It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Poor debunker illogical generalisations - why?

page: 4
21
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by sanchoearlyjones
Star, and flag. The truth movement is just that; a quest for the truth. The government wants dumb ignorant sheeple.


By denying actual evidence?

Yesseirree, that's your 9/11 Denial Movement.





posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by evil incarnate

Originally posted by jthomas
Another epic fail from a 9/11 Denier.

Sorry, Bubba, the burden of proof is entirely on your shoulders. You can't even give us a source for your claims.

You forget that its YOUR silly 9/11 Denial Movement claiming there's no evidence of AA77 hitting the Pentagon while you simply refuse to refute the evidence from multiple sources that it did.

You ain't gettin' nowhere trying to pull a Craig Ranke evasion.

Gosh...



How does the burden of proof fall upon me? For one thing, anyone with half of a brain knows that it is near impossible to prove a negative. Secondly, I asked you for proof first. You cannot offer it up so you ask me for proof and now somehow the burden shifts to me? I do not think so. This another epic fail for you, OS purporters, our educational system, and your parents genes.


Of course you have the burden of proof of refuting all of the evidence to support your claims.


What multiple sources? Where is this evidence from multiple sources? It seems to me that if it actually existed, you would have had no problem putting it up here in my face for me to choke on. You did not. You can not. You can ask me to prove my point all you like. That does not prove yours, it only shows that you are so desperate to avoid it that you are willin to pull any poor argument out of your behind.


You show you haven't done any research. I have been asking for YEARS for AA77 deniers to deal with ALL of the evidence INCLUDING presenting the statements of the over 1,000 people who had direct access to the wreckage inside the Pentagon.

Every single one of you 9/11 Deniers has refused. If you refuse to deal with the existing evidence no one is going to pay attention to your claims.

So here's your chance. Present the statements of those over 1,000 people who saw, handled, removed, and sorted through the wreckage from inside the Pentagon openly on the Pentagon lawn from inside the Pentagon in the days and weeks after 9/11.

Here is the list of where you can find these people that I have presented here and elsewhere:


Emergency Response, Rescue Operations, Firefighting, Secondary Explosions

Conspiracists are afraid to have their fantasies destroyed, so they scrupulously avoid contacting the hundreds of Pentagon 9/11 first responders and the over 8,000 people who worked on rescue, recovery, evidence collection, building stabilization, and security in the days after 9/11. These are just some of the organizations whose members worked on the scene:

Alexandria VA Fire & Rescue, American Airlines, American Red Cross, Arlington County Emergency Medical Services, Arlington County Fire Department, Arlington County Sheriff's Department, Arlington VA Police Department, Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, DiLorenzo TRICARE Health Clinic staff, DeWitt Army Community Hospital staff, District of Columbia Fire & Rescue, DOD Honor Guard, Environmental Protection Agency Hazmat Teams, Fairfax County Fire & Rescue, FBI Evidence Recovery Teams, FBI Hazmat Teams, Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Disaster Medical Assistance Teams, FEMA 68-Person Urban Search and Rescue Teams Maryland Task Force 1, New Mexico Task Force 1, Tennessee Task Force 1, Virginia Task Force 1, Virginia Task Force 2, FEMA Emergency Response Team, Fort Myer Fire Department, Four U.S. Army Chaplains, Metropolitan Airport Authority Fire Unit, Military District of Washington Engineers Search & Rescue Team, Montgomery County Fire & Rescue, U.S. National Guard units, National Naval Medical Center CCRF, National Transportation Safety Board, Pentagon Defense Protective Service, Pentagon Helicopter Crash Response Team, Pentagon Medical Staff, Rader Army Health Clinic Staff, SACE Structural Safety Engineers and Debris Planning and Response Teams, Salvation Army Disaster Services, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, US Army Reserves of Virginia Beach Fairfax County and Montgomery County, Virginia Beach Fire Department, Virginia Department of Emergency Management, Virginia State Police.

wtc7lies.googlepages.com...


