AmongTheThugs wrote:Does Yank work for the man or is he just another stupid poser?
Maat wrote:AmongTheThugs wrote:Does Yank work for the man or is he just another stupid poser?
Probably "just another stupid poser", ATT Although I realize 'good help is hard to find', that would be scraping the bottom of the barrel even for 'them' — or they're running out of half wits
Well, since IT's reverted to childish name calling again, I really think it's outlived its usefulness as a refresher tool now, Simon When allowed to go on too long the irrefutable points we make just get obscured by troll poo as it soils itself trying to dodge them all (typical shill/troll MO).
Looks like everyone has seen through (chain) yank's agenda anyway.
Most conspicuous in all its rambling non sequiturs, feigned 'apology' ploy and self contradictions is the absence of any serious attempt to provide an iota of evidence or even a plausible hypothesis for its mindless assertions.
Of course no one can take "real footage" of physics-defying events that cannot happen in reality, like cartoon cut-out plane shapes in steel buildings & top-down skyscraper collapses in pyroclastic flows.
And no one can take "real footage" of 'running people' who would have been evacuated & blocked from coming anywhere near the critical theater of operations.
This is one of my favorite bloopers from the 'Not There' Bros loony-toon:
Any pre-existing "real footage" of NY cityscapes or streets used as templates/backdrops for CGI layering of faked events still = 100% fakery! Just as motion-capture of actors' real movements used to render impossible actions &/or physiology with CGI for Hollywood movie FX = 100% fakery.
There are only two possibilities for such persistent avoidance of known, verifiable facts re behavioral psychology, photography, physics, reasoning and logic: 1.) a willfully ignorant, ego-driven dupe (who hasn't seen a Hollywood movie in 30+ years), or 2.) a deliberate shill's incredibly inept attempts to play mind games. Fail ²
Ironically, what tools like this always prove is that they obviously cannot refute the evidence exposed in Simon's & our analyses, so predictably resort to every worn-out logical fallacy and desperately try to bury it in piles of verbal excrement.
In its own self descriptive words:
"You are exposed.
Time to get a real job
simonshack wrote:yankee451 wrote:
Pointing to altered smoke, or formatting glitches, or digital rendering anomalies does NOT prove these are CGI images, it only proves a photograph was altered, not that the photograph itself was fake.
There's a difference.
You keep dodging the issues which should be obvious to any person with a sound brain. I have been very patient with you. You have also cluttered this thread with your blah-blah. You have consistently evaded very clear questions submitted to you. I have spent time illustrating the reasons why I believe NO 9/11 imagery can be trusted. All you have been able to offer is nothing but vapid, confusional and illogical hogwash. Bye bye, Yankee. Now you can return to your LetsRollForum friends and report how stubborn and close-minded I am.
Go... leave... Flee from the truth...
and never return to this land again
simonshack wrote:AmongTheThugs wrote:
...and then there were three !
Follow you ...follow me
full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEaR_5R3R3c
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest