| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
 Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:09 pm Post subject: "Muslim heads stuck firmly in the sand" |
 |
|
| See this article. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 6:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
yes something an investigastion that answers all concerns could answer.
its simple really. nothing to hide nothing to fear.
theres been proper investigastions into numerous events some not as bad as 7/7, 9/11. but then when we have the worse attack on american and british soil we get a investigastion that dos'nt answer half of the questions being asked and no investigastion at all for the other.
that dos'nt sound like nothing to hide to me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 6:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I agree an investigation into 7/7 would be a good idea.
Another investigation into 9/11 is not required since nothing has undermined the conclusions of the previous investigations. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 6:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | I agree an investigation into 7/7 would be a good idea.
Another investigation into 9/11 is not required since nothing has undermined the conclusions of the previous investigations. |
nothing undermined it? what about the many UNANSWERED questions? what about an investigastion just to answer the questions they avoided the first time? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 10:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Which are? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | Which are? |
you know what they are, don't play stupid.
alot of the questions you excuse by making things up and you don't even know is your excuses are true.
i ain't playing your game of listing the numerous questions when i know 100% you know what they are because you come here and give us your made up reasons for them, which you then expect us to take as truth rather than finding out for sure with a proper investigastion that covers ALL the evidence.
if you don't know what the questions are then what the hell have you been argueing against all this time?
anyone can sit there like you do and make up anything to excuse things that do not fit the offical version, it aint a skilled job. the question is if your excuses are actually true, something only an investigastion can answer.
the same as my concerns with 9/11 can only be answered with an investigastion(hence i support one), not by mr bushwacker who just sits there and makes anything up even when it is blatently obvious what your saying is wrong. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 12:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
we call for an investigastion to find out the truth and facts on the unanswered questions. (fact and truth through investigastion)
you on the other hand think everyone should listen to your made-up fantasy that no one knows is true or not. (heresay)
you then say we make things up, yet we are calling for a investigastion to find out the truth what ever that may be, whilst you are just making things up that are not supported by any investigastion work, but rather just made-up or thought up as an excuse.
you expect us to believe your conspiracy theorys and stop questioning 9/11 through made-up excuses  .
a factual investigastion will answer what the flashes are with scientific proof as opposed to you making up what they are or could be. so which would you rather? would you rather us find out the facts via the proper route or listen to conspiracy theorists who make stuff up? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 11:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I will ask for the third, or is it fourth time, how do you expect anyone to investigate what these apparent flashes are? How? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ian neal
Angel - now passed away
Joined: 26 Jul 2005
Posts: 3140
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 11:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
What flashes? Where do you ask?
The article you link to is so flawed it is not worthy of comment
If Hassan believes that there are no grounds to doubt the official fairytales of 7/7 and 9/11 or if he believes it is just muslims who are 'in denial' about the truth and that it is muslims who have an inherent predisposition towards denial, then I say it is him who is willfully in denial and who has his head stuck were the sun don't shine.
Bush you say an inquiry into J7 is required. What for? What unanswered questions do YOU wish to see investigated? You seem to be endorsing an article that calls on muslims (people) to stop denying the official J7 truth. So where do you differ with Hassan Butt? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 4:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ian neal wrote: | What flashes? Where do you ask?
The article you link to is so flawed it is not worthy of comment
If Hassan believes that there are no grounds to doubt the official fairytales of 7/7 and 9/11 or if he believes it is just muslims who are 'in denial' about the truth and that it is muslims who have an inherent predisposition towards denial, then I say it is him who is willfully in denial and who has his head stuck were the sun don't shine.
Bush you say an inquiry into J7 is required. What for? What unanswered questions do YOU wish to see investigated? You seem to be endorsing an article that calls on muslims (people) to stop denying the official J7 truth. So where do you differ with Hassan Butt? |
On the explosions=bombs thread.
You say the article is not worthy of comment before commenting on it!
Bluster all you like, but after 6 years all the efforts put in to trying to disprove the "official story" of 9/11 have failed completely to provide a single item of indisputable evidence to do so. Instead it is the "truth" movement that is disintegrating, the scholars you all once had so many hopes for have just turned to disparaging each other's theories, the leading edge of the movement is exciting itself with ever wilder theories, beam weapons from space and no planes at all. David Shayler will say whatever keeps him being asked to lecture, cruise missiles cloaked in holograms being the most recent invention. Meanwhile the evidence compiled on the 21/7 failed bombers is clear enough to convince a jury beyond reasonable doubt of their guilt, and the links with 7/7 are emerging.