Now, if you also decide to refuse to provide their statements, then at least have the courtesy to explain why.



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by jprophet420
reply to post by jthomas
 


You didn't answer my question, and you claim to have refuted something I said in another thread. Follow that link and there is nothing factual that you wrote that debunks what I said. No link to any evidence to support your case, shame.

Skills indeed.


Go ahead, be my guest, make any case you want about videos.

I can wait.

I've already completely proven you wrong. You said there was no cover up, I showed it to you. I illustrated the videos being with held.


LOL! You have done no such thing. You've just provided a list of the videos known to have been legally confiscated. You have presented not one iota of evidence demonstrating ANY cover-up by anyone.

Unbelievable.

I bet you don't even know that any video that was NON-government property when confiscated cannot be released by the government and still belongs to the original owners, did you?



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 09:32 AM
link   
Here is a Northwood search return from TakeOverWorld

FALSE-FLAG Operations - Synthetic Terrorism to Pretexts for War and Profits off 9-11

How The 'Problem-Reaction-Solution' Paradigm Works

1. The government creates or exploits a problem then attributes blame to others

2. The populace react by asking the government for protection and help

3. The government offers the solution that was planned long before the crisis

Outcome: Rights and liberties are exchanged for the illusion of protection and help


(Some claim this is the Hegelian Dialectic. It's not. Hegel the philosopher described social changes, not manipulation.)



False Flag Operations described:
Operation Northwoods memo was a specific plan to kill Americans, cancelled by JFK. Operation Gladio was 40 years of bombing civilians in Europe for social and political control. Stir and bake, that's a lot like Sept 11.

German subs did attack the Lusitania, but the luxury liner was not only filled with American and British passengers above, explosive war materials for Britain were placed below, without the passengers knowledge, and then used as "bait" for the German Navy. This "unprovoked attack" was then used to justify America joining Britain in World War One.
The Sinking Of The USS Maine - the captain thought he was NOT hit by enemy fire, but war-hungry politicians overruled him.
US Prisoners Claim Roosevelt Left Them In Philippines Deliberately (to be slaughtered, to invoke public outrage).
USS Liberty - The US-Israeli Conspiracy to Sink the USS Liberty. Lyndon Johnson ordered the Navy to pull back and ignore MayDay calls. The captain of the nearby warship was aghast.
Lyndon B. Johnson Admitted In Secret Tape that the Gulf Of Tonkin Incident Never Happened.

The term "False-flag Operations" comes from a ship staging attacks while flying the flag of another country, a disguise. False-flag Operations by governments are historically an option for domestic control. Not that common, but not that rare either. European wars were started by staged attacks. Hitler's invasion of Poland was launched on the back of the Gleiwitz incident, on the pretense that Polish soldiers attacked Germany. The Reichstag Fire (below) was a staged incident to blame German Communists and implement a domestic crackdown on the "internal threat", Hitler's political opponents.




OPERATION NORTHWOODS below
Proposed by the Chairman of the Joint Cheifs of Staff Lyman Louis Lemnitzer, the 1962 document called for the US Military-Intell-Special Forces to secretly carry out acts of violence against Americans, to be blamed on Cuba. The intention was to create support for US military action against Cuba, ultimately to engage the USSR, hopefully in a "winnable" nuclear war which would only kill 170 million Americans.
One of the many shocking proposals included blowing up drone aircraft that would be falsely reported to be full of college students on a holiday.
ABC News reported in May of 2001, "US Military Wanted to Provoke War With Cuba". Although this plan never came to fruition, it highlights the intentions of the highest military chiefs to intentionally kill American citizens to realize political and military goals. Additionally, it shows that back in 1962 they were thinking about their capacity to use hijacked or remote-controlled commercial airliners to stage high profile terror attacks.
ORIGINAL NORTHWOODS DOCUMENT
A high-level plan to stage terrorist attacks on civilians in U.S. cities, by definition Northwoods was a secret conspiracy.
Suppose you found a typed, signed contract proposal to murder you and your family. Would you ignore it because it was "just one proposal"? This was how some people responded to these facts. Baffling state of denial.
OPERATION NORTHWOODS a detailed look with photos

Terrorist Attacks Planned By The American Joint Chief Of Staff Against Its Population
Thierry Meyssan is criticized by some people on "Hunt the Boeing", but this is valid and he has the photos.
www.voltairenet.org...

