I Have Challenged The Owner Of 911myths.com To An Online Debate

[Gold9472]

mike@911myths.com

Hi Michael.

I've been seeing mention of your site a lot lately, and it occurred to me that maybe it would be a good idea for us to have an online debate. Just the two of us. All I ask is that it take place on my board, www.yourbbsucks.com. The topic of the debate will be, "Was 9/11 An Inside Job?"

What do you say? You will not be ridiculed or chastized. It will be an open debate between just the two of us.

Let me know what you think.

Sincerely,

Jon Gold

[somebigguy]

Interesting, lemme know if you get a response.

[Gold9472]

Interesting, lemme know if you get a response.

Nah, I wouldn't do that.

[Gold9472]

Jonathan,

How would an online debate benefit anyone? It's already easy for anyone to see what I think on any particular issue: go to the site and look it up. All that would happen in a debate is I'd have to summarise things, condense arguments, and while that might appeal to some ("find out everything I believe in 500 words") I don't think it's a good idea. These are complex issues, there's no getting away from that, and to consider them properly you need all the information. Not simply a shortened debating list.

This is especially problematic in any form of controlled debate. It would be very easy for you to say, for instance, "there are too many oddities and unlikely coincidences over 9/11: what about the hijackers who are reportedly still alive, the explosions heard at the WTC, the mobile calls that couldn't possibly have been made?". Thus you've posted less than 40 words, but on the site I've got thousands of words discussing these very issues. And arguably need even more. If we followed any conventional rules about limiting size of posts then I would be permanently constrained, never able to properly answer questions you might raise. And if we didn't, if it was okay for me to post vast answers, then again, why not just go to the site and read the full text?

And then as the arguments get shortened to fit the format, so other things rise in importance to fill their place: who's the most confident, the best at summing up, has the prettiest turn of phrase, essentially superficial things that have nothing to do with whether you're right or not, and are more about presentation. Maybe I would do well at these, maybe I wouldn't, but either way, they colour the result. And to me that's a problem, because the full arguments should be all that matter. Finally, we'd come to the result. What might it be, what would we achieve? As I said, you'd inevitably be able to raise more questions than I could answer, not least because I'm far from having all the answers anyway.

Therefore anyone who requires me to answer every single question you might pose will find that I do not, and inevitably conclude that I haven't convinced them. I see no way in which such an exercise would change anyone's mind, or achieve anything of any significance at all, and for that and these other reasons I'm afraid I'll have to decline your offer.

However, let me also say this.

As I said earlier, if someone wants to find out what I think, then they can just go to the site and read about it.

If you, or anyone else wants to know what I think about an issue that maybe isn't on the site, or only briefly covered, then they can email me and ask. I reply to just about everyone (only the more abusive one-liners get binned).

If you, or anyone else, wants to contend that I'm making a misleading case somewhere, then email me and tell me why. If we can come to an agreement (which has happened before) then I'll amend the site; if I disagree but feel there's a case for showing people that side of an argument, then I'll happily link to a site that covers it.

And if you, or anyone else, wants to debate a particular point, then again, just send me an email and I'll respond. I've no problem with that, as long as you're able to stay civil. (Including lots of smears or personal attacks gets you less attention, not more).

And if you, or anyone else, wanted to reduce their debating ambitions to specific points rather than all of 9/11 in one go, email me about these, and publish the results on their site, then I'd have no objection. Although it would be polite if you told me you were going to do that first.

I'm not worried about debating people, then -- I do it all the time. However, I believe trying to condense everything into one "Inside job: yes or no?" debate is unrealistic, and will achieve nothing, and so prefer to carry on with email discussions as they arise. Hope you can accept that.

Regards,

Mike Williams

[Gold9472]

Michael,

I appreciate you getting back to me, but I have to admit, I'm a little disappointed. The purpose of me challenging you to a debate was not to educate myself. Lord knows I'm not the smartest person in the world, but when it comes to 9/11, I can hold my own. The purpose of me challenging you to a debate was because I often see your site referenced when people try to silence people within the 9/11 Truth Movement, and quite honestly, I wanted to take that option away from them. If you feel strongly enough about your opinion, and think you have enough facts to dispute the claims of the 911 Truth Movement, then essentially, you should welcome a debate.

