BeAChooser

I'm not going to find your proof for you, TRUTHER. So in other words, your other comment was totally irrelevant and could be construed as deliberate obfuscation. And you know this how? Seems to me you've admitted you've never been involved in one. Did you get this nonsense of some silly 911Truther site? I'm rather surprised at your gullibility, kfools. Except the experts would tell you it isn't for many reasons, all of which were discussed over again and again in the years following 911, until the Truther movement faded into oblivion. Did you ever bother to listen to the experts before coming to your conclusion, kfools? I have no problem if you can show how the experts are wrong, kfools, but if you can't, you're behaving like a 911Truther, despite your denial about being one. You realize that, don't you? Wrong. You haven't provided ANY links or specific facts to support your belief despite repeated requests that you do so. And you've ignored the comments about the time it takes to set up a demolition and how difficult it would have been to do so after the planes hit the towers and with fires burning inside the building. That's evasion. You haven't used any logic here, kfools. NONE WHATSOEVER. What you've done is behave like a 911 Truther, a group of idiots who didn't have an ounce of logic to share amongst them. And yet, here you are.

This will only damage DemocRATS in the long run if sedition is charged. Otherwise, we'll be back where we started once Trump is out of office.

What did anyone expect after Hillary and Kerry ran it?

... MORON ... we're all wondering why you changed your screenname from pogorocks? And we're all wondering where you disappeared to for more than a year after Hillary's 2016 debacle? Just saying ...

Sadly, it's not going to be viewed as an attempted coup unless Barr/Durham/Horowitz charge people for sedition. If they don't, the Trump should bring in the military to do so ... to fix the justice system. Because this is the biggest threat to the country since it's founding. If Trump and company simply move on, then they'll be only one other group that can right this sinking ship. The And that will get bloody.

https://pjmedia.com/trending/the-real-mystery-about-caramella-and-vindman/ #ME TOO.

Hmmmmm. That statement seems to contradict your claim that WTC7 looks like a controlled demolition. Unless you're saying the buildings you blew up weren't controlled detonations. Maybe so since you said "I have never seen one no." So again, I'm back to asking you SPECIFICALLY why you believe this a controlled demolition? Can't you answer the question, kfools ... or is it just your *gut* feeling (Truthers have those a lot)? In fact, you don't seem to be able to have a coherent conversation about this topic at all. Just saying ...

"rotten" doesn't even begin to describe pogorocks.

PS, pogorocks ... I think this was written with you in mind ... https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/11/13/opinion-we-must-confront-climate-change-with-reason-rather-than-emotion/

Nah, pogorocks, we just want to know why you changed your screenname before attempting (probably futilely) to debate you further regarding AGWalarmism. That, and where you were for a whole year after Hillary's 2016 defeat.

Actually, Schiff stated that “We”, meaning he AND his associates in this scam, “have not spoken directly with the [BAC - so-called] whistleblower.” A spokesman for Schiff, Patrick Boland, went even further. He said “at no point did the committee review OR RECEIVE the complaint in advance. But WE know for a fact that Schiff’s aides did meet with Ciaramella prior to him contacting the ICIG, thus violating one of the major requirements for being a protect whistleblower. This contact was reported by the AP and others. The NY Times (a leftist source if there ever was one) even reported that Schiff knew more about the makings of Ciaramella’s complaint than he let on. Both Schiff and Ciaramella should be questioned under oath about his contact so that later their answer can be used against them during *their* trials.

Gee ... where'd tommy go? He's usually so ... verbose ... that is if you can call a 100 one-liners verbose.

And yet, *Dude*, here you are weighing in, trying to give some credence to the nonsense spouted by a 911Truther. Now you claimed that WTC7 looked like a controlled demolition ... suggesting you think you know what a controlled demolition looks like. Do you ... or don't you? And that's the attitude of a TRUTHER. And yet here you are. Perhaps not the towers, but you did express an opinion about WTC7, as if you know something about controlled demolitions or read something authoritative about them. So do you ... or don't you?

Well, we didn't until now. Which is why I'm trying to nip this in the bud before it spreads.

But doesn't it take weeks to prepare a building for that, kfools? Are you suggesting the people who pushed the button were behind the whole 911 attack ... just to give cover for pushing that button? And again, what specific evidence do you have to prove a demolition?