Capstone
Gold Member
- Feb 14, 2012
- 5,502
- 952
- 290
What holes? The audio has been mispresented by people who claim coverup. You haven't argued anything. You are basically saying you aren't interested in the real details of the audio, which proves the man in question was a dispatcher.
There are lies, not holes. Put it this way, people like yourself are not willing to do what it takes to really get at the truth and expose the people who are really suppressing it. There can't be a real search for the truth when those claiming to seek it are lying about crucial evidence.
As stated in the paragraph conveniently left out of your response to me: "It doesn't matter whether their counter-arguments are true or not; what matters is that their explanations echo the official narrative and will accordingly be spread throughout the mainstream, while anything running counter to that narrative will continue to be portrayed as the fodder of nutters, anarchists, and traitors. That's just the reality of the world through which we have to navigate with appropriate discretion."
Of course the misrepresentation of evidence matters, but it's a reality we have to learn to live with, primarily because it's not going away. Point it out, by all means, but don't hang your entire case on it, because the mindless drones that take their marching orders from mainstream sources aren't going to be compelled by the likes of you.
If the 9/11 truth movement has demonstrated anything, it's that the most compelling cases have highlighted the absurdity of the official narrative en totale, simply by presenting it chronologically with sufficient documentation to hamper the efforts of debunkers.
For example:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuC_4mGTs98]9/11: A Conspiracy Theory - YouTube[/ame]
That's less than five minutes of tongue-in-cheek truth that's been viewed more than two million times in just over two and a half years.
I'd love to see Corbett do a similarly satirical video on the official narrative of the Sandy Hook travesty.