My offer still stands.

Sincerely,

Jon Gold

[somebigguy]

Well, just pick one specific point, email it to him like he suggests, tell him you're posting the results, then post it.

[Chris]

you should have known the coward wouldnt dare debate you. his kind dont do debates.

[Gold9472]

Well, just pick one specific point, email it to him like he suggests, tell him you're posting the results, then post it.

You don't seem to understand... I don't want to pick him apart point by point... I want to take him out once and for all. I'm personally tired of seeing his site posted everywhere.

[Gold9472]

This isn't a fucking game... know what I mean? He wants to create a site that, to the newcomer, "debunks" what people in the 9/11 Truth Movement are saying, then I'm going to do everything within my power to take away any credibility he may have.

[Gold9472]

I figured a debate between the two of us would be the easiest way to accomplish that.

[Gold9472]

Jonathan,

the purpose of me challenging you to a debate was not to educate myself

I didn't think it was, for a moment. Apologies if you took it that I meant otherwise.

The purpose of me challenging you to a debate was because I often see your site referenced when people try to silence people within the 9/11 Truth Movement, and quite honestly, I wanted to take that option away from them.

Then the arguments I put forward will have to be confronted, one by one, and either accepted or overturned. Too big a job for a "show" debate, which must inevitably reduce complex arguments to brief summaries.

If you feel strongly enough about your opinion, and think you have enough facts to dispute the claims of the 911 Truth Movement, then essentially, you should welcome a debate.

Why? As I said, what I believe is out there, in the open, in full, on the site. What is to be gained by investing time and effort in producing a shorter, less complete version for you? If you and your forum members don't think anything I said has validity now, how is a debate going to convince you?

The thing is, I'm not evangelical about this, I'm just saying what I believe. I'm not out to convince people, one by one. I don't promote the site. I don't plug it on forums, I didn't add the Wikipedia references. All I've done is produce a collection of points and discoveries, everything else has been done by word of mouth. I'm not out to become some kind of conspiracy-busting Internet personality, make a "name" for myself, produce a DVD: there's too much of that exploitation already. If readers think I have a point, that's great; if they think I'm talking rubbish, well, they're entitled to their opinion. Either way, it's the contents of the site as a whole that speak for me: I don't see producing a condensed version for a hostile audience as serving any purpose at all.

Regards,

Mike Williams

[Gold9472]

Michael,

I am not looking for a condensed version of your information. I'm looking for an online debate. You can either accept or decline, but be forewarned, declining my invitation doesn't look good for you.

Again, my offer is still open to you.

Jon

[Gold9472]

I am not looking for a condensed version of your information. I'm looking for an online debate.

I see it as the same thing. The data is there, open to everyone already: if it's not condensed (ie I can just copy and paste pages from the site), then people may as well go to the site in the first place.

be forewarned, declining my invitation doesn't look good for you.

If you mean people will go around saying that I'm "running scared" or "too frightened" to debate you, then that tactic hasn't worked on me since I was about 8. What matters are the arguments, and the evidence, nothing else. Plus, please note that I've said I'm quite happy to discuss any issues you want, via email, in the same way I do for anyone else. And if you want to publish those responses, then you can. Seems quite fair to me... If you're not interested in doing that, then you're only confirming I've made the right decision.

Mike Williams

[Gold9472]

Michael,

I'm going to take this response as a "no". I'm sorry to hear that. Most people who have taken the time to research something have a very clear understanding as to what that information is about. In other words, they don't have the need to "copy & paste" material, but can actually have a discussion about it. A debate. I am disappointed that you have declined, but if ever you change your mind, my offer still stands.

Jon Gold

[somebigguy]

Well, presidential candidates can see the benefit of a public debate, but apparently this guy doesn't think its worthwhile.

Hey Jon, just challenge him fact by fact, one at a time. Play by his rules, if he chooses not to participate at that point, then you can call him on it.

