The Ultimate 9/11 Truth/Conspiracy/debunking thread

What's going on in the world today?

Moderators: Loki, exposno1, Parrot, Quasigriz, NickDupree, nmoore63, robroydude, Spinny Spamkiller

The Ultimate 9/11 Truth/Conspiracy/debunking thread

Postby Dan » Mon Sep 20, 2010 9:30 am

In response to several comments spread all around other threads we thought it wise to create a discussion where everything could be done in one place (including links, evidence, arguments, etc.).

I will start this off by posting the text from one of our Board members who thinks that 9/11 was a "false flag" operation by the U.S. Government, and cites a bunch of points that he feels have not been adequately explained away by people on the other side of the argument.

Have fun everyone (and can we please do our best to refrain from name calling and the like? Who knows...this might end up being a interesting thread to read as it grows and develops. Regardless, let's try to steer people who want to discuss this issue HERE so that we consolidated the arguments, info and evidence in one place).

Three...
Two...
One...

Blast off!
User avatar
Dan
Master of Ceremonies
 
Posts: 11317
Joined: Tue May 09, 2006 6:48 pm

Re: The Ultimate 9/11 Truth/Conspiracy/debunking thread

Postby Dan » Mon Sep 20, 2010 9:31 am

StCapps wrote:
Dan wrote:And these lines:
All they can do is call you crazy Junius they haven't looked at the evidence it actually is rather obvious and they think we are condescending just because they are too lazy to actually look Are a bit insulting, don't you think? You were pointed to a great website debunking a lot of this stuff...did YOU look at it?
.

Of course I did Dan that's why I said they don't really have an argument because the debunking you refer to has been debunked hence why I ignored it I already read it before. Books like Debunking 9/11 Debunking by David Ray Griffin do a fantastic job of exposing Popular Mechanics and other so called "experts" (cough* Mark Roberts cough*) shoddy debunking jobs.

and this line:

They know they can't argue facts with you because they know if they did they'd lose. Uhhh...please give us those facts and I am sure you will get plenty of people who will argue them (or maybe just cut-and-paste from sites where experts already have).


Can be done but have already provided links which everyone else seemed to ignore or not argue the information of so I assumed they were dodging my the questions.


It's fine to believe anything you want...but I was here for this whole 9/11 discussion. I never saw anyone ducking anything.


Well actually I believe my symmetrical free fall collapse point was completely ducked by everyone maybe I should go and re-read the forums but I'm pretty positive no one addressed that at all.

Here is a list of points that I find to not have been properly refuted by any debunking site ive seen (especially the ones posted on this forum). You want to argue the facts, lets argue the facts. Try and debunk this list of facts Dan, popular mechanics I can assure you has done nothing of the sort.

Pulled from http://www.ae911truth.org/
As seen in this revealing photo, the Twin Towers' destruction exhibited all of the characteristics of destruction by explosives:

1. Destruction proceeds through the path of greatest resistance at nearly free-fall acceleration
2. Improbable symmetry of debris distribution
3. Extremely rapid onset of destruction
4. Over 100 first responders reported explosions and flashes
5. Multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally
6. Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete & metal decking
7. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds
8. 1200-foot-dia. debris field: no "pancaked" floors found
9. Isolated explosive ejections 20 – 40 stories below demolition front
10. Total building destruction: dismemberment of steel frame
11. Several tons of molten metal found under all 3 high-rises
12. Evidence of thermite incendiaries found by FEMA in steel samples
13. Evidence of explosives found in dust samples
14. No precedent for steel-framed high-rise collapse due to fire


Also it exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire as seen here
And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e.

1. Slow onset with large visible deformations
2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires)
3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never “collapsed”


If it showed all of the indications of a controlled demolition and exhibits none of characteristics of a collapse due to fire, How could the building have collapsed in the way they said it did?

There are other sites than AE911Truth but it just has almost all the information in one area so it's the best hub to continue your research into the truther side of the argument.

As I said my comments weren't directed at anyone personally Dan, I was just venting at the people on your side of the argument who can't even post facts and just name call. Please don't take offense to anything I was saying I was generalizing about non-skeptics and stated as much in previous post, not sure how you missed that.

