venger Posted April 10, 2006 Share Posted April 10, 2006 I know but i give up Did not notice that you had said anything that was close to de-meritting any of my posts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4U2NV Posted April 10, 2006 Share Posted April 10, 2006 im still not convinced about wct7 http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc7.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
venger Posted April 10, 2006 Share Posted April 10, 2006 im still not convinced about wct7 http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc7.html Nor many people including my good self, just on e of the many unanswered coincidences Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pipine Posted April 10, 2006 Share Posted April 10, 2006 Like the great Robert Anton Wilson says "Only the madman is absolutely sure." I'm keeping an open mind... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
venger Posted April 11, 2006 Share Posted April 11, 2006 You've shown that your reading of any evidence or material you read is selective and imaginative, and you present items as if their authenticity or authority was beyond question. This is simply not the case. Since you are unable to defend the authority of these commentators, you produce new commentators and new material. You must accept that, whatever version of events you believe to be true, it is not and cannot be all encompassing, i.e it's not the whole picture: therefore there must be facts that do not support your argument. What are they? I have presented a huge minority of my findings, I do not present my points as unquestionable but open material, I am happy to question them unlike what seems to be the majority. Defending these commentators has not been my intention, not only should their backgrounds speak themselves, I present other material because there is just so much of it, and this information has generally been ignored because it it difficult and in some cases impossible to challenge. I am still looking Phan, but the further I look, the nastier it becomes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted April 11, 2006 Share Posted April 11, 2006 BE very suspicious if you only find supporting facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted April 11, 2006 Share Posted April 11, 2006 Also be very suspicious of it when others with equal or greater knowledge / experience question the "information" (I don't want to call them facts) or correct it with verifiable information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
venger Posted April 13, 2006 Share Posted April 13, 2006 No problem with that at all, it is having suspicions that has sparked my greater interest in the matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tipex Posted April 18, 2006 Share Posted April 18, 2006 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5137581991288263801&q=loose+change After watching this, im confused as to why the united states goverment wont release certain evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bartfarst Posted April 18, 2006 Share Posted April 18, 2006 There's already a thread that's covered all this in the most painful of detail. http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=98024&page=36 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.