Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyWf
Jiggs, did you edit my post into individual sentences before you even started to read it? LOL this stream of consciousness posting style makes you seem like an illiterate. You know that, right?
"And, this is where you break down badly, what are you relying on to say that Tillman was a coverup? What are you relying on to know about Iran-Contra? Official government investigations after the fact. Which you trust."
Jiggs you broke this 3.5 sentence paragraph into well over a page of you desperately flailing at random bull**** line by line, and at the end you didn't even get to the extremely straightforward implication.
I'm sorry, but it wasn't straightforward at all. It was all over the place with tortured logic, and didn't really convey the straw man you were trying to create. Even when I tried guessing, in the end, for all your hysterics in this follow-up, you still aren't really clarifying what you mean. There's some rambling to sweep single about the Pentagon and "people dying that day," but you continue to avoid the very basic challenge put to you by me. I noticed you disappeared from the Tillman and Iran-Contra coverage you asked for that I provided. Are you learning as you go along?
Perhaps if you tried a different strategy besides rage-posting, your prose might be a bit more clear. Unfortunately, you bore ahead with the Tommy Hearns strategy, and get dominated by Round 3. This exchange is basically over, as you apparently can't really box.
If you want to be an adult, and cover 9/11 as a coincidence theorist with any weight, I'll be happy to engage you. If not, you're really just coming off as a drag on the 15 percenter camp, and I'll turn my focus on a more talented contributor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyWf
Maybe if you worked on your "reading for comprehension" skills you wouldn't be a ****ing truther. At the very least your posts would be readable.
Oh, they're quite readable. You're not fooling anyone while you scramble for the escape hatch delivering retreating fire. I'll ask you once more, and then when you ignore it yet again, we can all safely assume you possess situational burdens of proof:
How can someone who recognizes the depravity of men in power at every turn somehow start the 9/11 question from a position of "the U.S. govt would never!!!!"...?
For example, here's you creating a thread about the depravity of U.S. torture:
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/41...orture-611432/
In the thread, you rely on mere speculation far more that 9/11 alternative theorist do.
"My initial post was a little unclear, the real story here might be that both the Bush and Obama administrations threatened to withhold future information about terrorist activity in England if this information was revealed. Valuing the lives of an allegedly allied nation's citizens below political capital is pretty despicable. The British court is essentially calling their bluff on that."
Ouch.
So, where does the distinction lie for you? Can you flesh it out a bit? How is 9/11 different for someone who so vehemently hates abuse of power?
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyWf
Like the bolded here. Maybe the next few words I wrote will help you follow?
Still waiting. Why the situational storylines?
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyWf
LOL. Naw you better guess at what I maybe meant and ASK MORE QUESTIONS. That's how Jiggsy wins.
[huge edit]
No, I win by hammering you with evidence. Over and over again until you address that specific evidence, or have a hissy fit and announce your retreat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyWf
Do what? Believe in half-assed nonsense conspiracies? Yeah, I've chosen to not do that at all.
No, you just yell "half-assed nonsense" as many times as you need, louder each time, until your opponent gives up trying to get you to actually participate in the discussion.
Run along, then.
Last edited by JiggsCasey; 02-22-2014 at 05:53 PM.