Acknowledging that 9/11 truth concerns are supported by a lot of mainstream sources would be one example.
Because the Washington Post quoted some bystander as saying something that could, by someone in the right frame of mind, be interpreted as a 9/11 truth concern doesn't mean that 9/11 truth concerns are supported by mainstream sources.
From your approach to the first few items, you have no intention of doing so.
I won't acknowledge outright bullshit. Saying that Operation Northwoods and the pilot to a TV show are "smoking guns" that our government "did" 9/11 is BULLSHIT.
Non-truthers here have also strenuously objected to candidates even calling for a new probe, despite polls showing that has wide support.
Here's the problem. Ask the average respondent to those polls WHY they want a new investigation and you will get a dramatically different story than if you ask a hardcore truther why they want a new investigation. Calling for a new investigation is mainstream, and I've seen many politicians call for one in their campaigns (my own congresswoman, Kirsten Gilligrand, being one of them), but to somehow lump these people in with truthers because of this vague similarity is disingenuous.
Give it up, Nathan. YOU must present proofs on YOUR side, not just respond to (vaguely dismiss) evidence others have already presented.
Two things. First, I have no side. I'm agnostic about 9/11. You're the one with the beliefs. Second, I haven't vaguely dismissed anything. If I've dismissed something you said, I have made myself crystal clear as to why - and if I haven't, please point to where, and I will gladly clarify. If you have a problem with my dismissal, please, address my stated reasons for the dismissal, but don't attempt to write me off as unwilling to talk about the issue.
I'm leaving it to members here to look at the url cited and judge for themselves how reasonable 9-11 truth concerns are---not jump through the hoops of someone with a closed mind.
Assuming you're (erroniously) speaking of me as the person with the closed mind, what hoops am I asking people to jump through? (Ironic, as jumping through hoops was the very criticism I leveled at you in my previous post - and you failed to address).
Not to sound like a broken record here, but to say it for a third time, I would love for you to point out how the items in that URL are "smoking guns".
You've mentioned your other issues with Ventura, but back to my last point, which was about the singular emphasis.Since there are 6-7 potential major problems with a Sanford candidacy, and 3-4 problems with Johnson, why are people here most upset over one issue with Ventura?
You seem to be comparing Sanfords supposed 6-7 problems with Johnson's supposed 3-4 problems and then saying that Ventura has only one problem. That's not true. Ventura has many problems. As you admit, I've criticized Ventura for his other flaws as well. I started with the 9/11 issue because it ALONE is enough to derail his candidacy, but that does not diminish Ventura's other liabilities, which are just as serious as the supposed liabilities leveled against the other potential liberty candidates.
Are there moles here trying to drumbeat us into backing the wrong horse?
Yes. You got us. We're all Bilderberg plants. Quick, CFR allies, back to Bohemian Grove in the black helicopters!
We would've gotten away with it too if it weren't for you dastardly Ventura supporters!