You can argue facts sure but between me you all you really questioned was the motives of the government in choosing their choice of false flag not exactly rock solid proof of no conspiracy though I assume it wasn't intended to be which is why I gave you my fourteen points (take that Woodrow Wilson haha) to argue against that are the pillar of the truther argument (the truther's that base their arguments on facts anyway). If you can even actively bring up doubt about even half of those points I'll be super impressed because I've tried to find proper refutation and have failed miserably, maybe you can help me out Dan.

Also if any of the name callers would like to explain how this post it's entirely faith based argument I'd love to hear it. Should be absolutely hysterical and give away the people on this forum that are truly arguing from a faith based perspective.
User avatar
Dan
Master of Ceremonies
 
Posts: 11317
Joined: Tue May 09, 2006 6:48 pm

Re: The Ultimate 9/11 Truth/Conspiracy/debunking thread

Postby Atanamis » Mon Sep 20, 2010 9:32 am

StCapps wrote:Of course I did Dan that's why I said they don't really have an argument because the debunking you refer to has been debunked hence why I ignored it I already read it before. Books like Debunking 9/11 Debunking by David Ray Griffin do a fantastic job of exposing Popular Mechanics and other so called "experts" (cough* Mark Roberts cough*) shoddy debunking jobs.
Right, the only experts whose opinions you care about are those who belong to your little cult. All the tens of thousands of others are "so called experts". That makes sense.

StCapps wrote:Well actually I believe my symmetrical free fall collapse point was completely ducked by everyone maybe I should go and re-read the forums but I'm pretty positive no one addressed that at all.
Right, how dare we recognize that we lack the engineering expertise of tens of thousands of architects and engineers who say that the collapse was unusual, but hardly unbelievable. The LOGIC of what you are saying is what we criticize. If the intent was to frame small time terrorists, what kind of stupid conspiracy would use equipment that was "obviously" not something terrorists could get or use to set up an attack that "obviously" didn't look right? IF they rigged the buildings to explode, wouldn't they have at least faked the theft of the explosives and had it come down in a clearly amateur fashion? The reason for controlled explosions is to minimize damage to the surrounding area. Do you seriously believe that was a priority for the kind of conspiracy you describe?

StCapps wrote:Here is a list of points that I find to not have been properly refuted by any debunking site ive seen (especially the ones posted on this forum). You want to argue the facts, lets argue the facts. Try and debunk this list of facts Dan, popular mechanics I can assure you has done nothing of the sort.
Again, I'm not a structural engineer, so my basis for calling you a complete loon is not based on the math. I haven't done the math, don't understand the math, and could be entirely tricked by the math. That said, the fact that smart people who DO understand the math are entirely comfortable that the general explanation is plausible is sufficient for me. Below is one such detailed mathematical model:
http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf

StCapps wrote:You can argue facts sure but between me you all you really questioned was the motives of the government in choosing their choice of false flag not exactly rock solid proof of no conspiracy though I assume it wasn't intended to be which is why I gave you my fourteen points (take that Woodrow Wilson haha) to argue against that are the pillar of the truther argument (the truther's that base their arguments on facts anyway). If you can even actively bring up doubt about even half of those points I'll be super impressed because I've tried to find proper refutation and have failed miserably, maybe you can help me out Dan.
Like I said, we aren't a professional engineering group that can check your math. The fact that tens of thousands of trained and certified engineers DO agree with us that you are a loon allows me comfort that even if you are right, it is a "right" in a way far more subtle than an ignoramus like you can understand.

If you are right and I am wrong about the engineering, it isn't due to any kind of "open mindedness" on you part, but rather pure luck. You aren't humbly coming in here and saying that you think both explanations have strong evidence, but you feel the conspiracy theory fits the facts better. If so, I would be telling you that you are wrong but respect your willingness to acknowledge that other experts could honestly come to a different conclusion. Instead, you want to stomp around like a religious evangelist declaring that everyone who disagrees with you is either part of the evil conspiracy or deliberately refusing to consider "obvious" facts. Even if this was a deliberate controlled demolition, the suggestion that there are obvious facts proving it is ridiculous.

More interesting from a rhetorical perspective, if you honestly believed that a conspiracy existed that could kill thousands of Americans with impunity I rather doubt you'd be identifying yourself as a potential dissident so openly. The very fact that you're willing to publicly discuss the subject suggests to me that you don't honestly believe it. Or that you are an idiot, in which case what you believe can be attributed to your idiocy rather than logic. Sure, idiots can be right, but not often.
User avatar
Atanamis
Hetairoi
 
Posts: 8077
Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:25 pm

Re: The Ultimate 9/11 Truth/Conspiracy/debunking thread

Postby Dan » Mon Sep 20, 2010 9:38 am

Atanamis wrote: even if you are right, it is a "right" in a way far more subtle than an ignoramus like you can understand.



I am pretty sure this is exactly the sort of name-calling I was hoping to avoid. :wink:

It would be good to discuss this in as civil a way as we can. Otherwise, everyone will just fight and nothing will come of it (nothing may come of it anyway...but it seems stupid to start a thread off in a way that guarantees such an outcome)
User avatar
Dan
Master of Ceremonies
 
Posts: 11317
Joined: Tue May 09, 2006 6:48 pm

Re: The Ultimate 9/11 Truth/Conspiracy/debunking thread

Postby LuniOPS » Mon Sep 20, 2010 9:50 am

I love a good conspiracy as the next nut, but please, lets not focus on how the towers collapsed.

The conspiracy lies on who would benefit from a 9/11. Its not that hard to plan attacks with religious zealots.

The military industrial complex would benefit the most. Defense contractors (Lockheed Martin), nation building infrastructure engineering firms (haliburton), mercenary groups.. eh, i mean private security contractors (blackwater), private equity firms (carlyle group) and banking (world bank).

All these plutocrats hob nob with one another, playing global chess. Its all about power and power they wield.
User avatar
LuniOPS
Contributing Member
 
Posts: 165
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 9:41 am

Re: The Ultimate 9/11 Truth/Conspiracy/debunking thread

Postby Vox Contra » Mon Sep 20, 2010 10:01 am

StCapps wrote:Here is a list of points that I find to not have been properly refuted by any debunking site ive seen (especially the ones posted on this forum). You want to argue the facts, lets argue the facts. Try and debunk this list of facts Dan, popular mechanics I can assure you has done nothing of the sort.

Pulled from http://www.ae911truth.org/
As seen in this revealing photo, the Twin Towers' destruction exhibited all of the characteristics of destruction by explosives:

1. Destruction proceeds through the path of greatest resistance at nearly free-fall acceleration
2. Improbable symmetry of debris distribution
3. Extremely rapid onset of destruction
4. Over 100 first responders reported explosions and flashes
5. Multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally
6. Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete & metal decking
7. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds
8. 1200-foot-dia. debris field: no "pancaked" floors found
9. Isolated explosive ejections 20 – 40 stories below demolition front
10. Total building destruction: dismemberment of steel frame
11. Several tons of molten metal found under all 3 high-rises
12. Evidence of thermite incendiaries found by FEMA in steel samples
13. Evidence of explosives found in dust samples
14. No precedent for steel-framed high-rise collapse due to fire


1, 2 &3 are essentially the same thing, or at least stem from the same cause.
The design of the buildings was significantly different then most high-rise buildings. They were built kind of like two concentric pipes, with floors in between, not like the standard box-girder buildings. This means they had a very strong center core and outer shell, but were essentially hollow in between (more open floor space for offices). The design relies on the core and shell to hold the floors up, but also on the floors to hold the core and shell from buckling. If the floors were to weaken due to fire or damage and fall, they could fall ahead of the rest of the structure. Leaving nothing left to keep the core stiff, allowing it to crumple. The remaining 15 or so floors could then come down like a pile driver through the rest of the largely hollow building, but kept roughly centered by the still standing shell
http://www.debunking911.com/firsttime.htm

4) Please post source so the testimonies can be reviewed
5) Please post source so specifics / details can be examined

6, 8 &10 are essentially the same thing.
Having a high rise building fall on you is bound to do some damage.
I’ve seen estimates of the Kinetic Energy of the falling buildings put some where around a couple hundred tons of TNT. That would severely damage anything it’s running into
http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm (about 1/3 way down the page)

7) Irrelevant. If a building falls down it makes a dust cloud. What caused the building to fall won’t change the dust cloud.

