Twoofer Strategy

[Gamolon]

This is funny:

Let's Roll Forums - View Single Post - 911 and Child Psychology

The Laws of Physics are incapable of giving a damn about Conspiracy Theories.

In fact the Laws of Physics are incapable of giving a damn about the human race.

So when is an engineering school going to build a physical model that can be completely destroyed by the fall of its top 15% or less?

psik

I noticed you posted this video before. Here is a screen capture.

Can you explain something to me? Why are the column supports BENEATH the floors in that model shown above? Neither the perimeter columns nor the core columns were DIRECTLY beneath the floors. The floor were held by trusses which were attached to the INSIDE of the columns with angles shown in this next photo, circled in red.

So in reality, the load of the upper block comes down on the ANGLES supporting the floor trusses, NOT the vertical columns themselves. That is why we see the perimeter columns peeling away like banana peels and falling to the side as the upper mass sheared the truss connections on the INSIDE of the perimeter columns.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

someones life is so pathetic that like clockwork,he has to resurrect and old dead thread of his for the attention he seeks around here which many truthers ignorantly give him.

 

[Patriot911]

someones life is so pathetic that like clockwork,he has to resurrect and old dead thread of his for the attention he seeks around here which many truthers ignorantly give him.

And like clockwork, truthtard trolls come out from under their pathetic bridges to try and seem intelligent, but fail miserably. I don't think I've ever seen you make an actual claim that makes sense. No small wonder when you have your head up all the other truthtards' asses trying to suck up to them!

 

[LA RAM FAN]

You agent trolls are so pathetic in your ramblings Parrot that you you constantly come on here and show what dumbfucks you are ignoring that all protocals were violated that day and evidence destroyed and confiscated and removed, yet nobody got fired and lost their jobs but instead got promoted for their incomptence.gee I wish I could have a job like that getting PROMOTED for making a serious mistake.

You agent dumbfucks obviously get paid well by your handlers coming on here for your ass beatings you constantly get here with your pathetic ramblings you make up to avoid these evidence and facts.

you trolls can only sling shit in defeat over this everytime.

 

[JiggsCasey]

inside, despite your considerable work and ambition with MIHOP theory, you really need to embrace LIHOP instead. Focus your energies.

it's the far-more court-admissible case, and the coincidence theorists have absolutely no honest response for why the money trail was never actually followed into the greatest crime in U.S. history.

when you're done playing ping-pong with them, and their perpetual witness vs. witness stall game, we'll be over here waiting for ya! ... They can't counter LIHOP. Never could.

Think of it this way: Everyone knows Capone murdered lots of people. but they could never get him on it. Instead, they got him on tax evasion, which he also committed. And really, what's the difference? He still rotted in prison.

 

[candycorn]

inside, despite your considerable work and ambition with MIHOP theory, you really need to embrace LIHOP instead. ...

it's the far-more court-admissible case, and the coincitards have absolutely no honest response for why the money trail was never actually followed into the greatest crime in U.S. history.

when you're done playing ping-pong with them, and their perpetual witness vs. witness stall job, we'll be over here waiting for ya! ... They can't counter LIHOP. Never could.

At least you're a consistent retard; Rimjob embraces whatever the theory du jour is.

 

[JiggsCasey]

At least you're a consistent retard; Rimjob embraces whatever the theory du jour is.

I'll bet you right now you could not manage to debate LIHOP without resorting to infantile behavior like this above. Wanna try?

 

[candycorn]

At least you're a consistent retard; Rimjob embraces whatever the theory du jour is.

I'll bet you right now you could not manage to debate LIHOP without resorting to infantile behavior like this above. Wanna try?

Sure. Your move.

 

[JiggsCasey]

At least you're a consistent retard; Rimjob embraces whatever the theory du jour is.

I'll bet you right now you could not manage to debate LIHOP without resorting to infantile behavior like this above. Wanna try?

Sure. Your move.

Excellent.

I'd like to establish a few easy-to-satisfy conditions first for both of us. Nothing that should hinder your ability to present your argument, nor counter mine, ... but instead for the benefit of basic civil discourse and intellectual honesty.

• no personal attacks whatsoever. ... not even vague allusions to personal insinuation. Not that we both aren't quite talented at insulting the other, but just to cut through the endless loop of "you're gay/nazi/retarded" nonsense and stay focused.
• no straw man creation. ... along those lines, agree to read each other's prose very carefully, and only remark on what's been presented, not what one of us THINKS or extrapolates what the other must therefore believe.
• no partisan, small-time, private blogs can be used to buoy position. ... Metro daily news sites are preferred, but columns from reputable news sites, even if ideological, are acceptable. For example, I'll accept Fox and Weekly Standard links from you, and you accept Slate or Nation from me.
• we both agree to at least speed read each other's presented link, and get the basics down... if not read it entirely, on good faith.
• we both agree that evidence is not necessarily proof, and can tell the distinction.
• that the burden for me is to show that a new enquiry is ethically warranted. ... not necessarily to provide a conviction.

Just as I've asked of you, I'll listen to any conditions you may have as well.

If we've agreed, I'll create a thread on the topic in the coming days. Fair?