Northwoods on main page details and more links
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
that Northwood info



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
Of course you have the burden of proof of refuting all of the evidence to support your claims.


You are saddly mistaken. The burden of proof is upon you. I never made any claimes one way or the other. I see you have rehearsed this argument to the point the any deviation renders your argument null. Please pay attention to the specific arguement you think you are winning. I never claimed a plane did or did not crash there. I simply said that I do not believe that flight 77 crashed into the pentagon on 9/11. If you say it did then you need to prove it did. Asking me to prove either a negative or the status quo is merely a distraction from your own inability to prove your case and is transparent and weak.

You argument is a sad lost one. You say our government is telling the truth when they tell us that flight 77 was crashed into the pentagon???? Ok, then it should have been pretty easy to prove by now if that is what so obviously really happend? Instead you have to try and twist the rules of logic around ang get me to do your work for you? If you could just prove the plane went in there, we would not be having this discussion.

Try playing this anyway you like, the truth will still be that you cannot prove that flight 77 was crashed into the pentagon. Sorry, I know that is pretty upsetting to you as it throws your entire argument out the window but please, feel free to continue to post asking me to prove it did not happen. It only demonstrates how clearly out of cogent argument you have run.

Why do I have the burden of proof over my claims and you do not over yours? What did I claim and what did you claim? You claim that terrorist flew a plane into the pentagon. I claim they did not. You are the only one here pretending to have the whole story all figured out. Prove your cute little story. I am sorry but it is not on my to prove that something else happend. You are the one with the solid story here, explain your proof then.


[edit on 2-8-2009 by evil incarnate]



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by evil incarnate

Originally posted by jthomas
Of course you have the burden of proof of refuting all of the evidence to support your claims.


You are saddly mistaken. The burden of proof is upon you.



Ok, so let's say that we provide zero proof to YOU. What happens then? You win a debate on an internet forum. You get to crow to your friends about it. You get to continue living in your world of denial.

BUT...... if you fail to live up to that burden of proof for how the TM sees things..... then you lose in your bid to get another investigation.

The choice is yours. If all you're here for is to win a debate, then you can have that win. I don't care, personally.

And personally, I WILL back any efforts to find out WHY first responders were allowed to work GZ without respiratory protection, etc, and fight for their rights to health care. And i would LOVE to see those responsible for this travesty end up in prison.

I would also back an investigation as to WHY the intelligence "wall" put up between the FBI and other agencies was put there in the first place. My understanding is that it would allow the PROSECUTION of terrorists, whether they be domestic or foreign, to be an easier deal. But there were legitimate complaints that this would HINDER stopping terrorist events, and this was shown to be true on 9/11. Able Danger.....



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 11:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


See world of denial on my post above.
Deny Northwood!
Deny all false flag!

[edit on 2-8-2009 by Donny 4 million]

[edit on 2-8-2009 by Donny 4 million]



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by tezzajw
To me, there are two kinds of people with respect to 9/11.

Those who believe every single aspect of the official story. No questions asked, no need for any further investigations - case closed. If this is you, then you're a government story believer.


What "government story?" Speak up, man.



YOu know the story with Rumsfeld on video at the Pentagon stating light poles were struck by an "aircraft"? The one where he's describing the
events on site with the reporter?



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by evil incarnate

Originally posted by jthomas
Of course you have the burden of proof of refuting all of the evidence to support your claims.


You are saddly mistaken. The burden of proof is upon you.



Ok, so let's say that we provide zero proof to YOU. What happens then? You win a debate on an internet forum. You get to crow to your friends about it. You get to continue living in your world of denial.