9) What Evidence do you have that these were explosions? If the floors were falling ahead of the main mass of the upper floors, the subsequent impacts would cause significant overpressure on the windows, blowing them out.

11) What proof do you have that the metal was:
A) Molten – All pictures & accounts I have seen show red-hot glowing metal, not a molten pool and
B) From the original collapse.
There are several ways you can get molten Iron; and several are commonly seen in construction, demolition, and rubble removal. You can use a plasma cutter to cut through I-beams and re-bar, or one of my favorites, you can use a Thermal Lance to cut up damn near anything you want. Both would produce a considerable amount of molten iron.
I’m also curious to see what evidence you have that indicates “Several tons of molten metal”

12 &13 are essentially the same.
Every account of finding “explosives residues” refers back to Thermite as the explosive. (If you have other evidence, I’m willing to look it over)
I’ve made Thermite in my back yard (Great for 4th of July parties)
The Thermite is made up of two components. Iron Oxide(rust) and Aluminum Powder
The “Unexploded Particles of Thermite” are all around you all the time; they’re what we make buildings out of. And seeing as some planes flew into a couple of buildings in the area, I’d be rather surprised if there weren’t aluminum and iron dust in the air. And the residues of thermite are pure iron and aluminum oxide. Again, both commonly found in buildings and airplanes.

14) Also no precedent for buildings surviving a fully loaded passenger jet slamming into it at full speed. If it had been just a fire, then yes, that would have been unusual. But it wasn’t just a fire, now was it.
“The truth springs from arguments amongst friends.”
― David Hume
User avatar
Vox Contra
Nomarch
 
Posts: 1694
Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2009 3:22 pm
Location: Portland, OR

Re: The Ultimate 9/11 Truth/Conspiracy/debunking thread

Postby Occam » Mon Sep 20, 2010 10:10 am

I fail to see how our government, who couldn't even keep an oval office blow job a secret, could pull off a conspiracy of this magnitude without leaving a huge trail of evidence and whistle blowers.

Also, is it really that hard to believe that a building suffering damage from a jet liner collision would fall down? I mean come on...
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
User avatar
Occam
Satrap
 
Posts: 3485
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 8:03 am

Re: The Ultimate 9/11 Truth/Conspiracy/debunking thread

Postby Vox Contra » Mon Sep 20, 2010 10:16 am

LuniOPS wrote:The conspiracy lies on who would benefit from a 9/11. Its not that hard to plan attacks with religious zealots.

The military industrial complex would benefit the most. Defense contractors (Lockheed Martin), nation building infrastructure engineering firms (haliburton), mercenary groups.. eh, i mean private security contractors (blackwater), private equity firms (carlyle group) and banking (world bank).

All these plutocrats hob nob with one another, playing global chess. Its all about power and power they wield.

Undeniably these groups have benefited.
However, do you have any evidence they were involved with the planning, implementation, or cover-up of what occurred? Without evidence it’s just blind speculation. Don’t slip into a post-hoc fallacy
“The truth springs from arguments amongst friends.”
― David Hume
User avatar
Vox Contra
Nomarch
 
Posts: 1694
Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2009 3:22 pm
Location: Portland, OR

Re: The Ultimate 9/11 Truth/Conspiracy/debunking thread

Postby ThomasJ » Mon Sep 20, 2010 10:23 am

I don't want to get into the mathematics of the structural collapse, I've heard that a million times over.

Rather I would like to invite you to take a look at this situation from the point of view of the terrorist. As far as I know all of the hijackers were Middle Eastern men (correct me if I'm wrong), the masterminds behind 9/11 were also Middle Eastern. They were from places and countries that have been bombed from cruise missiles.
What is an airplane if not a giant cruise missile loaded with fuel? In the mind of a terrorist they were repaying the U.S. for the destruction and chaos caused in their country. They had seen 9/11 and its effects turned around dozens of times in their own country. In the mind of a terrorist, they saw the U.S. attack them unprovoked. Instead of focusing their anger on their own government for provoking the U.S. to use cruise missiles, they focused their anger on the source of those missiles.