A 7/7 enquiry is worthwhile to find out why intelligence failed to identify these men in time, despite them coming to some attention, what can be done to identify others who have travelled to Pakistan for training, and what drove them to commit these despicable crimes. It is certainly not necessary to establish who committed the crimes, not would it convince the troofers who would of course simply say the conclusions were covering up official involvement. Any conspiracy theory will be expanded indefinitely to cover the flaws in it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 5:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | I will ask for the third, or is it fourth time, how do you expect anyone to investigate what these apparent flashes are? How? |
you cannot investigate the flashes themselves, the flashes are just yet another piece of visual evidence that points to CD being a possibility, along with the other evidence, so you would investigate CD not flashes.
although experts would beable to tell what the flashes were most likely caused from. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 10:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | I will ask for the third, or is it fourth time, how do you expect anyone to investigate what these apparent flashes are? How? |
you cannot investigate the flashes themselves, the flashes are just yet another piece of visual evidence that points to CD being a possibility, along with the other evidence, so you would investigate CD not flashes.
although experts would beable to tell what the flashes were most likely caused from. |
Yes, the experts have said that the claimed "demolition squibs" are most likely caused by over-pressure in the building from the collapsing floors. The apparent flashes seem to be those same squibs, greatly enlarged. The steel from the buildings was examined by volunteer structural engineers, nothing to do with the authorities, and no evidence of CD was found. No demolition expert, including Danny Jowenko, believes it possible that there was CD of the WTC towers. The visual evidence is that the buildings were distorting prior to collapse. Both ASCE/FEMA and NIST have investigated the collapses and come to the conclusion that they were caused by the combination of structural damage and fire.
Why should anyone believe that a further investigation is required or would come to a different conclusion? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cruise4
Validated Poster
Joined: 12 May 2007
Posts: 292
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2007 1:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
"Another investigation into 9/11 is not required since nothing has undermined the conclusions of the previous investigations."
So Bushwacked WT7 just fell down did it?
And I suppose you think a plane hit the pentagon?
And they couldn't scramble interceptors because?
The unanswered questions are never-ending as I expect you know, so why the farce? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2007 2:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | I will ask for the third, or is it fourth time, how do you expect anyone to investigate what these apparent flashes are? How? |
you cannot investigate the flashes themselves, the flashes are just yet another piece of visual evidence that points to CD being a possibility, along with the other evidence, so you would investigate CD not flashes.
although experts would beable to tell what the flashes were most likely caused from. |
Yes, the experts have said that the claimed "demolition squibs" are most likely caused by over-pressure in the building from the collapsing floors. The apparent flashes seem to be those same squibs, greatly enlarged. The steel from the buildings was examined by volunteer structural engineers, nothing to do with the authorities, and no evidence of CD was found. No demolition expert, including Danny Jowenko, believes it possible that there was CD of the WTC towers. The visual evidence is that the buildings were distorting prior to collapse. Both ASCE/FEMA and NIST have investigated the collapses and come to the conclusion that they were caused by the combination of structural damage and fire.
Why should anyone believe that a further investigation is required or would come to a different conclusion? |
simply because certain evidence was avoided and ignored and many questions have gone unanswered. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Cruise4 wrote: | "Another investigation into 9/11 is not required since nothing has undermined the conclusions of the previous investigations."
So Bushwacked WT7 just fell down did it?
And I suppose you think a plane hit the pentagon?
And they couldn't scramble interceptors because?
The unanswered questions are never-ending as I expect you know, so why the farce? |
No, WTC7 was badly damaged when one of the world's tallest buildings fell on top of it and then burnt unattended for seven hours with diesel circulating inside, did no one tell you? Why should anyone bother to blow up a building the world had never heard of, if two of the most famous landmarks of NY had already come down? That's the unanswered question about WTC7, and the best any troofer has come up with is to get rid of embarassing papers, as if shredders did not exist! Second best an insurance scam, apparently involving the FDNY who lost 350 men, from a man who had such inadequate insurance that he has been in the courts ever since!