You are trying, you really are but no. If you provide zero proof to me, then you have no proven your case. I have offered no case to prove. I am not looking to brag. I would like to know what really happend. You seem perfectly willing to just believe what you were told by the MSM and government. I am not. I have no proposed any one particular case to be proven or unproven. All I have done is point out that I do not buy that as yet unproven story that you cling so tightly to either. Keep up.



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by evil incarnate

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by evil incarnate

Originally posted by jthomas
Of course you have the burden of proof of refuting all of the evidence to support your claims.


You are saddly mistaken. The burden of proof is upon you.



Ok, so let's say that we provide zero proof to YOU. What happens then? You win a debate on an internet forum. You get to crow to your friends about it. You get to continue living in your world of denial.




You are trying, you really are but no. If you provide zero proof to me, then you have no proven your case. I have offered no case to prove. I am not looking to brag. I would like to know what really happend.


If that's the case, then I don't care to try. But TBH, this is a weasel phrase by the TM to get out of providing convincing evidence. So I don't believe your statement of neutrality.

Also, when I was saying "you", it doesn't mean you specifically. It refers to the TM inside job believers.



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by evil incarnate

Originally posted by jthomas
Of course you have the burden of proof of refuting all of the evidence to support your claims.


You are saddly mistaken. The burden of proof is upon you.


Of course it's not. It's entirely on those claiming the contrary.


I never made any claimes one way or the other.


You must be new at this. That classic evasion designed to protect yourself from having to do anything got people laughed off Usenet groups years ago.


I see you have rehearsed this argument to the point the any deviation renders your argument null. Please pay attention to the specific arguement you think you are winning. I never claimed a plane did or did not crash there. I simply said that I do not believe that flight 77 crashed into the pentagon on 9/11.


Whether you believe it crashed into the Pentagon or not is totally irrelevant.


If you say it did then you need to prove it did.


On the contrary. It doesn't depend on what I say or don't say. It depends on the preponderance of evidence that demonstrates conclusively that AA77 hit the Pentagon. The fact that you do not wish to acknowledge or believe that evidence is entirely your problem, no one else's.


Asking me to prove either a negative or the status quo is merely a distraction from your own inability to prove your case and is transparent and weak.


I have asked you neither. Pay attention to what I actually have written.


You argument is a sad lost one. You say our government is telling the truth when they tell us that flight 77 was crashed into the pentagon????


WRONG. I am quite clear about exactly what I have written and your efforts to misrepresent what I wrote are fully transparent.


Try playing this anyway you like, the truth will still be that you cannot prove that flight 77 was crashed into the pentagon. Sorry, I know that is pretty upsetting to you as it throws your entire argument out the window but please, feel free to continue to post asking me to prove it did not happen. It only demonstrates how clearly out of cogent argument you have run.


Whining is getting you nowhere. Neither you or anyone else has refuted the evidence that AA77 hit the Pentagon. The evidence exists, its available, and you have the ability to find out even more. I have already demonstrated for the last 3 years the extent to which 9/11 deniers like you refuse to even do the most fundamental work in supporting YOUR claim that the evidence does NOT show AA77 hit the Pentagon.

The fundamental fact is as long as your 9/11 Denial Movement pretends there is no evidence, you're stuck.


Why do I have the burden of proof over my claims and you do not over yours?


Thank you for admitting that in fact you ARE making claims.


What did I claim and what did you claim? You claim that terrorist flew a plane into the pentagon. I claim they did not. You are the only one here pretending to have the whole story all figured out. Prove your cute little story. I am sorry but it is not on my to prove that something else happend. You are the one with the solid story here, explain your proof then.


Sorry, buddy, you have to refute the existing evidence that AA77 crashed into the Pentagon. You can't. Your evasive tactic of pretending you've made no claims came back to bite you badly - of your own doing.

Now get to work. If you refuse to deal with the existing evidence no one is going to pay attention to your claims.