Just an empathetic point of view from the other side of things.
In ending, I will post this question up to board. Is the best the U.S. could have done after 9/11 to pull all the troops out of the Middle East?
I can't imagine that happening, mainly because it would be political suicide for the U.S. Basically saying "Okay you win, we surrender." That would leave a bad taste in my mouth.
“It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom – for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself.”

-Abbot Bernard of Arbroath Abbey
6 April 1320
User avatar
ThomasJ
Contributing Member
 
Posts: 248
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 12:58 pm
Location: Spring, TX, USA

Re: The Ultimate 9/11 Truth/Conspiracy/debunking thread

Postby StCapps » Mon Sep 20, 2010 10:27 am

Atanamis wrote:If you are right and I am wrong about the engineering, it isn't due to any kind of "open mindedness" on you part, but rather pure luck. You aren't humbly coming in here and saying that you think both explanations have strong evidence, but you feel the conspiracy theory fits the facts better. If so, I would be telling you that you are wrong but respect your willingness to acknowledge that other experts could honestly come to a different conclusion. Instead, you want to stomp around like a religious evangelist declaring that everyone who disagrees with you is either part of the evil conspiracy or deliberately refusing to consider "obvious" facts. Even if this was a deliberate controlled demolition, the suggestion that there are obvious facts proving it is ridiculous.


I have not represented myself in any such religious evangelist way and have never said along the lines of everyone who disagrees with you is either part of the evil conspiracy or deliberately refusing to consider "obvious" facts. Also if you have any proof that tens of thousands of engineers post it I've never actually seen this evidence but it gets brought up a lot by people on the opposing side of the argument I admit even I used to do it and thinking back I never heard anyone but crappy debunking shows make this claim. It may very well be backed by evidence, in fact I wouldn't bet against it but that isn't good enough for me since most of the experts spoke on the 9/11 commission report version which has outright false contained within it, like bold face lie stuff and explanations that rely on numerous trusses simultaneously failing in a symmetrical pattern to prevent tipping during the collapse which is EXTREMELY unlikely if not outright impossible some take my side of the argument but even your side of the arguments experts admit the collapse was without precedent in human history.

More interesting from a rhetorical perspective, if you honestly believed that a conspiracy existed that could kill thousands of Americans with impunity I rather doubt you'd be identifying yourself as a potential dissident so openly. The very fact that you're willing to publicly discuss the subject suggests to me that you don't honestly believe it. Or that you are an idiot, in which case what you believe can be attributed to your idiocy rather than logic. Sure, idiots can be right, but not often.


How does that even make sense? I openly talk about it for the same reason people openly talked about Gulf of Tonkin before it was found to be a false flag, The American people were lied to go to war which is killing your soldiers everyday and killing the people fighting off the invaders. This should not stand, the war is unjust even if you don't believe you were conned into fighting it, why wouldn't I speak up? You Americans were conned into Iraq and Afghanistan like you were conned into Vietnam and people are dying because of it. Your government (as far as I know) does not go around killing anyone who speaks out against the official story if they did that they'd expose the conspiracy more than it has already been exposed. Also killing some guy with no scientific credentials who lives in a foreign country doesn't seem like a particularly good use of resources for people try to cover up 9/11.
*yip*
User avatar
StCapps
Hetairoi
 
Posts: 7329
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2010 11:46 am
Location: Hamilton, Ontario

Re: The Ultimate 9/11 Truth/Conspiracy/debunking thread

Postby Occam » Mon Sep 20, 2010 10:31 am

StCapps, why do you think 9/11 was the work of the US government? As others have pointed out, we needn't kill so many of our own civilians to start a war.

If it was the work of people other than Bin Laden/ Al Qaeda, wouldn't it make more sense if it was defense contractors, rather than the U.S. government? It's the contractors who have more to gain from war.