Of course a plane hit the Pentagon, many people saw it nad that is why parts from it were found there, and of course it was flight 77, the passengers' DNA was identified. Or perhaps the accident investigators and a 100 pathologists were also in on the plot?
They did scramble interceptors, but the air traffic contollers were late notifying NORAD, and NORAD were set up to look for external threats, not planes within the USA, it had taken them 70 minutes to find Payne Stewart's Learjet when they had planes already in the air!
These are unanswered questions only to those who will not hear the anwers, because they upset their cherished personal fantasies. Those with their heads stuck in the sand. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gruts
Major Poster
Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 1050
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2007 11:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | Why should anyone believe that a further investigation is required or would come to a different conclusion? |
have you seen "9/11 press for truth"?
it's difficult to believe that there would ever have been any official investigation into 9/11 were it not for the efforts of the victims' families - and they ended up totally disatisfied with the composition of the 9/11 commission, the way it operated and its final report, which left so many questions unanswered.
if they are not satisfied then why should we be? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TonyGosling
Editor
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 18335
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ian neal
Angel - now passed away
Joined: 26 Jul 2005
Posts: 3140
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2007 12:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | These are unanswered questions only to those who will not hear the anwers, because they upset their cherished personal fantasies. Those with their heads stuck in the sand. |
#
Such blind arrogance.
Are you aware that 83% of over 50,000 respondents to CNN Showbiz Tonight online poll believed the government is covering up the truth of 9/11? A poll by Zogby in May 2006 found that 42 percent of Americans believed there had indeed been a cover-up of the true events of 9/11, and an additional 10 percent of Americans were “unsure”, whilst a New York Times/CBS poll found that only 16% of americans believed the US government was telling the truth.
So the 16% of americans who still believe their president can lecture the rest of us about denial and having their heads stuck somewhere. Run along |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2007 9:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ian neal wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | These are unanswered questions only to those who will not hear the anwers, because they upset their cherished personal fantasies. Those with their heads stuck in the sand. |
#
Such blind arrogance.
Are you aware that 83% of over 50,000 respondents to CNN Showbiz Tonight online poll believed the government is covering up the truth of 9/11? A poll by Zogby in May 2006 found that 42 percent of Americans believed there had indeed been a cover-up of the true events of 9/11, and an additional 10 percent of Americans were “unsure”, whilst a New York Times/CBS poll found that only 16% of americans believed the US government was telling the truth.
So the 16% of americans who still believe their president can lecture the rest of us about denial and having their heads stuck somewhere. Run along |
Such misrepresentation!
The Zogby poll, paid for by 911 Truth.org (follow the money!), carefully avoided asking the question do you think 9/11 was a false flag operation by the US government or part of it? or anything similar, because they knew what answer they would get, so the question they asked was
Some people believe that the US government and its 9/11 Commission concealed or refused to investigate critical evidence that contradicts their official explanation of the September 11th attacks, saying there has been a cover-up. Others say that the 9/11 Commission was a bi-partisan group of honest and well-respected people and that there is no reason they would want to cover-up anything. Who are you more likely to agree with?
So that takes in anyone who might think there was a cover-up of intelligence failures, or failure to act on warnings from overseas governments, for instance, as well as anyone who thinks the 9/11 Commission was not truly bi-partisan, which it was not.
This was a carefully crafted poll designed to maximise the answers the people who paid for it wanted. If it was an honest poll, it would have asked the straightforward questions. There can only be one reason why it did not.
The CNN poll was of a self-selected sample, and conspiracy sites linked to it, so it has no validity whatsoever.
But you know this of course. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2007 10:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | ian neal wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | These are unanswered questions only to those who will not hear the anwers, because they upset their cherished personal fantasies. Those with their heads stuck in the sand. |
#
Such blind arrogance.
Are you aware that 83% of over 50,000 respondents to CNN Showbiz Tonight online poll believed the government is covering up the truth of 9/11? A poll by Zogby in May 2006 found that 42 percent of Americans believed there had indeed been a cover-up of the true events of 9/11, and an additional 10 percent of Americans were “unsure”, whilst a New York Times/CBS poll found that only 16% of americans believed the US government was telling the truth.
