Forum for discussing local and world politics and issues. All views are welcomed. Let your opinions be heard on current news and politics.
All standard guidelines apply to this board, No Flaming, No Taunting, No Foul Language,No sexual innuendos,etc..
As politics can be a volatile subject, please consider how you would feel if your comment were directed toward yourself.
Any post deemed to be in violation of guidelines will be deleted or edited without warning or notification. Any continued misbehavior will result in a ban or hidden status, so please play nice!!!
*"Moderators are here for a reason. If a moderator (or Global Moderator or Fencer) requests that a discussion on a certain subject to cease - for whatever reason - please respect these wishes. Failure to do so may result in being hidden, or banned."
I have still honorably stood my ground & debated my point.
Not really... You have based your argument in documentations that debunk the official conspiracy. Then we have given you documents that debunk those debunkings.(I know, its not really a word)
But we have not debated any specifics fact for fact. From what i gather, if we do that, your argument will come down to something like, "well the government refuses to release those pictures" or something like that, right? Or, "its not likely that all 3 buildings would fall straight down like they did", right again?
It doesnt make any sense for us to get into a point by point debate, when in the end it comes down to evidence that nobody has?
Your best bet to win a conspiracy debate is to have someone, a live, real person, who was part of this vast conspiracy, an actual eye witness, and like Dan said, in a conspiracy of this magnitude, it would not be hard to find one. But lacking that, the best you have is a he said she said scenario, and that is giving your side a real lot at this point.
(kaŝi) Se vi restigas la musmontrilon sur la piktogramo pri lia membreco, aperos ŝpruchelpilo kun liaj ĉefaj detaloj. (pauloaguia) (Montri ĉiujn konsilojn)