God I hope I didn't just add a new retarded wrinkle to this insanity...
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
User avatar
Occam
Satrap
 
Posts: 3485
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 8:03 am

Re: The Ultimate 9/11 Truth/Conspiracy/debunking thread

Postby StCapps » Mon Sep 20, 2010 10:34 am

Occam wrote:I fail to see how our government, who couldn't even keep an oval office blow job a secret, could pull off a conspiracy of this magnitude without leaving a huge trail of evidence and whistle blowers.

Also, is it really that hard to believe that a building suffering damage from a jet liner collision would fall down? I mean come on...


Yes it is hard to believe because the dude who designed the buildings said they were designed multiple impacts from jet liners so since one brought both of them down at near free fall speeds and a third building fell in the same fashion that was not hit by a plane collapsed in a similar manor hours later. If that's not the definition of hard to believe then I don't know what is.

And I never said it was the US government, but I did say it was rogue parts of the multiple governments including the US that did it. (parts of the governments of Israel and Pakistan were involved as well)
Last edited by StCapps on Mon Sep 20, 2010 10:48 am, edited 3 times in total.
*yip*
User avatar
StCapps
Hetairoi
 
Posts: 7329
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2010 11:46 am
Location: Hamilton, Ontario

Re: The Ultimate 9/11 Truth/Conspiracy/debunking thread

Postby Occam » Mon Sep 20, 2010 10:37 am

StCapps wrote:Yes it is hard to believe because the dude who designed the buildings said they were designed multiple impacts from jet liners so since one brought both of them down at near free fall speeds and a third building fell in the same fashion that was not hit by a plane collapsed in a similar manor hours later. If that's not the definition of hard to believe then I don't know what is.

Yeah yeah, and the designer of the Titanic said it was unsinkable, big whoop.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
User avatar
Occam
Satrap
 
Posts: 3485
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 8:03 am

Re: The Ultimate 9/11 Truth/Conspiracy/debunking thread

Postby StCapps » Mon Sep 20, 2010 10:44 am

Occam wrote:
StCapps wrote:Yes it is hard to believe because the dude who designed the buildings said they were designed multiple impacts from jet liners so since one brought both of them down at near free fall speeds and a third building fell in the same fashion that was not hit by a plane collapsed in a similar manor hours later. If that's not the definition of hard to believe then I don't know what is.

Yeah yeah, and the designer of the Titanic said it was unsinkable, big whoop.


He actually did no such thing lol that was the advertising. The designer knew it could sink but didn't think they'd ever hit such an iceburg that could do it and that it could steer away in time. If the planes were traveling around 100 mph slower (or slower) they would have bounced off the buildings with but little superficial damage. Also the Empire State building was hit by a plane and did not collapse and it was built in 1931 with less safety precautions taken against plane crashes not to mention it was perfectly fine and was never even close to at risk of collapse.
*yip*
User avatar
StCapps
Hetairoi
 
Posts: 7329
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2010 11:46 am
Location: Hamilton, Ontario

Re: The Ultimate 9/11 Truth/Conspiracy/debunking thread

Postby Smitty-48 » Mon Sep 20, 2010 10:50 am

Occam wrote:StCapps, why do you think 9/11 was the work of the US government? As others have pointed out, we needn't kill so many of our own civilians to start a war.

If it was the work of people other than Bin Laden/ Al Qaeda, wouldn't it make more sense if it was defense contractors, rather than the U.S. government? It's the contractors who have more to gain from war.

God I hope I didn't just add a new retarded wrinkle to this insanity...



The Neo-Cons already laid out the plan in 'A New American Century'.... simply wait for the inevitable attack to occur... and then exploit it to reassert and expand the mandates for the Defense/Security/Intelligence Industrial Complex, through their Schills in Congress and the authority of the Executive Branch... by establishing a permanent state of war, with all the associated powers and prerogatives... replacing International Communism as the Global threat, to justify a War State.... It's not even a conspiracy... they were quite open about it.

You're just banging your head against the wall, trying to prove a negative... Trutherism is a religion.... you either have faith or you don't... 'evidence' is self acclamatory and the Logic is circular.
Nec Aspera Terrent
User avatar
Smitty-48
Archon
 
Posts: 20729
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2007 10:23 am

Next

Return to Current Events

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 23rdAngstrom, jediuser598, TheWaffle, Yahoo [Bot] and 11 guests