So the 16% of americans who still believe their president can lecture the rest of us about denial and having their heads stuck somewhere. Run along |
Such misrepresentation!
The Zogby poll, paid for by 911 Truth.org (follow the money!), carefully avoided asking the question do you think 9/11 was a false flag operation by the US government or part of it? or anything similar, because they knew what answer they would get, so the question they asked was
Some people believe that the US government and its 9/11 Commission concealed or refused to investigate critical evidence that contradicts their official explanation of the September 11th attacks, saying there has been a cover-up. Others say that the 9/11 Commission was a bi-partisan group of honest and well-respected people and that there is no reason they would want to cover-up anything. Who are you more likely to agree with?
So that takes in anyone who might think there was a cover-up of intelligence failures, or failure to act on warnings from overseas governments, for instance, as well as anyone who thinks the 9/11 Commission was not truly bi-partisan, which it was not.
This was a carefully crafted poll designed to maximise the answers the people who paid for it wanted. If it was an honest poll, it would have asked the straightforward questions. There can only be one reason why it did not.
The CNN poll was of a self-selected sample, and conspiracy sites linked to it, so it has no validity whatsoever.
But you know this of course. |
bushwacker are you starting up a conspiracy theory again? why do you distrust the offical line?
your just speculating and provided no evidence but if it satifies your need for fantasy then i suppose you will not listen to others.
the zogby poll was not funded by 9/11 truth.org or do you only listen to what conspiracy theory websites tell you? 
seriously, follow the money you say? but just not with 9/11?
its a pity you dont apply the logic of your post to other events. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2007 10:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| also bushy why not give us an example of what the straightforward question are for a poll, compared to those actually asked. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2007 10:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | ian neal wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | These are unanswered questions only to those who will not hear the anwers, because they upset their cherished personal fantasies. Those with their heads stuck in the sand. |
#
Such blind arrogance.
Are you aware that 83% of over 50,000 respondents to CNN Showbiz Tonight online poll believed the government is covering up the truth of 9/11? A poll by Zogby in May 2006 found that 42 percent of Americans believed there had indeed been a cover-up of the true events of 9/11, and an additional 10 percent of Americans were “unsure”, whilst a New York Times/CBS poll found that only 16% of americans believed the US government was telling the truth.
So the 16% of americans who still believe their president can lecture the rest of us about denial and having their heads stuck somewhere. Run along |
Such misrepresentation!
The Zogby poll, paid for by 911 Truth.org (follow the money!), carefully avoided asking the question do you think 9/11 was a false flag operation by the US government or part of it? or anything similar, because they knew what answer they would get, so the question they asked was
Some people believe that the US government and its 9/11 Commission concealed or refused to investigate critical evidence that contradicts their official explanation of the September 11th attacks, saying there has been a cover-up. Others say that the 9/11 Commission was a bi-partisan group of honest and well-respected people and that there is no reason they would want to cover-up anything. Who are you more likely to agree with?
So that takes in anyone who might think there was a cover-up of intelligence failures, or failure to act on warnings from overseas governments, for instance, as well as anyone who thinks the 9/11 Commission was not truly bi-partisan, which it was not.
This was a carefully crafted poll designed to maximise the answers the people who paid for it wanted. If it was an honest poll, it would have asked the straightforward questions. There can only be one reason why it did not.
The CNN poll was of a self-selected sample, and conspiracy sites linked to it, so it has no validity whatsoever.
But you know this of course. |
bushwacker are you starting up a conspiracy theory again? why do you distrust the offical line?
your just speculating and provided no evidence but if it satifies your need for fantasy then i suppose you will not listen to others.
the zogby poll was not funded by 9/11 truth.org or do you only listen to what conspiracy theory websites tell you?
seriously, follow the money you say? but just not with 9/11?
its a pity you dont apply the logic of your post to other events. |
Well, 911 truth.org say they sponsored it, but perhaps you know better. You are quite right, we should not trust these conspiracy sites to tell the truth!