[Gold9472]

Well, presidential candidates can see the benefit of a public debate, but apparently this guy doesn't think its worthwhile.

Hey Jon, just challenge him fact by fact, one at a time. Play by his rules, if he chooses not to participate at that point, then you can call him on it.

No. I challenged him, and he declined. To me, that speaks VOLUMES.

[Gold9472]

In all honesty, there is no debate. I would completely destroy him if he accepted. Here's a clue... go look on his site for everything he DOESN'T talk about, and you'll see exactly what I mean.

[jetsetlemming]

That's funny, Gold, I've held my own debating you and I've never even heard of this guy or his site.

[Gold9472]

That's funny, Gold, I've held my own debating you and I've never even heard of this guy or his site.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Did you say that out loud?

[Gold9472]

We're talking about 9/11, not Christian Themed Theme Parks.

[jetsetlemming]

Actually, we never really finished talking about that. :) But no, you have never convinced me on anything about 9/11, and I've been here for more than a year, reading the stuff, keeping an open mind. You almost had me on the flight 93 crater, but then I realized that it wasn't a unique crash (thank you, google image search). And you've never really answered my questions on 9/11, like "why would they blow up two installations vital to a war effort if they were planning a war?" and "Why, if Iraq's oil was the goal, why did they pick a fallguy in Afghanistan?". Plus, doing things like defending Charlie Sheen just because he shares your beliefs and saying that while you don't have 100% of the information, you're 100% sure of Bush's guilt doesn't help you either. I mean, you couldn't even debunk the Penn and Teller thing.

[rayrayjones]

You almost had me on the flight 93 crater, but then I realized that it wasn't a unique crash.

Exactly! the plane was blown up midflight and fell to the ground in pieces scattered over 6 miles.


why would they blow up two installations vital to a war effort if they were planning a war

not sure what the 2nd target was, but did you know that the part of the pentagon that was hit was being renovated and had almost no people inside? and was scheduled to be finished on sept 12? plus, if you strike a military target then everyone in the military will feel as though they've been attacked, assuring conformity by military to engage in a war of aggression based on the belief that they were the victims seeking justice.

Why, if Iraq's oil was the goal, why did they pick a fallguy in Afghanistan?

Iraq oil is the immediate goal, but securing the region with military is the long term agenda. For one, it follows the plan set forth by several memebers in the Council of Foreign Relations that calls for america to control the caspian sea area because it effectively divides that eurasian land mass in two (think divide and conquer). 2nd, it stymies Russia from encroaching upon former soviet states natural resources that can be withdrawn from them by western oil companies. 3rd, it is one part of the geopolitical strategy to encircle China and keep them relegated to a lesser power than us. why do you think we have taiwan, South Korea, Japan and India as close friends..to keep a check on China's growth, expansion and influence, thus ensuring our primacy in the area.


the Penn and Teller BS, is pure BS. you attack the legitimate questions of Charlie Sheen by bringing up magicians and their attempt to debunk the conspiracies by saying "Bullshit" as loud as they can and calling it a day....as if speaking louder makes ones argument more truthful or real.

[Gold9472]

Actually, we never really finished talking about that. :) But no, you have never convinced me on anything about 9/11, and I've been here for more than a year, reading the stuff, keeping an open mind. You almost had me on the flight 93 crater, but then I realized that it wasn't a unique crash (thank you, google image search). And you've never really answered my questions on 9/11, like "why would they blow up two installations vital to a war effort if they were planning a war?" and "Why, if Iraq's oil was the goal, why did they pick a fallguy in Afghanistan?". Plus, doing things like defending Charlie Sheen just because he shares your beliefs and saying that while you don't have 100% of the information, you're 100% sure of Bush's guilt doesn't help you either. I mean, you couldn't even debunk the Penn and Teller thing.

We have rarely talked about 9/11 to my knowledge. What two installations are you referring to that were vital to the war effort? Afghanistan was selected prior (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1550366.stm) to 9/11, or didn't you know that? The President had invasion plans on his desk 9/9/2001 (http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=9163). Two days prior to 9/11.

