Nothing New On The Conspiracy Front

The pod people seemed to have no problem with the angle.

 

very easy to prove so prove it

 

Once again 'councilor', you forget the rules of evidence. You made the claim against the evidence. Produce counter evidence to support your claim, or continue to cowardly flee from the conversation.

 

prove its evidence

 

Try again, in English.

 

post 1: Here is evidence [link] [link].
post 2: No good. Someone said something different ten years ago.
post 3: Here is more supporting documentation. [link] [link]. Now, can you link where someone said something different?
post 4: No. Prove what you're saying.
post 5: Okay. Look at this. [link]. Prove it wrong.
post 6: No.
post 7: What's wrong with it?
post 8: You're trying to trick people.
post 9: No I'm not. Look at the evidence.
post 10: I am looking at the evidence and the evidence says you're wrong.
post 11: What evidence says he is wrong?
post 12: Look it up. I'm not going to do your work for you.
post 13: Well, show me SOMETHING that says I'm wrong.
post 14: You are a shill and don't know how to debate a subject.
post 15: What else is there?
post 16: Venus isn't listed.
post 17: Yes, it is. Look at this [link = FP 365VENUS77]
post 18: That proves my point.
post 19: What are you talking about?
post 20: Controlled demolition.
post 21: We're not talking about controlled demoliton.
post 22: Why do you keep changing the subject?
post 23: I'm not changing the subject. Show me some proof that my evidence is wrong.
post 24: You ignore the massive amounts of evidence I've shown that prove what I've been saying.
post 25: What evidence? What are you saying?
post 26: I'm tired of explaining everything to you.
post 27: Where am I wrong?
post 28: Look at these videos. [link] [link] [link] [link] [link].
post 29: Those aren't any good because of this [link] and this [link] and this [link] and this [link].
post 30: Again you ignore the subject.
post 31: Where am I ignoring the subject?
post 32: You totally ignored the item at 22:38 in that last video. That proves you're a government shill who is afraid of the truth and a sheep who refuses to see what's obvious.
post 33: That's covered in the first two videos that were linked for you. Look at what he said in post 17.
post 34: It isn't up to me to prove what I'm saying. It's up to you to prove what you're saying.
post 35: But I've done that.
post 36: No, all you've done is dance around the subject.



That's the basic line of reasoning in every 911 thread on the 'net.

 

yeh but truthers generally have substance on the table.

the fact is its all supposition, nist fema in their reports are all a best guess which makes it purely bull(*)(*)(*)(*) on the official side.

 

Gotta clean my monitor now...

Koko cannot even answer the simplest of questions,and 'truthers have substance'?

 

Pretty much.

 

If it's all supposition, why so much name calling and arguing?

If it's all bull, why is it bull on only the "official" side and not bull on all sides?

A lot of people argue just to argue.

 

So do you want to see the evidence on the put options?

 

Still no idea on how to start your own thread?

 

Maybe, when you have names of people who actually made money like that. Until then, nobody gives a rat's.

Probably won't after you produce it, either.

 

Irrelevant,How many OTHER companies had such traffic?

 

lets see your list of "facts" beyond "they were standing and now are on the ground" then.

 

This ^^

 

LMAO @ you guys.

OP

Would you like to see the put options info?

 

Been there, so no.

 

Spoiler alert, it's been debunked for 7+ years. Rehash of a rehash of a rehash.

 

http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/...th-proven-put-option-buys.html#post1062465774

 

Prior knowledge by whom, exactly? Names please - with evidence.

 

Evidence is all there. If you actually read the article, it clearly explains both.

 

I read it. It provides lots of speculation, but no names, no evidence.

 

you sure you were not reading nist reports?