See their press release |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2007 10:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | | also bushy why not give us an example of what the straightforward question are for a poll, compared to those actually asked. |
I did. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2007 11:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
so you believe selective things they tell you yet you think everything else they say is lies?
im looking at the link now, this is not a responce to the link. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2007 11:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
regarding the link i cannot see where they say they sponsered the poll.
i can see a paragragh that starts with the heading SPONSER:, but nothing that says they actually sponsered the poll, maybe im just not getting it so feel free to explain ferther on this point.
but i certainly cannot see anything that says they manipulated the results, or were in total control of the results etc. so alot of what you say is speculation with no proof.
do you believe all of the information on the page? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2007 11:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | regarding the link i cannot see where they say the sponsered the poll.
i can see a paragragh that starts with the heading SPONSER:, but nothing that says they actually sponsered the poll, maybe im just not getting it so feel free to explain ferther on this point.
but i certainly cannot see anything that says they manipulated the results, or were in total control of the results etc. so alot of what you say is speculation with no proof.
do you believe all of the information on the page? |
For goodness sake, what it says is:
SPONSOR: 911truth.org is a coalition of researchers, journalists and victim family members working to expose and answer the hundreds of still unresolved questions concerning 9/11,..............
No, they do not say they manipulated the results, you are quite right.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2007 11:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | regarding the link i cannot see where they say the sponsered the poll.
i can see a paragragh that starts with the heading SPONSER:, but nothing that says they actually sponsered the poll, maybe im just not getting it so feel free to explain ferther on this point.
but i certainly cannot see anything that says they manipulated the results, or were in total control of the results etc. so alot of what you say is speculation with no proof.
do you believe all of the information on the page? |
For goodness sake, what it says is:
SPONSOR: 911truth.org is a coalition of researchers, journalists and victim family members working to expose and answer the hundreds of still unresolved questions concerning 9/11,..............
No, they do not say they manipulated the results, you are quite right. |
gee thats weird bushwacker, you seemed to imply they had some how manipulated the results in your above posts, thanks for pointing out you were either lieing or speculating on that.
secondly what are they the sponser of exactly? the poll? or the webpage?
it seems to me that paragraph is a word from the sponsers, but sponsers of what? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 17, 2007 12:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | regarding the link i cannot see where they say the sponsered the poll.
i can see a paragragh that starts with the heading SPONSER:, but nothing that says they actually sponsered the poll, maybe im just not getting it so feel free to explain ferther on this point.
but i certainly cannot see anything that says they manipulated the results, or were in total control of the results etc. so alot of what you say is speculation with no proof.
do you believe all of the information on the page? |
For goodness sake, what it says is:
SPONSOR: 911truth.org is a coalition of researchers, journalists and victim family members working to expose and answer the hundreds of still unresolved questions concerning 9/11,..............
No, they do not say they manipulated the results, you are quite right. |
gee thats weird bushwacker, you seemed to imply they had some how manipulated the results in your above posts, thanks for pointing out you were either lieing or speculating on that.
secondly what are they the sponser of exactly? the poll? or the webpage?
it seems to me that paragraph is a word from the sponsers, but sponsers of what? |
Even you are not quite this dim, marky, stop pretending to be.
You got it completely wrong, just face up to it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 17, 2007 12:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | regarding the link i cannot see where they say the sponsered the poll.
i can see a paragragh that starts with the heading SPONSER:, but nothing that says they actually sponsered the poll, maybe im just not getting it so feel free to explain ferther on this point.
but i certainly cannot see anything that says they manipulated the results, or were in total control of the results etc. so alot of what you say is speculation with no proof.
do you believe all of the information on the page? |
For goodness sake, what it says is:
SPONSOR: 911truth.org is a coalition of researchers, journalists and victim family members working to expose and answer the hundreds of still unresolved questions concerning 9/11,..............
No, they do not say they manipulated the results, you are quite right. |
gee thats weird bushwacker, you seemed to imply they had some how manipulated the results in your above posts, thanks for pointing out you were either lieing or speculating on that.
secondly what are they the sponser of exactly? the poll? or the webpage?
it seems to me that paragraph is a word from the sponsers, but sponsers of what? |
Even you are not quite this dim, marky, stop pretending to be.
You got it completely wrong, just face up to it. |
why can you not just answer my question? sponser of the poll or webpage? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 17, 2007 12:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
please tell me you were going on more than just a paragraph that started with the heading SPONSER:
i was trying to find out if there was truth in what you was claiming and trying to see the proof, because bushwacker i take your advice, i don't just believe anything anyone tells me.
it seems it has paid of with this discussion, thanks  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
