Skeptic Project

@VTV You are now simply ignoring the information that is being given to you and repeating yourself claiming that we haven't given you any information. If this is going to be the extent of your debate this is not going to be going on much longer.

You just ignored my point and say someone edited your blog post. So, please explain to me how you will justify how someone edited your blog post? Oh wait, I pointed that out and you ignored it too. You still expect us to believe this naive or ignorant claim that someone edited your blog post. I am sorry, all of my experience says otherwise.

First of all, the reason people are saying "you have a agenda" is because in your own words you started at the start of this that you had a agenda and was going to find proof that was against the blog posters. And you tried to do so. And failed.

Then you tried to say you have emphatic proof but you basically made up some evidence that were not based on any actual proof of your own. You also drew up some "burden of proof" that were based on your own flawed understanding. Since there was no data for you to of been pulling from it further proved that your proof were contrived.

Many people in this thread including myself have linked you to various scientific proof that backed up our claims. You are simply ignoring them. (This I might add is something you would not be able to get away with in a verbal debate. Because you ignoring our points would be incredibly obvious. So instead I have say multiple times that you are either ignoring or conciously trying to pretend we didn't say because it does not bode well for your argument or agenda.

There are already scientific proof's that have been done that back up what we are suggesting. We linked them. you ignored them. Because it is better for you in this text based debate format to simply repeat that we never gave you any information then to acknowledge or do the work to review what we did link to you. In the hopes that nobody will notice that your ignoring it. It's a common debate tactic on internet forums and the reason I prefer voice chat debates. We also gave you an example of "proof" as to why no one edited your blog post. You brushed that off by saying the people giving the proof are not credible as if this somehow made their point irrelevant. Another thing you could not get away with in a voice chat debate as I would of called you on it right that very second. Instead people listening to this debate have to wade through all of this and hopefully pick up everything you missed or intentionally failed to address.

Again, you are either not reading what we are posting to you, or intentionally pretending we didn't give you the information we did. You just keep repeating yourself over and over again in this post saying something that is not true hoping people will believe it.

"If you repeat the lie often enough it becomes truth..."

*bangs...head...on...keyboard*

I AM GOING TO PUT THIS IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS AS FOR SOME REASON YOU HAVE MISSED IT EVERY TIME PEOPLE IN THIS THREAD OR MYSELF HAVE TOLD YOU OR PROVIDED YOU WITH PROOF. YOU CLAIM TO OF READ THE THREADS INSIDE HERE YET SOMEHOW YOU MISSED THE POINTS WE HAVE MADE. IF YOU HAD ACTUALLY READ THROUGH THE THREADS I RECOMMENDED YOU ALL OF THE PROOF YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND THIS IS PRESENTED BY ACADEMIC PROFESSIONALS IN THIS THREAD. WE GAVE YOU THE PROOF OF HOW NO ONE EDITED YOUR BLOG POSTS. YOU IGNORED THIS PROOF AND CONTINUE TO REPEAT YOURSELF.

"is classic conspiracy theorist thinking. Because desired result X cannot be proven not to have happened, then it must have happened, even though the preponderance of evidence clearly indicated that it was Y, not X, that actually happened."

Meurtos, it's actually supposed to be questionable when all the evidence you have for a given claim is something that could easily be altered or doctored.

As Brittany pinned on you guys earlier, you do not demand the same quality of evidence when you are attacking someone that you do from the truthers you are attacking.

If someone gave you an easily doctored statement by Dick Cheney that he plotted 911 you would just say it was easily doctored. Confirmation bias. Again. :)

As Paul Jones said: "Therefore VTV does has a fair point that we still can not 100% verify James Kush did not edit those comments."

VTV is fat, poor, and stupid.

The fact that VTV continues to defend himself even as the case is closed just demonstrates that he probably did it.

Can anyone 100% prove that VTV did not do 911?

Because if not, isn't it reasonable to think that perhaps VTV did in fact do 911?

He lies enough to cover it up so I think you might be right Matt, he also doesnt work so had enough time to plan it all and carry it out. He even has ties with politicians so he is clearly a government shill who is part of the elite.

Speaking of stupid people saying stupid things VTV:

Let us know when you get it

In fact, I vote to make voiceofreason467, VTV, Thunder and Peter Joseph as quad-leaders. It will make our job so much easier.

In his defense, he might have been working in the 7/11 store on that day.

7/11. 9/11. OH SHI-

building 7 on 11, 7+11=18, 1+8 =9 , 9 11, 7 wow he really did it

It's finally over.

I need popcorn - page 5 so far and it still cracks me up to see VTV responding which he said he won't do in his initial post.

I've only heard VTV deny he did it maybe 3 times. The rest of his posts consist mainly of "you can't prove I did it". This does not strike me as what an innocent person would focus on. If I were him, I would even be on the attack, trying to expose Kush as having edited my posts - maybe even demanding to see his emails as Kaiser mentioned. We see none of this from VTV. Instead, he is focused on "you can't prove I did it".

Just because there is a possibility that he has been framed, doesn't mean we should disregard all the blatant evidence implicating him. Seeing Kush's emails would be more conclusive, but this is pretty damning and certain already.

Bump.

Just to recap...

CS says he did it. We have hard evidence.

VTV says the posts COULD have been edited, but cannot prove they were, thus making almost certainly guilty.