Reply With QuoteOriginally Posted by TruBlue
The one thing you won't get is splottos opinion,because he's terrified of being wrong,what you will get is a link to someone else's opinion.
| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
The article may have been 'essentially' correct but your conclusions from it were anything but.
The one thing you won't get is splottos opinion,because he's terrified of being wrong,what you will get is a link to someone else's opinion.
You don't support the official version of 9/11 and find fault with alternative explanations.The article may have been 'essentially' correct but your conclusions from it were anything but.
The article, neat swerve by the way, is correct. The report writer, Mclaren, admits to not talking to Russia's official sporting organisation. So I've no idea what you are referring to.
What are you suggesting? If you don't support the official version you have to believe absolutely everything that opposes it? That's one of the dumbest comments I've ever seen on here.
Official sporting organisation, hmm that's not what you said originally, now, is it? Neat swerve.
"Official sporting organisation, hmm that's not what you said originally, now, is it? Neat swerve."
This was widely reported at the time. It went to the heart of the controversy.
9/11 Lardy you have danced around for years on this. Either you back the official version, despite all the evidence that exposes the flaws in it, or you don't. It's not difficult even for you.
But that's not what you said originally, is it?
I've told you what I think of the official version many times. Unfortunately, you don't actually read what people are saying to you.
Lardy, I have the benefit of reading through the prior threads on the subject from 2011, 2012 etc. You have never backed the official report with your reasons why you think it's correct.
Trublue had to resort to conflating anyone who questioned 9/11 with also being a 'Holocaust' denier, while goslow just recycles flaming tactics and trolling that he was so famous for from 2009 onwards.
Over a long period of time all three of you have persistently engaged while never putting forward any form of opinion as to why you reject alternative views on the subject. All three of you have been incapable of putting forward any form of argument in favour of the official 9/11 Commission Report.
When have I ever said the official report is correct, Captain PDF?
I've also put forward plenty of my own opinions (never once copied from another blogger like you) when I disagree with alternative explanations. I've even done so in this thread.
Last edited by lardy; 01-09-16 at 21:59.
That's not true. I think Holocaust deniers and and 9/11 "truthers" are two different things.
You are both but that doesn't mean everyone is. Don't worry, I don't take offence, I'm used to you talking nonsense.
When have you ever stuck your head above the parapet and opined on anything Lardy?
Your posting history on this subject has been one long drudge of negativity, nit-picking, irrelevant departures down side alleys always missing the bigger picture.
My earlier link shows quite clearly that it's impossible for anyone to defend the official report as you know only too well. Why? Because we have far too much countervailing information about what when on during the course of the report.
So we're left with having to seriously consider alternative scenarios and alternative explanations, for what took place, why it took place and who was ultimately responsible for it.
5th September 2011. 9/11 ThreadThat's not true. I think Holocaust deniers and and 9/11 "truthers" are two different things.
You are both but that doesn't mean everyone is. Don't worry, I don't take offence, I'm used to you talking nonsense.
Trueblu: "He may be poorly researched but his comment about the conspiracy theorists are often the
people who deny the holocaust is certainly a correct one. In fact we have one poster on here
who does both these."
5th September 2011. 9/11 Thread
Trueblu: "He may be poorly researched but his comment about the conspiracy theorists are often the
people who deny the holocaust is certainly a correct one. In fact we have one poster on here
who does both these."
Not every conspiracy theorist hates Jews like yourself, hence there can be a difference.
It's Zionism sweet cheeks, Zionism, and there are more Christian Zionists than there are Jewish ones.
Not every conspiracy theorist hates Jews like yourself, hence there can be a difference.
It's a political ideology that I oppose, not people from an ethnicity. You would know that if you asked my Jewish followers on Twitter who also oppose it.
My opinion is that there is all kinds of dodginess about 9/11 but it's masked by a lot of silly alternative theories which are just not plausible if you give them more than 5 minutes thought. These are the ones I 'nit-pick' over and I gave you an example of one earlier in the thread.
If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck.........It's Zionism sweet cheeks, Zionism, and there are more Christian Zionists than there are Jewish ones.
It's a political ideology that I oppose, not people from an ethnicity. You would know that if you asked my Jewish followers on Twitter who also oppose it.
Lardy, if the glove does not fit, you must acquit.
If you can't back the official report with 100% certainty then you must disregard it and look elsewhere.
Here are three sums:
2+2=4
3+4=8
4+5=10
If you can't back these sums with 100%certainty do you say they're all wrong?
The short answer is, yes. Why? Because the conclusions of the sum i.e. the cumulative result is totally wrong.
Interesting response. So do you accept that planes hit the twin towers? Simple question, only a simple answer required.
Everyone accepts that planes hit the twin towers. No one accepts that anything hit building 7. There is no evidence that the planes were piloted into the twin towers, in fact there is masses of expert opinion stating that trying to fly three jets at high speed precisely into buildings would be impossible for people without thousands of hours of flying experience.
Thus logically the theory relating to remote controlled flights is increasingly looking the most likely, as far as that part of 9/11 is concerned.
Your analogy with the sums illustrates the problem perfectly.
If the analogy fits then why would you say 2+2=4 is wrong? You should still think the correct things are correct.
I didn't. You did. You provided multiple examples of which, as I explained, the cumulative sum of which was inaccurate or if you prefer, wrong.
It's the same with the report, the cumulative amount of information doesn't match with the conclusions. The conclusions had to fit in with a desired political outcome and therein lies the flaw in the whole process.
Your analogy demonstrated that perfectly. Getting one detail right doesn't mean that the accumulation of details would necessarily be right. The pre-determined part of your analogy meant that your desired outcome was achieved.
Five pages of this and yet some still maintain that 10 blokes armed with stanley knives perpetrated 9-11?
It tells me they prefer to believe in fairytales than accept reality.
Have a look at just what has to be ignored and disregarded in order to stick to the official version of what happened and why it happened.
https://uprootedpalestinians.wordpre...-911-evidence/
"The towers were brought down through controlled demolition"
http://www.globalresearch.ca/mysteri...l-hill/5544262
Posting Permissions