Suede being able to provide evidence of his zero claim: zero. Amount evidence suede has provided to back up his pet theory since he's been a member at PF: zero Zero seems to be the common denominator when dealing with you suede. How appropriate.
That should read Skeptics saying what suede wants to hear = 0. In the mean time, you've been presented with evidence you couldn't refute and your own claims could be easily refuted by a third grader. You know... claims like all the plane parts should be left in the dirt and just all dug out into piles for everyone to see. Or that even though Wally Miller was in charge of the recovery of bodies, he was never in the hole (and by proxy could never be sure of plane parts in the hole) because a reporter would have reported it because they reported Wally's every move of every second and Wally being in the hole is BIG NEWS that would NEVER be missed!!! I know I'm leaving out some of your biggest fallacies, but I don't want to spoil the surprises the readers get when they come across some of your better "excuses". Now get back to counting!
You were shown a picture. You pretended it didn't show anything even though you could produce no evidence to back up your claims. In the mean time it was submitted as government evidence which means the picture had to have documentation proving when and where it was taken as well as a chain of custody from the time it was taken until the time it was submitted as evidence. So who are we to believe? Someone who has posts that are routinely full of lies and bull(*)(*)(*)(*) that he can't back up? Or our own eyes? Hmmmm. Boy that is a hard one.
Suede lying his ass off in yet another post. Color me surprised. Why is it when the FBI says something you WANT to hear you believe them and swear they are telling the truth, but when their claims don't fit what you are pretending is true, they're all liars? Hmmmm.
Skeptics now have to start making things up about truthers in order to deflect from their inability to provide the OP's simple request. Pathetic.
Why is it you can't explain how the FBI is a perfectly acceptable source of evidence when they say what you want them to say, but are all liars when they say what you DON'T want them to say? That is called hypocricy. This isn't made up. It is clearly demonstrable as are all the claims people have made about your posts except that they are true. For instance, you insist on claiming there were no plane parts because you couldn't see any plane parts from a picture taken at a distance. You've been explained why you wouldn't see any parts and you have no rebuttal for the explanation, yet you insist on pretending it is valid. How is this in any way honest? You pretend the claims of an honest man, Wally Miller, are to be ignored because in your OPINION he would never have been in the hole. Forget the fact one doesn't have to be IN the hole to see plane parts, your whole explanation for why Wally Miller isn't a valid witness is because a REPORTER NEVER REPORTED HIM IN THE HOLE. How (*)(*)(*)(*)ing retarded is that? It is hard to come up with anything MORE retarded, but then I read other truther posts and realize it isn't that hard. Can you explain how your opinion suddenly becomes evidence? No. Can you explain how the percentage of the plane buried is important? No. Can you answer simple questions like do you believe everyone who claims Flight 93 crashed in Shanksville is lying? No. Why? Someone here to honestly debate the topic would have no problem answering questions about what they believe. You can't. Speaks volumes, doesn't it.
Anybody see the skeptics supply the OP's simple request yet? I sure haven't. All I see are immature ad-hom attacks. Someone here to honestly debate the topic would have no problem supplying the OP's simple request, or "admit or say that there isn't any conclusive evidence that it was buried."
Of COURSE you haven't. You deny everything and then run away when asked simple questions. Why would anyone expect you to "see" something? Then I suggest you stop reading your posts. So why is it you can't refute the evidence except with clearly bull(*)(*)(*)(*) excuses? Are you admitting you're not here to honestly debate? We already knew that.
You don't even have the courage to back up your own statements and completely ignore it when someone calls you on it, so you really don't have much to talk about. You should consider how the acronym **** applies directly to you.
Almost 15 pages in and the skeptics haven't been able to supply the OP's simple request. Telling. Very telling.
Poor truther.....he's started numerous threads with this very topic, and he calls it a 'simple request'...
15 pages and the skeptics still haven't supplied the OP's simple request. I think it's safe to say the skeptics can't supply this simple request. Why? Because it can't get more obvious that the official story saying most of Flight 93 had buried underground was nothing but a BIG LIE. So, why did officials lie about that?
A false premise leads to a false conclusion. Big surprise there. You've FAILED miserably at defending your position that less than half (or in your opinion none) of flight 93 was buried in Shanksville. All you've done is shown your agenda is far more important than the truth and that you're more than willing to lie and ignore evidence to fulfill that agenda. So who do you think you're fooling at this point? ANYONE? Everyone who actually believes suede's bull(*)(*)(*)(*) claim that no evidence has been presented speak up. Time for the sock puppet show!
Suede, did you miss my question to you in the Mossad thread? Please answer, as it's relevant to the discussion here.
Post it here if I missed it. Now, why do you think officials LIED by saying most of Flight 93 buried? Do you think they lied about that so they could say they recovered practically the whole plane without having to haul in and plant debris amounting to a 757? That's a very logical reason, don't you think?
The only one here lying is you. That sucks, but it is the truth. You can't respond to the evidence so you just dismiss it. How dishonest is that?
What's the matter? The truth of my statement hit a little too close to home? You know you can't refute the evidence and thus the claim the only one lying is you is perfectly valid. Pretending bull(*)(*)(*)(*) like "a reporter would have reported it" or "the plane parts would have been in the excavated dirt piles" don't cut it. I know it. You know it. Everyone else knows it. Why don't you do everyone a favor and cut the act?