Afghanistan had to do with the Caspian Sea Pipeline, opium (drugs), and the logistical placement of bases in that region for future use. Remember, there is growing competition in the world for all kinds of things. Between India, Russia, China, etc...

In regards to Penn & Teller, I wouldn't waste my time on what they have to say. These are two individuals who had Eric Hufschmid on their show, and they ridiculed and chastized him, creatively edited their footage of him, and made him out to be a fool. Granted, his interview was one of the worst I've ever seen, but that still doesn't take away from what they did.

If you're not convinced that 9/11 was an inside job, then I KNOW you haven't read a majority of the information on this site.

[Gold9472]

And incidentally, I DON'T know everything regarding 9/11, and I will happily admit that. I do, however, know that it was an inside job. I know who's used it the most politically, and I know who's done the most to cover up the fact that it was an inside job. I'm not saying Bush is guilty. I'm saying Bush is a suspect. There is MOUNDS of evidence to attest to that.

[Gold9472]

There is a HELLUVA lot more evidence to show the Bush Administration is guilty than there is for Osama Bin Laden.

[jetsetlemming]

not sure what the 2nd target was, but did you know that the part of the pentagon that was hit was being renovated and had almost no people inside? and was scheduled to be finished on sept 12? plus, if you strike a military target then everyone in the military will feel as though they've been attacked, assuring conformity by military to engage in a war of aggression based on the belief that they were the victims seeking justice.

You know, I've wondered about that. How different things would have gone, considering that the planning and strategy have been the two biggest weaknesses in the war. Strange how they could have perfectly executed 9/11, cover all their bases, and yet fucked up so badly afterwards, huh.

[Gold9472]

You know, I've wondered about that. How different things would have gone, considering that the planning and strategy have been the two biggest weaknesses in the war. Strange how they could have perfectly executed 9/11, cover all their bases, and yet fucked up so badly afterwards, huh.

Um, don't you think the fact that I'm here, that rayrayjones is here, that somebigguy is here means that they didn't perfectly execute 9/11, and that they didn't cover all of their bases?

[jetsetlemming]

the Penn and Teller BS, is pure BS. you attack the legitimate questions of Charlie Sheen by bringing up magicians and their attempt to debunk the conspiracies by saying "Bullshit" as loud as they can and calling it a day....as if speaking louder makes ones argument more truthful or real.
I never said anything about Charlie Sheen's questions. Just that Gold defended him only because Cheen believes in the conspiracy. And if you read the site they actually did present evidence and argue with points. They didn't just say Bullshit and move on.

[Gold9472]

I never said anything about Charlie Sheen's questions. Just that Gold defended him only because Cheen believes in the conspiracy. And if you read the site they actually did present evidence and argue with points. They didn't just say Bullshit and move on.

Um, actually, I didn't defend him. I wrote an essay on what divorce is like, and at the end of it, said that if any of those allegations are true, then he should be held accountable.

[jetsetlemming]

Um, don't you think the fact that I'm here, that rayrayjones is here, that somebigguy is here means that they didn't perfectly execute 9/11, and that they didn't cover all of their bases?
Compare that list to the number of people who believe the official story.

[Gold9472]

Compare that list to the number of people who believe the official story.

Considering every single solitary poll that has ever come out regarding 9/11 Truth favors the 9/11 Truth Movement, you'd better ask yourself if you want to ask that question.

[jetsetlemming]

Which is why I've never ever met anyone besides here at ybbs that believes it. And I meet a lot of people. Btw, this thread title makes me think of Victorian gentlemen dueling with pistols at ten paces. I can just see you slapping that guy who I still have no idea who he is with a white glove and shouting "I challenge you to a DUEL!" in a loud british accent.

[PhilosophyGenius]

Spread this thread around so that everyone will know that Jon Gold has punked Mike Williams out.

