9/11 Debate: Jon Gold V.S. Pat Curley Part Two

[ozbazra1960]

pat curley has only been looking into 911 since 2006 and was only prompted by an aversion to seeing the unseemly side of american politics, an attitude that comes through loud and clear. if he's not being paid for his 'debunking' maybe he should apply for govt funding.

[JPPolachek]

Its so obvious that none of the "Truthers" were ever part of Debate club in school, LOL, they dont have the first clue on how a debate works. Ive never seen a Truther put a logic, formed argument together. Whenever you nail one with evidence or points of logic they fall back on there tired cliches. Such as, "The Gov lies about everything, and you believe them", or "Do some research, you dont know the facts,,ext.. So lame guys, common, they never answer the questions posed to them. Pointless

[danogzilla]

@JPPolachek how did an asymmetrical fire create the symmetrical and synchronized collapse of every support column in wtc building 7?

[queerbuzz]

The more I hear the debunkers the more serious I take the conspricacy theoies.

[grozlz]

Wow Nico Haupt, the one and only! I'm honored to be in your LSD induced presence!

[gamingeh]

Looks like Jon Gold is trying to set up Strawman arguments...

Pitiful.

[grozlz]

pat speculates, thats all he does.

jon is right 'quantity != quality'