It's hysterical to see someone as cumdrunk as you are on every word, gesture, thought and deed of the Bush administration label other people as 'easily led around by the nose.'
And we're supposed to think you are a 'skeptical investigator scrutinizing events for inconsistencies and deducing the truth?'
BULLSHIT.
You consistently call every piece of information you come across that doesn't fit into your comfortable little box of predefined beliefs a lie. And talk about people who have a need to feel 'special,' you're constantly insisting your superior ability to perceive the truth exalts you above the gullible rabble. Yet you do all this with no further analysis or more visible effort than is required to assassinate the character of anyone who might blur the edges of your pristine world view.
It's very clear that your biases and prejudices can't be manipulated. Just as well, I'm sure you'd choose to cling to them with your last breath anyway.
As to the inferences that bits of data seem amiss in aspects of 911 pointed to in this thread and all other threads, I do remain skeptical and usually find that the people posting and discussing them are also skeptical. A skeptic ponders and considers the data--not necessarily drawing specific conclusions because inconclusiveness can often be the most crucial aspect of the information.
Having established the skepticism is a good thing, the only person I see here not being skeptical is you albed. I'm sure you mean well by admonishing everyone to use more critical thinking and calling them drugged out crackpots, but by your accepting the official view of things uncritically, whole hog and without any apparent allowances or discussion, you obviously do not practice what you preach, and subsequently, for my money, have even less credibility than the some of the most rabid conspiracy buffs.
|