The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!

Comment: LOl

(See in situ)

In post: .
In reply to comment: He's a government troll (see in situ)


Ok, looks like it's time for more line by line.

Nobody who actually thinks for themselves believes a word he says.

Yes, because obviously everyone who thinks for themselves agrees with you, right? That's what thinking for yourself means after all.

IMHO I think he does a great job of making our case by showing how impossible it is to defend the "official story" which by the way was discounted by half of the people who actually WROTE IT.

Yes, because pointing out your factual inaccuracies and scientific inconsistencies while you fumble around bouncing from point to point is doing a really great job of making your case for you.

Of course Eric will not respond to this specific fact and will only attempt to change the subject... if he would even respond at all. I've challenged him to debate me multiple times but this disinformation crap doesn't work if you're not able to take your time and think about your replies to logical questions.

LOL oh please, which "specific" fact are you talking about? There have been how many floating around in these threads? Feel free to be specific and I'll be sure to bust you publicly. What was your point again?

Multiple times?! To debate? Using logic? I would seriously LOVE to do so. We could document each point, actually use real sources, fallacious points could be struck from the record... I'm getting excited just thinking about it. I'd certainly be down, though this is the first I'm hearing of such an offer. Maybe I missed these "multiple" offers in the past.

Logical questions denote logical answers. Eric Hoffer is devoid of logic... but please don't anyone make the mistake of thinking he's stupid.

Um... I don't think you're using the word denote correctly. Maybe you mean deserve? Or require? It would make more sense. How can you actually read this thread and say I'm "devoid" of logic. Please please please show me the logical inconsistencies that I have engaged in, quoted, and I would gladly clear up any misunderstanding you may have.

He's got some vested interest in the war on terror - quite obviously.

Yes, all of us small business owners who work with industrial equipment have a vested interest in the war on terror. In fact, for every innocent civilian we drone bomb in Pakistan, I make an extra $1,000! /sarcasm.

I'm pretty open about who I am and what I do. Heck, if you're out in the Livonia, MI area, you're welcome to come by shop and work with gas detection equipment with me.

That's a large list of people who would be defending the "official story" because it's padding their war profiteering bank accounts.

This still is inconsistent with my stated position on 9/11, being that it is possible that our government, or some actors or agencies within our government (it wouldn't require everyone), either purposely motivated, arranged for the attacks to happen, or allowed them to happen. I will say possible, but I don't think it as likely as it is that our bloated bureaucracy got in the way of obvious threat management and that our actions in the Middle East caused blowback. I'd say it IS highly likely that in the aftermath of the reports, people who should have known better covered their asses, lied, and falsified documentation to keep themselves from getting fired. That I can see for sure.

Controlled demolition however, is a completely different story and is completely implausible, given the situation and requirements logistically.

Eric Hoffer