So here's your chance. Present the statements of those over 1,000 people who saw, handled, removed, and sorted through the wreckage from inside the Pentagon openly on the Pentagon lawn from inside the Pentagon in the days and weeks after 9/11.

Here is the list of where you can find these people that I have presented here and elsewhere:


Emergency Response, Rescue Operations, Firefighting, Secondary Explosions

Conspiracists are afraid to have their fantasies destroyed, so they scrupulously avoid contacting the hundreds of Pentagon 9/11 first responders and the over 8,000 people who worked on rescue, recovery, evidence collection, building stabilization, and security in the days after 9/11. These are just some of the organizations whose members worked on the scene:

Alexandria VA Fire & Rescue, American Airlines, American Red Cross, Arlington County Emergency Medical Services, Arlington County Fire Department, Arlington County Sheriff's Department, Arlington VA Police Department, Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, DiLorenzo TRICARE Health Clinic staff, DeWitt Army Community Hospital staff, District of Columbia Fire & Rescue, DOD Honor Guard, Environmental Protection Agency Hazmat Teams, Fairfax County Fire & Rescue, FBI Evidence Recovery Teams, FBI Hazmat Teams, Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Disaster Medical Assistance Teams, FEMA 68-Person Urban Search and Rescue Teams Maryland Task Force 1, New Mexico Task Force 1, Tennessee Task Force 1, Virginia Task Force 1, Virginia Task Force 2, FEMA Emergency Response Team, Fort Myer Fire Department, Four U.S. Army Chaplains, Metropolitan Airport Authority Fire Unit, Military District of Washington Engineers Search & Rescue Team, Montgomery County Fire & Rescue, U.S. National Guard units, National Naval Medical Center CCRF, National Transportation Safety Board, Pentagon Defense Protective Service, Pentagon Helicopter Crash Response Team, Pentagon Medical Staff, Rader Army Health Clinic Staff, SACE Structural Safety Engineers and Debris Planning and Response Teams, Salvation Army Disaster Services, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, US Army Reserves of Virginia Beach Fairfax County and Montgomery County, Virginia Beach Fire Department, Virginia Department of Emergency Management, Virginia State Police.

wtc7lies.googlepages.com...


If you cannot present us their statements of what wreckage they saw, handled, removed, and sorted openly on the Pentagon lawn then you are in no position to claim AA77 did not hit the Pentagon.

And that's just for starters.



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


jt
In your own words you would deny the survivors of the 911 tragedy a REINVESTIGATION.
Shame on you!
Shame on anyone that would attempt to derail such an effort.
The REINVESTIGATION is the Goverment's job not the peoples.

[edit on 2-8-2009 by Donny 4 million]



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 01:06 PM
link   
To answer the OP's original question, I have a theory about 9/11 debunkers. None of them actually believe the official story and they all believe it was an inside job.

People who actually believe the official story just accept it as a matter of fact and don't go out of their way to look for forums like this one unless directed to it through a friend or colleague etc. Those people then use their common sense and do their own research and more often than not come up with the same conclusion that 9/11 wasn't actually what they always thought it was.

Debunkers on the other hand, they just love to debunk. It doesn't matter what the topic is or what they actually believe because it's just entertainment to them.

The sad thing is that people let them, and encourage them, to write post after post of nonsense, which turn perfectly good threads into 20+ pages of childish, back and forth rubbish. Newcomers to the site then don't bother reading every post on every page and miss out on the well thought out posts written by genuine members.

The next time you read one of those posts just remind yourself, "This person doesn't actually believe what they're writing, they just want my reaction!"



