that posting up a link to a blog is sufficient for debate. Allow me to give you an example:

A few weeks ago, someone was saying that the Russians were banned from the Olympics without anyone from Russia being spoken to. I thought this was odd and, being intellectually curious, I naturally read the article he linked. It turned out, believe it or not, that he was entirely mistaken.

Was this deliberate subterfuge or did he simply misunderstand basic English? Impossible to say, of course.

I think you will find that essentially the article was correct and specifically it depends on the definition of who or what organisation was not spoken to and whether it was custom and practice to consult with them.
https://www.rt.com/sport/351957-wada...ussia-mclaren/

[TruBlue]

He often claims others are idiots.

And most of his posts are links to opinions and articles not his own.

I could tell you Splottys opinion on something before he does, that to me suggests he's nowhere near as open minded as he likes to claim.

[LordKenwyne]

I could tell you Splottys opinion on something before he does, that to me suggests he's nowhere near as open minded as he likes to claim.

Yep.

We all think we have our own minds. It is that theory that everything is predetermined isn't it.

Our DNA and upbringing, things we have no control over, they decide who we are what we do. I could decide to stub my toe thinking I decide whether I do it or not. But how I am wired makes the final decision.

He seems to think he some how different. When he is just another mush of atoms rehashing old cynical arguments.