[Gold9472]

Which is why I've never ever met anyone besides here at ybbs that believes it. And I meet a lot of people. Btw, this thread title makes me think of Victorian gentlemen dueling with pistols at ten paces. I can just see you slapping that guy who I still have no idea who he is with a white glove and shouting "I challenge you to a DUEL!" in a loud british accent.

Ask the next stranger you see publicly if they think 9/11 was an inside job, and then come talk to me. I've done it several times, and I have NEVER come across someone that hasn't said, "Probably, but we'll never know", or "Most definitely", or "It's certainly possible".

[jetsetlemming]

What, no reaction to the british duel thing? I'm disapointed. Anywho, I have gotten into discussions on purpose. Everybody either a) believes it was done by Osama bin Laden and supports the war, or b) doesn't care about 9/11 and was more interested in talking about other complaints about Bush. There's a million different reasons to dislike Bush, this is only one.

[rayrayjones]

And if you read the site they actually did present evidence and argue with points. They didn't just say Bullshit and move on.

i never looked their site after they trashed Eric on their tv show.

they said if you see this man or his book you should hit that person in the face, then they called Bullshit. They never talked about the questions he brought up, the irregularities in the official theory that Eric documents. All they did was attack the man for bringing them up, which is just like every other official conspiracy, flat-earth theorist, they mock those they don't want to acknowledge...classic Republican politics....attack the messenger, never the message.

i will never watch or visit anything that has to do with them again.

[rayrayjones]

You know, I've wondered about that. How different things would have gone, considering that the planning and strategy have been the two biggest weaknesses in the war. Strange how they could have perfectly executed 9/11, cover all their bases, and yet fucked up so badly afterwards, huh.

first of all, i only blame Bush for covering up the crime, not for planning it. it is obvious he is mentally defective, which just makes it easier for others to control him. so his fuck ups in iraq are his and his admin, the bits of truth related to 9-11 occur because it is indeed a grand conspiracy, with a few people set to control the whole debate on the issue. anytime someone got close to the truth, they were ruthlessly attacked as unamerican.

media wants less FCC, FTC restrictions so they're not going to poison their own honey pot, plus anytime someone says "conspiracy theory" a negative connotation is immediately planted into our heads because of the constant denigrating of people with theories as kooks or idiots or "tin foil hat wearing" whatevers.....regardless of no one mentioning aliens....it is the same thing as constantly refering to the media as being "liberal" even though that stopped about 20+ years ago....it is still used to blame and control media outlets who dare to question authority.

2nd, because they didn't perfectly execute it is why there are a million inconsistencies with the official theory, which is why we truthers exist demanding answers to our questions (noting many of these truthers are in fact victims because of loved ones lost that day)

[jetsetlemming]

first of all, i only blame Bush for covering up the crime, not for planning it.
Now thats, something to discuss! I've always thought that in order for 9/11 to have happened, there must have been major fuck-ups, and that a whole lot of people in high places dropped the ball in a big way. I guess the difference between that and the idea that the neo-cons planned it is whether you believe the government is a cluster fuck or extremely capable and loyal to the commands of the higher-ups. I, for one, tend to see the government as a cluster fuck.

[rayrayjones]

Now thats, something to discuss! I've always thought that in order for 9/11 to have happened, there must have been major fuck-ups, and that a whole lot of people in high places dropped the ball in a big way. I guess the difference between that and the idea that the neo-cons planned it is whether you believe the government is a cluster fuck or extremely capable and loyal to the commands of the higher-ups. I, for one, tend to see the government as a cluster fuck.


the government is a TOTAL cluster fuck, which made it so easy for those rogue elements WITHIN the cluster fuck to pull it off. I can't tell you people within Bush administration didn't know, but some of their statements and actions before, during and after 9-11 has led me to believe some did, especially with respect to certain procedural changes that took place months before and the limiting, destroying, stalling of investigations after.

Bush is the puppet, we just don't know who is exactly pulling the strings...but a real investigation into 9-11 might get those answers.

[Gold9472]

We have a damn good idea... and incidentally, Bush isn't as stupid as everyone thinks he is. #1, he's the President of the United States. If our President is so stupid, how does that reflect on us? #2, I prefer to focus on how greedy, corrupt, fascist these people are as opposed to how stupid they are.

