Reply With Quote
Chump conceded liars before the committee. Thats what I was referring to. The OP references in more detail.
I don't recall......who was it that lied?
Chump conceded liars before the committee. Thats what I was referring to. The OP references in more detail.
Although I do already have an opinion as to how this thread is going to go for you, I wasn't implying that you are a winner or a loser in it. I was asking a question based on your claim that someone in the administration lied.
In the OP, I see where it says that there were considerations by the commitee to prosecute military officials for providing false but it leaves it at that.
I'm simply asking......who lied?
ask Chump. I not going to contradict his assertion at this point. I have him pretty much cornered and I'm not giving him any more fodder for argumentative wiggle room.
^^^cop out
he says admin officials lied to protect those in the party/admin, I'll say prosecute, he no longer has an argument, other than since the info eventually saw the light of day liars get a pass.
Get back with Chump here. He's better researched than I on 9-11. I have done very little as he points out, I just think the collapses are to incredible to be believed. But that isnt an informed speculation necessarily. I just dont believe all 3 buildings could both fall in such incredible ways, including building 7. And until I hear it from a professional who doesnt have political leanings or isnt part of the official investigation I wont buy.
The OP states pretty clearly that many participants in the orig investigation believe they were set up to fail. Who are we to question those that were there?
Won't answer Blake because he's afraid of ChumpyD.
Poor Parker.
I dont need to contradict stipulated facts. read the post above.
Chump lost out yesterday, pretty bad in fact. If thats because he stipulated to a losing argument, thats just his fail. More likely, Chump is someone who actually has invested time in researching the topic, and has discovered the mistruths that I have not. I'll take his word on it.
I think I did buddy.
I saw your feeble appeal to authority. I'm not impressed.
You were afraid of losing the argument, so you shut it all down. Wimpy!
I think I admitted Chump has the more informed take, and I will rely on that.
Honestly, I could cite the OP, but I'm not going to since 1. its there for all to read, and 2. I havent attempted to poke any holes in it as of yet. If someone else has problems with its validity, then have a go. Feeling randy?
It's your credibility that's lacking. You won't even give your take on your own OP beyond a lame appeal to authority. How pathetic.
Especially since you spent so much time thumping your own chest over basically nothing.
say that again?
Right-o.
Lame appeal to authority.say that again?
The mistruths are hardly as big a deal as twoofers make them out to be. It's not like the people quoted in the OP have never explained what they were talking about. You might want to dig a little deeper to see to what each was referring. You insist on a new investigation, but you don't even know what you want to have investigated. That's funny.
do my uninformed ass a favor. cite a credible scientific explanation of the incredible nature of the three collapses. all three the same incredible result. yet completely difft conditions in building 7. no sarcasm here.
to me, the science is the biggest lie.
http://wtc.nist.gov/
It's a little dry reading but 430 pages should give you a fairly detailed explanation.
Get back to me when you've read it all.
Thanks.
Did they rig the analysis to get the result they wanted? Or did they show their work? Or neither?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
