Quote Originally Posted by Crocodile View Post
Well, you don't have to and, to tell the truth, there's no way I could make you to.

However, consider that I posted my reply 23 minutes after you posted yours. So, even if you assume I read your post right after you published it and it took me no time to write mine, you still believe it only took me 23 minutes to visit all 7 links you posted and read/watch them all, carefully picking up the only context that would convey my biased opinion... I must be a super-researching-hero, must I not?
No, I don't think you took even 5 minutes to visit any of those sites.

I figured you chose to focus on the mainstream link and pick out a 'view' that supports your bias.

Btw, one of the other links is collected from an article by a Toronto newspaper editor.

The main point I was trying to make is that after examining all the reports, evidence, first-hand accounts and various perspectives, it's obvious to me, that there is some sort of coverup and potential for a false flag event to have occurred.

So, I question your motives and bias when you single out a quote and perspective from some Israeli historian who concurs with official reports. Is it feasible that academics and official investigators will most likely side with the Government accounts?

I think it's reasonable to be skeptical of such opinions when the available evidence seems to be at odds with the official story. I likened the situation to 9/11. When you look at all the discrepancies and inconsistencies of the NIST reports, then it should be natural to have a double take. Instead, most people will ignore it and concentrate on what supports their bias.

So, out of 20 odd minutes that you supposedly took to go over those links, why choose a source that has no direct connection to the event? 'Peculiar.