You want to know who's pulling the strings? That's easy. Big Oil, Big Pharm, Big Defense, Big Tobacco, Big Alcohol, and so on. Dick Cheney helped plan, and orchestrate the events of 9/11, but in reality, he's just a mole for Big Oil/Big Defense.

[Gold9472]

Bush is a mole for Big Oil, Big Pharm, and Big Defense.

[jetsetlemming]

We have a damn good idea... and incidentally, Bush isn't as stupid as everyone thinks he is. #1, he's the President of the United States. If our President is so stupid, how does that reflect on us? #2, I prefer to focus on how greedy, corrupt, fascist these people are as opposed to how stupid they are.

You want to know who's pulling the strings? That's easy. Big Oil, Big Pharm, Big Defense, Big Tobacco, Big Alcohol, and so on. Dick Cheney helped plan, and orchestrate the events of 9/11, but in reality, he's just a mole for Big Oil/Big Defense.
There is only one possible resonce I could give you at this point, Gold. Chill out and play this: http://www.gamespot.com/pc/rpg/deusex/download_ini.html?sid=2589777&id=2589777.

[Gold9472]

There is only one possible resonce I could give you at this point, Gold. Chill out and play this: http://www.gamespot.com/pc/rpg/deusex/download_ini.html?sid=2589777&id=2589777.

You now believe 9/11 was an inside job? Good.

[jetsetlemming]

Well, there are lots of conspiracy theories in that game. The conspirators even blow up the statue of liberty in order to justify forming the UN army UNATCO, a front for the MJ12 and foot army for Bob Page (a rich-ass businessman) to take over the world using nano-technology and AI sentience. Cool stuff.

[PhilosophyGenius]

Bush is a mole for Big Oil, Big Pharm, and Big Defense.

Here's what "President Bush" thinks about that:
http://www.nbc.com/nbc/Video/?c=The_Tonight_Show_with_Jay_Leno/Hi_3126_msn&n=highlights


:jesusdanc

[rayrayjones]

We have a damn good idea... and incidentally, Bush isn't as stupid as everyone thinks he is. #1, he's the President of the United States. If our President is so stupid, how does that reflect on us? #2, I prefer to focus on how greedy, corrupt, fascist these people are as opposed to how stupid they are.

You want to know who's pulling the strings? That's easy. Big Oil, Big Pharm, Big Defense, Big Tobacco, Big Alcohol, and so on. Dick Cheney helped plan, and orchestrate the events of 9/11, but in reality, he's just a mole for Big Oil/Big Defense.

Bush isn't stupid but his brain has been impaired...there is a big difference......years of hard drinking doesn't make one stupid but it can warp the mind....such as scurrying into the corner of "being-reborn" to make sense of the world.

and I personally have an idea as to who pulls the strings but i'd prefer it played out in a court of law instead of my mind.


"if our president is stupid, how does that reflect on us"
it can be said that 50% of the population is just as mentally deficient as our dear leader, but i think that is wrong and irrelevant when looking at the data of our last elections.....they didn't get 51% of the vote without manipulating the numbers from the machines that had no paper trail, that have been shown in county after county to be hackable without any trace of manipulation, and when the media no longer works for the people and instead for the interests of the wealthy elite who want someone like Bush in power...to control him, much like they got sex-crazed Clinton in power and used his behaviors to control him and remove him

[Gold9472]

I spent years drinking and doing drugs as well.

[rayrayjones]

I spent years drinking and doing drugs as well.

i'm still doing them (AS WE SPEAK!!!!) but not to the point where i show signs of dry drunk disease or missassemble my english.

you still have critical thinking skills. i don't believe Bush does....

[Chris]

Jon Gold said: We have a damn good idea... and incidentally, Bush isn't as stupid as everyone thinks he is. #1, he's the President of the United States. If our President is so stupid, how does that reflect on us?

so you dont believe that voter fraud took place? i dont think it reflects on us at all(maybe the 34% that still support him), i think it shows how pathetic the system is.

[Gold9472]

"so you dont believe that voter fraud took place? i dont think it reflects on us at all(maybe the 34% that still support him), i think it shows how pathetic the system is."

Whether he was voted into office or not, he went to Yale, he was a pilot, he was Governor, and now he's President. There was a report that said both Kerry and Bush have the same I.Q. Believe me, he's not as stupid as you think he is. A lot of it is an act. The way they want you to perceive him.

[Gold9472]

If you want to quote what someone is saying, just hit the "Quote" button.

[Zither]

You almost had me on the flight 93 crater, but then I realized that it wasn't a unique crash (thank you, google image search).

What did you put in the google image search? I'd like to see those other images, too. thanks in advance.

Did anyone else watch C-SPAN's morning call-in yesterday and see the segment on whether or not you approve of spending $60 million to buy 1200 acres of land and build a memorial to the Flight 93 heroes? Interestingly, there was a lot of opposition. Only one fellow was a 911 skeptic but others were skeptical about the "heroes" story.

jetsetlemming also mentions being 100% sure of Bush's guilt. That is a tough one because there are so many examples of Bush claiming he didn't know what he was saying was false or claiming ignorance or incompetence or just total lack of curiosity.

[PhilosophyGenius]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I dont believe Bush was never known for "misspeaking" as he does now. Ya know, "Bushisms". (regarding whether or not Bush is an idiot)

[Gold9472]

What did you put in the google image search? I'd like to see those other images, too. thanks in advance.

Did anyone else watch C-SPAN's morning call-in yesterday and see the segment on whether or not you approve of spending $60 million to buy 1200 acres of land and build a memorial to the Flight 93 heroes? Interestingly, there was a lot of opposition. Only one fellow was a 911 skeptic but others were skeptical about the "heroes" story.

jetsetlemming also mentions being 100% sure of Bush's guilt. That is a tough one because there are so many examples of Bush claiming he didn't know what he was saying was false or claiming ignorance or incompetence or just total lack of curiosity.

I look at it this way. The President said, "Go find me a way to do this (http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=9572)" regarding Iraq. So, as far as I'm concerned, he gave the order.

Cheney & Co. worked out the details.

Thanks for signing up.

[ZachM]

Don't underestimate GWB's intelligence. Take a look at this debate footage from 1994. Not a single stutter!
http://www.archive.org/details/BrainTenYrs

[borepstein]

If that debate happened here - how would people coming to his site know it ever happened at all?

[Gold9472]

There is no debate. They have been exposed.

[Gold9472]

Understand... it is not www.911myths.com job to answer our questions. It is the job of the Government to answer the people's questions.

[borepstein]

What, no reaction to the british duel thing? I'm disapointed. Anywho, I have gotten into discussions on purpose. Everybody either a) believes it was done by Osama bin Laden and supports the war, or b) doesn't care about 9/11 and was more interested in talking about other complaints about Bush. There's a million different reasons to dislike Bush, this is only one.

Everybody? Are you sure (http://pyramid.blog-city.com/take_the_poll_make_your_voice_heard.htm)?

Now, to me it is immaterial how many people share this or that opinion as far as that opinion's accuracy goes. Sometimes great majorities are mistaken.

But if you want to talk statistics - I think you've got some homework to do...

[jetsetlemming]

Everybody? Are you sure (http://pyramid.blog-city.com/take_the_poll_make_your_voice_heard.htm)?

Now, to me it is immaterial how many people share this or that opinion as far as that opinion's accuracy goes. Sometimes great majorities are mistaken.

But if you want to talk statistics - I think you've got some homework to do...
Do not argue with the trolls. ^_^

[borepstein]

Do not argue with the trolls. ^_^

As in a anonymous virtual such as yourself, residing nowhere?

Thanks, that's probably a good idea. I won't argue with you anymore.

[jetsetlemming]

Good. Though your definition of a forum troll is a bit off. Oh, and not only was I a troll, I don't come here anymore except once in a blue moon at pkp's insistence. The non political part of the board has atrophied.