[extracted] New(?) 9-11 stuff

We should probably compare his list to the idiot posters in this thread who don’t believe things just because "the government" says they are true. Lbox tops this list.

Oh, it goes without saying that the brain trust are all like that. If a three letter agency put out a report saying the sun will rise tomorrow, Deuces, Playbig and Luckbox are racing to Home Depot to stock up on light bulbs and candles (and toilet paper, obviously - always stockpile toilet paper). All these unique original free thinkers think uncannily like one another.

It would help if you could spell my name right. What is it that you think I believe simply because the government says? I'll let you in on a secret: I don't listen to the government at all. I listen to qualified experts.

Good grief, not that this thread was great or anything, but I didn't know it could get that much worse that quickly. I wonder what changed. Did anyone new show up at that some time?

Sigh.

Right and let me guess ...all of the experts you listen to have all concluded that conspiracy theories are baseless.

Ikr, with der bow ties and fancy schoolin'. **** do they know from their ivory towers, bet they couldn't even change a tire, amirite? We need more free thinkers to show us how skyscrapers really collapse using cardboard boxes round here.

I guess I'll try again because you failed at reading, as usual:

What is it that you think I believe simply because the government says?

Perhaps it would be easier if you just told us the official government narratives that you don't believe.

Do you have any? Covid? JFK, Pearl Harbor, Moon landing?

What time is it? 😀

What a dumb and pointless question.

It's dumb and pointless. It's just a different way of asking "do you subscribe to any of these conspiracy theories?" Obviously the answer is going to be no.

Also note that actual government conspiracies usually involve them hiding something someone has actually done (e.g. MKULTRA, Iran-Contra, CIA-Crack etc.) , not faking evidence for something they haven't actually done (lol moon landings being fake).

No that would not be easier than you answering my question. Since you can't tell me literally anything that I believe solely because the government told me, apparently your accusation was in error and I now consider it withdrawn. Reasserting it without evidence would be dishonest.

I made no allegations, sir. I simply asked you to provide support for YOUR allegation. Accusing me of something and then demanding I dance to your tune to prove you wrong is not how it works. Pull that juvenile crap on some kid or something.

On second thought, maybe you were better off pretending you couldn't understand basic English?

Ok I'm marking you down for believes in everything in the government says

Thank you for confirming what we all already knew:

To be fair, though, I am only going to vote for Kamala Harris because Taylor Swift told me to.

We now have the evidence

Perhaps taking the 5th doesn't work in a court of law but it works just fine here

Do we? What was that evidence?

Taking the 5th does actually work in courts of law though, ya might want to workshop that metaphor a bit.

Dude, YOU DON'T HAVE ANYTHING. In the words of Al Pacino in Heat "WHATTAYA GOT???"

If you had anything I would grant it to you because I have to do so because that is how I am built. I grant your side whatever I can but you just don't have a damn thing. You keep asserting you have this evidence and it's like you don't even know that this supposed evidence was never presented. And this is true for all aspects of this thing. It's not like there are one or two anomalies for which you failed to account. Your story isn't sufficiently supported ANYWHERE.

Did you know that the entirety of the "evidence" for boxcutters being used by hijackers comes from a single alleged cell phone call from the Pentagon bound flight 77? And guess who, allegedly, took that call. His name is Ted Olson. Does the name sound familiar? He's a very prominent attorney, to put it mildly. He was appointed by Bush as solicitor general in 2001. Before that he had argued for Bush in Bush v Gore in the Supreme Court and was on the shortlist to be a SCOTUS nominee. So this prominent neocon insider's alleged cell phone call from his wife is the entire basis for use of box cutters.

You didn't know this, and you also didn't know that the FBI later stated, in the Moussaoui trial, that no connected call was made by Barbara Olson from that flight.

Now maybe it doesn't matter if they had boxcutters or not, ultimately. We can be pretty sure that a plane hit the Pentagon and Barbara Olson was on that flight. But I point this out to illustrate how thin the basis is for what is in your mind. And I know what's in your mind because I've watched the same media coverage you have. You picture all these Arab dudes wielding box cutters and snarling, maybe taking a white girl hostage and putting a boxcutter to her throat. But you are certain there were boxcutters used, even though there is really no evidence for it, just a claim made by an elite neocon Bush appointee supported by nothing. Of all the people on those flights, THIS guy's wife is the one source of boxcutter's? Come on guys, how much wild coincidence do expect people to accept?

And btw Ted Olson came out recently in support of the plea deal for KSM. That might surprise people. His wife was killed in the attacks yet he is cool with KSM not getting the death penalty. It doesn't surprise me at all.

They actually don't. Normal people accept what they are told by authority and do not question the validity of the information from authoritative sources. That's how we get millions of people physically destroying each other in unspeakable barbarity and no one even knows why they are fighting. Your view of people is beyond naive. This is how we get the majority of the population thinking Saddam played a role in the 9/11 attacks. This is why we have people calling other people lunatics for not believing assertions, like about 9/11, which they themselves have never examined in the least.

Not reading any of that past the first sentence. "We don't have anything" because you dismiss everything presented to you for specious reasons, or just outright ignore it, as stated previously. Someone else can address you point by point if they are so inclined, but I doubt anyone will bother, because you lie and argue in bad faith.

If you want me to read your posts, I suggest you stick to the principle that brevity is the soul of wit.

The linguist is an expert at trying to shift the burden of persuasion to everyone else. He is scared of being laughed again (and again and again) when he explains the basis of his beliefs.

Quite the cunning linguist, old Luckbox.