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Mark_Amy
 


Good observation M_A
Try this also.
Think of it as a game of attrition.
If I was paid to post, say by the post or by the hour.
I'd be here day and night. I would do and say anything to keep it going
I would use slanderous statements. Do a lot of name calling etc.
Double talk, rehash mumbo jumbo.
If I can get the others guys dander up then I can swoop on him.
If I get the last word I get a raise as well.
On the other hand if I was not paid?????
The 911 tragedy has hit home to all people.
Use every tool you can to get the REINVESTAGATION



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


Are you really this dense? The burden of proof lies on anyone claiming to know exactly what happend there that day. You are one such person. I am not. I never claimed to know what happend, I merely stated that I do not believe the story you are tugging at without some proof of it. You cannot prove it so you are trying this. This is exactly what this thread is about. Thank you for making the point of the OP better than he could.



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by evil incarnate
reply to post by jthomas
 


Are you really this dense? The burden of proof lies on anyone claiming to know exactly what happend there that day. You are one such person. I am not. I never claimed to know what happend, I merely stated that I do not believe the story you are tugging at without some proof of it. You cannot prove it so you are trying this. This is exactly what this thread is about. Thank you for making the point of the OP better than he could.


Your latest evasion is duly noted and not surprising. When faced with having to actually refute evidence and provide verified evidence for your claims, you 9/11 Deniers go into extreme denial and whine hopelessly.

I will now add your name to the long list of 9/11 Deniers starting with Craig Ranke, Aldo Marquis, SPreston, Turbofan, and so on who refused to present the verified statements of any of the people who had direct contact with the wreckage in the hours, days, and weeks after 9/11, the very people of whom you are terrified. ALL of them have resorted to the same evasions as you and have thoroughly discredited themselves.

So there you all sit, whining, without a clue that you have not and will not ever get anywhere in the real world with your 9/11 conspiracy theories. You just sit here on internet forums complaining that you have no responsibility for your own claims.

And you wonder why your 9/11 Denial Movement is the laughing stock of the real world? Wake up, man. Don't be a victim of your own ignorance and myopia.



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mark_Amy
To answer the OP's original question, I have a theory about 9/11 debunkers. None of them actually believe the official story and they all believe it was an inside job.

People who actually believe the official story just accept it as a matter of fact and don't go out of their way to look for forums like this one unless directed to it through a friend or colleague etc. Those people then use their common sense and do their own research and more often than not come up with the same conclusion that 9/11 wasn't actually what they always thought it was.

Debunkers on the other hand, they just love to debunk. It doesn't matter what the topic is or what they actually believe because it's just entertainment to them.

The sad thing is that people let them, and encourage them, to write post after post of nonsense, which turn perfectly good threads into 20+ pages of childish, back and forth rubbish. Newcomers to the site then don't bother reading every post on every page and miss out on the well thought out posts written by genuine members.

The next time you read one of those posts just remind yourself, "This person doesn't actually believe what they're writing, they just want my reaction!"


It must be nice to live in a world totally unencumbered by reality, eh? Make sure you tighten up your blindfold.



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 07:36 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


Legally confiscated is by definition a cover up.


Noun

* S: (n) cover-up (concealment that attempts to prevent something scandalous from becoming public)


That is unless you think Arabs hijacks planes and using them as weapons isn't scandalous.



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
reply to post by jthomas
 


Legally confiscated is by definition a cover up.


Noun

* S: (n) cover-up (concealment that attempts to prevent something scandalous from becoming public)




You can't demonstrate that any attempt was made "to prevent something scandalous from becoming public." You're just getting more desperate.

Why don't you just admit that you have no evidence to support your claims, jprohet420, instead of making a fool of yourself?



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 11:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by jprophet420
reply to post by jthomas
 


Legally confiscated is by definition a cover up.


Noun

* S: (n) cover-up (concealment that attempts to prevent something scandalous from becoming public)




You can't demonstrate that any attempt was made "to prevent something scandalous from becoming public." You're just getting more desperate.

Why don't you just admit that you have no evidence to support your claims, jprohet420, instead of making a fool of yourself?



Actually I have proven it beyond a shadow of a doubt. As I implied, and of course as is the case, the official story itself is scandalous. Even if it went down EXACTLY AS STATED it would still be a scandalous event, and it was kept from the public. I am not desperate, I have made my point and backed it up with evidence, and you have not.



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join