COME SEE NUTBAG * HATES US * COMMIT AD HOMINEM FALLACY; 9/11 was not physically possible to be an inside job. That nutbaggery has been thoroughly disproven.
in [Physics]
|
Prev: PNAC of course said it "wanted" the 9/11 attacks"
Next: PNAC of course said it "wanted" the 9/11 attacks".
From: Iarnrod on 25 Jun 2010 08:16 On Jun 24, 5:37 am, * Hates US * writhed in impotent kooker rage: > Ruppert's points remain undisputed. Ruppert's points remain completely unsupported. > Ruppert's a trained investigator. Then how come the stuff he says is false? You have committed the ad hominem fallacy. You believe his lies because he is a "trained investigator," simply because he says what you want to believe. But you reject all other "trained investigators" because they say what you do NOT want to believe. How come you don't NAME ONE THING Ruppert says that you wish to defend as true? Because you know they're lies, that's why. You can't and you won't. You are, of course, a nutbag kook.
From: Iarnrod on 29 Jun 2010 00:59 On Jun 25, 6:20 am, * Hates US * writhed in impotent kooker rage: > Ruppert's points remain undisputed. Ruppert's points remain completely unsupported. > Ruppert's a trained investigator. Then how come the stuff he says is false? You have committed the ad hominem fallacy. You believe his lies because he is a "trained investigator," simply because he says what you want to believe. But you reject all other "trained investigators" because they say what you do NOT want to believe. How come you don't NAME ONE THING Ruppert says that you wish to defend as true? Because you know they're lies, that's why. You can't and you won't. You are, of course, a nutbag kook.
From: Iarnrod on 29 Jun 2010 08:13 On Jun 29, 5:30 am, * Hates US * lied with impotent kooker rage: > Notice that no one can dispute what Ruppert > says about the means, motives, and opportunities > of 9/11. On the contrary, it's not only been disputed but completely disproven. In fact, what we noticed was that no one can SUPPORT one single thing Rupper has said. You have FAILED to NAME ONE THING he has said tht you "think: is true; you cannot and you will not. That much is clear. > Ruppert's points remain undisputed. Ruppert's points remain unsupported. > Ruppert's a trained investigator. Ruppert's wrong. He needs to go back for more training. All other trained investigators agree with the official findings, which have of course been proven to be true.
From: Iarnrod on 29 Jun 2010 22:25 On Jun 29, 8:10 pm, * Hates US * lied with impotent kooker rage: > Notice that no one can dispute what Ruppert > says about the means, motives, and opportunities > of 9/11. On the contrary, it's not only been disputed but completely disproven. In fact, what we noticed was that no one can SUPPORT one single thing Rupper has said. You have FAILED to NAME ONE THING he has said tht you "think: is true; you cannot and you will not. That much is clear. > Ruppert's points remain undisputed. Ruppert's points remain unsupported. > Ruppert's a trained investigator. Ruppert's wrong. He needs to go back for more training. All other trained investigators agree with the official findings, which have of course been proven to be true.
From: Iarnrod on 30 Jun 2010 08:17
On Jun 30, 5:07 am, * Hates US * lied with impotent kooker rage: > Notice that no one can dispute what Ruppert > says about the means, motives, and opportunities > of 9/11. On the contrary, it's not only been disputed but completely disproven. In fact, what we noticed was that no one can SUPPORT one single thing Rupper has said. You have FAILED to NAME ONE THING he has said tht you "think: is true; you cannot and you will not. That much is clear. > Ruppert's points remain undisputed. Ruppert's points remain unsupported. > Ruppert's a trained investigator. Ruppert's wrong. He needs to go back for more training. All other trained investigators agree with the official findings, which have of course been proven to be true. |