It's a lost cause on this forum. I'm speaking to those who relay information, such as yourself Snyper. You're like a French soldier in WWI. Practically a sheep in the heard. Your general tells you to jump up into no man's land, and run towards the enemy attempting attrition, and you say "ok." The machine guns manned by 10-15 people then mow down hundreds of soldiers. If the government told you to jump, you'd say "how high".
It makes since.
Nope... it makes SENSE. Since is usually an association with a distance from (
since)... a point in time.
Also what you are saying contradics what you are accusing. You are saying that Bush is just going after oil and trying to use 9/11 as a cover to go to war. You've said Bush is a retard...but are you saying he's a really good actor? Come on....his laugh has got to be proof enough that hes not faking. He has had good intentions the whole way though. Now as far as the plan and execution of the plan is under par in my belief. I would never question his intentions though.
Contradicts, and yes, when in a debate, spelling and punctuation are important as a way of showing your level of profession.
What did I contradict myself on? When did I say he was a good actor? Why wouldn't you question his intentions. The first thing you are supposed to do is ask questions. The only way you can find facts out are by asking questions.
Iceman you need to go to college first before you support these ideas. Trust me you'll learn a lot more than you think you know now.
And yet, you support my "one-sided" theory yet again. Thank you for all the help on this, but really, I got it handled. If you have looked into the "conspirators" theory, and if you were a good researcher, you would always check the source. A large chunk of "conspirators," are college kids, or tend to be in the upper-class of education. Basically, what you told me, is that college will help bring thoughts together. So, congrats, thanks for proving to me that the general conspirator is an educated person who has solid evidence because of their education, allowing them to make a clean arguement.
College is a tool that will
start the general analysis process if you aren't putting your brain to use already. I am not the average child... I've matured much quicker by being forced to take on higher responsibiliti
es at earlier ages. The fact that one of your arguements against me, is my age, is rediculous. I'm one of the only 16 year old kids who even looks into politics. The age of "conspirators" tend to be in there 20's and up, and the education level as higher college graduates. Who is argueing for your side? Many of those who don't support conspiratorist theories and argue against it have a lower education. Many of them, went straight to the military after highschool, probably not able to get a damn good education in college. The people who run your arguement, are the ones who you should be questioning the validity of.
Want some background knowledge on my thought process? Here's some of my reading material that I've covered on my own:
Aristotle: On Dreams, On Generation and Corruption, On Interpretation, On Sense and Sensible, On the Heavens, On Physics, On Politics
Plato: Laws and Statesman
Thomas Hobbes - Leviathan
George Berkeley - Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge
If I'm correct, a lot of that is read in college, and helps to form a basis of your thought process, analyzing, and concluding. Now, I realize that what I think now will change. I used to think that girls had cuties and I'd never change! Change is imminent, and unavoidable. My friends who bitch about their parents not letting them stay out past 1:00 in the morning... there thoughts will change. They'll have kids, and then they'll think of the safety they want for them, and do the same as their parents did, despite there feelings of when they were taught. At least I acknowledge it.
[SIZE="2"]Ratman:[/SIZE]
I still can't believe that you think that those planes didn't crash. There are hundreds on photos of plane wreckage of plane parts, luggage and pieces of human remains including eye witnesses of the crashes. If you want the web sites I can send then to you, as long as you send an apology back.
Yes, please, post them up on the forums! I'm considering this a debate right now, and the only way any of us can learn anything, is to post what we got. Hopefully what I say will rub off on some of you, and hopefully you can show me something that will rub off on me. What I've been saying this WHOLE time, is SHOW ME. Show me a plane hitting the Pentagon. Show me plane parts at the Pentagon. Show me a plane at Shanksville. Hell, show me body parts from Shanksville, considering the fact that the corener had nothing to inspect.
And, if you do have pictures of wreckage from the Pentagon, or wreckage at Shanksville, then the government contradicted themselves. Congrats! There's wreckage! Then why the hell did they tell us that BOTH planes were incinerated upon impact? When we can clearly see that there is wreckage to be examined. The wreckage would have been destroyed if it were to be incinerated, so why would they say that?
