Incorrect, verifiable evidence is absolutely necessary in order to support your claims. Use of the word "approved" comes by way of your paranoia or poor reading comprehension.I've shown quite a bit of good evidence but again why is it that you have created this rule that I must show Grissie approved evidence
You claim there are "controllers," but you have failed to indicate who these people are. State specifically who they are and indicate how they control. You again make reference to the existence of evidence that you suggest is not shown. If it's not shown, how do you know such evidence exists? Show your proof to back up this claim.f we're being lead into deception then why would our controllers allow new evidence that goes against their version of the story to be released?
Unlike your garbled sentences, muddled thinking and mushy deflections, I've been straight up: I want to see verifiable evidence that supports your assertions regarding a 9/11 government conspiracy. You have none and can't admit it.I said said or implied that it was all about me. You're obviously using the 'No evidence' move to justify not having to discuss anything in depth, let alone anything at all, and you know it.
Incorrect. I've never stated a belief. You have stated a belief that you fail to show as being factual by your endless failure to provide evidence that supports you claims of a conspiracy. There is nothing to discuss as you have failed to provide the content. You can't, you don't know how and you don't know what evidence is - and you are too afraid to admit it.You just implied here that you believe anything that's official because I asked you and you didn't answer but only that you instead attacked me for having not read it which implies that you have faith in it.
You are slow on the uptake. I have not made an argument. I have been challenging you to provide evidence that supports you assertions. Are you so utterly lacking in comprehension that you can't see that? How many times does it have to be repeated until it sinks in?Your arguments depend on people do be as narrow in the mind as your arguments are
The internet makes you an expert. Actually, I know how government works. You make reference only to what you believe government is. The proof is that you fail to define things in any detail. Your appeal is to broad and nebulous generalizations.You have no idea how government works and how politicians can be bought off by people.
So Kammyboy, tell us all how the human mind works. We are expecting detailed information and verifiable scientific evidence that supports any claims you make. If you have no information and no evidence, don't bring up things you have no intellectual capacity to discuss.See.. I know it sounds kind of weird to people who don't know much or anything about psychology but I can generally tell the way your mind works when it comes to topics like this and it's not hard to understand the logic and I've explained it so many times and just by the way you post It's so obviously for anyone who's capable of thinking in depth(which everyone is).
Get back to either providing evidence to support your 9/11 claims, or admit that you have none.
What a joke. If you are going to make a claim, there is an entirely reasonable expectation that you must support that claim with evidence. The job to provide proof for your claim is all yours. It's not my job to do the research, it's yours. Get to it.But that won't register in your mind and you refuse to research it because you're sub-conscious mind WON'T ALLOW IT.