Jacko92 Posted September 9, 2017 Share Posted September 9, 2017 personally speaking , I think nothing of you but people can post what they think without the worry of name calling What they think or what they parrot? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 9, 2017 Share Posted September 9, 2017 What they think or what they parrot? Weather it be NASA or on 911, all you appear to do is parrot official reports. Squaark! Who's a pretty boy then?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dimple Posted September 9, 2017 Share Posted September 9, 2017 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architects_%26_Engineers_for_9/11_Truth Worth reading for anyone who is interested in the subject. There are many things that don't fit with 9/11 I don't tend to get involved discussing it on local forum like this one. Too many ill informed people ready to sling insults. However anyone who wants to see just how many things don't ring true about the official version can find plenty of information from reputable sources online. Anyone who wants to believe the official story can do so as I feel everyone is entitled to believe what they like . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacko92 Posted September 9, 2017 Share Posted September 9, 2017 I don't believe that Osama Bin Laden from a cave in Afghanistan orchestrated such an event as 911. What strings did he pull to get NORAD commanders to stand down their fighter jets for instance? Can you report what happened accurately please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 9, 2017 Share Posted September 9, 2017 Indeed. Rule 14 of the Sheffield Forum Rules. "14. You must only post contributions to the Website which are factually accurate or which are your genuinely held opinions based on true facts." That forum rule needs amending because if it was strictly enforced it would pretty much kill this forum. What would be the point of discussing things that are already known as fact? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin-H Posted September 9, 2017 Share Posted September 9, 2017 Weather it be NASA or on 911, all you appear to do is parrot official reports. Squaark! Who's a pretty boy then?! What is wrong with official reports exactly? They tend to involve experts, and summarise the most comprehensive research. You haven't yet explained which parts of the report I posted you disagre with, and provided evidence of why the report is incorrect in that regard. Are you having trouble doing so? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacko92 Posted September 9, 2017 Share Posted September 9, 2017 Weather it be NASA or on 911, all you appear to do is parrot official reports. Squaark! Who's a pretty boy then?! I've read both sides. You haven't. See the difference? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 9, 2017 Share Posted September 9, 2017 What is wrong with official reports exactly? They tend to involve experts, and summarise the most comprehensive research. You haven't yet explained which parts of the report I posted you disagre with, and provided evidence of why the report is incorrect in that regard. Are you having trouble doing so? Official reports initially exonerated the Police for the Hillsborough disaster. Now we know different. You mustn't have absolute faith in official reports. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin-H Posted September 9, 2017 Share Posted September 9, 2017 That forum rule needs amending because if it was strictly enforced it would pretty much kill this forum. What would be the point of discussing things that are already known as fact? On this we agree. It is a strange and unenforceable rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacko92 Posted September 9, 2017 Share Posted September 9, 2017 That forum rule needs amending because if it was strictly enforced it would pretty much kill this forum. What would be the point of discussing things that are already known as fact? None. But you have a duty to report the official evidence you question accurately and you don't. Not to Anna B's extent though I give you that. ---------- Post added 09-09-2017 at 21:20 ---------- Official reports initially exonerated the Police for the Hillsborough disaster. Now we know different. You mustn't have absolute faith in official reports. The Taylor Report was pretty clear about who was at fault. Did you not read it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now