 

[candycorn]

I'll bet you right now you could not manage to debate LIHOP without resorting to infantile behavior like this above. Wanna try?

Sure. Your move.

Excellent.

I'd like to establish a few easy-to-satisfy conditions first for both of us. Nothing that should hinder your ability to present your argument, nor counter mine, ... but instead for the benefit of basic civil discourse and intellectual honesty.

• no personal attacks whatsoever. ... not even vague allusions to personal insinuation. Not that we both aren't quite talented at insulting the other, but just to cut through the endless loop of "you're gay/nazi/retarded" nonsense and stay focused.
• no straw man creation. ... along those lines, agree to read each other's prose very carefully, and only remark on what's been presented, not what one of us THINKS or extrapolates what the other must therefore believe.
• no partisan, small-time, private blogs can be used to buoy position. ... Metro daily news sites are preferred, but columns from reputable news sites, even if ideological, are acceptable. For example, I'll accept Fox and Weekly Standard links from you, and you accept Slate or Nation from me.

  Rejected because of the subjective nature of "partisan" "small time" and what is called "reputable"

• we both agree to at least speed read each other's presented link, and get the basics down... if not read it entirely, on good faith.

  Agree in principle--see my list below

• we both agree that evidence is not necessarily proof, and can tell the distinction.
• that the burden for me is to show that a new enquiry is ethically warranted. ... not necessarily to provide a conviction.

Rejected because this is nothing new; 9 years have passed; you need to start proving something not just making a "jilted lover's" case. Make your case, I do promise to read every word but the bar is going to be set much higher than "ethically warranted" whatever the hell that means.

My list of demands on the rules of debate:

• Links are to be to specific webpages; i.e. I can't point you to cnn.com as my source.
• I move we do not link anything; just cite the source with a website address if applicable but it must include the aurthor's name in your citation (no he said, she said) and when they said it at the very least. I'm envisioning a bibliography; just like you did in European Literature your Freshman year.
• No videos of any kind, all arguments must be made in either your or my words only
• 3 Post limit; You present, I respond, You counter, I counter; summations from us both. Just like most testimony in courts of law are handled (testimony, cross, re-direct, re-cross, closing arguments)
• 3 Day Time Limit. So if you start on Sunday, I have the rest of Sunday, Monday, and most of the day on Tuesday to cross. If I don't respond by Wednesday, I concede. When I respond on Tuesday, you get the balance of Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday for Re-Direct. Then I have until Saturday for re-cross. I'm flexible on this one.
• If the thread you create is corrupted by ANY other poster, absolutely no comment is made by either of us pro/con, favor/unfavor, good/bad about the post. It doesn't exist in that thread. Now you can quote it in another thread...like this one for example...but for the debate purposes, you get 3 posts, I get 3 posts; no more, no less.
• I'm going on vacation yet again (audit AAR will be done on 4/13) between 4/15 and 4/25; I'll giv eyou until 4/26 to start the ball rolling if the intervening 2 weeks is not enough time. Frankly after the 25th will work better for me.

Just as I've asked of you, I'll listen to any conditions you may have as well.

If we've agreed, I'll create a thread on the topic in the coming days. Fair?

See objections in quoted areas above. Where the text is not in red, I agree to your bullet point.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

I'll bet you right now you could not manage to debate LIHOP without resorting to infantile behavior like this above. Wanna try?

Sure. Your move.

Excellent.

I'd like to establish a few easy-to-satisfy conditions first for both of us. Nothing that should hinder your ability to present your argument, nor counter mine, ... but instead for the benefit of basic civil discourse and intellectual honesty.

• no personal attacks whatsoever. ... not even vague allusions to personal insinuation. Not that we both aren't quite talented at insulting the other, but just to cut through the endless loop of "you're gay/nazi/retarded" nonsense and stay focused.
• no straw man creation. ... along those lines, agree to read each other's prose very carefully, and only remark on what's been presented, not what one of us THINKS or extrapolates what the other must therefore believe.
• no partisan, small-time, private blogs can be used to buoy position. ... Metro daily news sites are preferred, but columns from reputable news sites, even if ideological, are acceptable. For example, I'll accept Fox and Weekly Standard links from you, and you accept Slate or Nation from me.
• we both agree to at least speed read each other's presented link, and get the basics down... if not read it entirely, on good faith.
• we both agree that evidence is not necessarily proof, and can tell the distinction.
• that the burden for me is to show that a new enquiry is ethically warranted. ... not necessarily to provide a conviction.

Just as I've asked of you, I'll listen to any conditions you may have as well.

If we've agreed, I'll create a thread on the topic in the coming days. Fair?

your making a mistake.everybody that debates with him finds out that when he cant refute evidence and facts,he breaks down and gets angry and starts calling you names.Plus he is just a troll seeking attention.he goes to several message boards and posts his disinformation and changes the subject to evade the evidence.thats why so many people here are ignorant to reply to him cause they are just giving him the attention he seeks.This troll goes to SEVERAL message boards posting his lies and propaganda.the point is all mute.its the evidence is ovewhelming that it was an inside job as I proved,they know it and can only sling shit in defeat. after all have YOU ever had a job where you got PROMOTED for a major incompetence screwup and ever tried to destroy evidence at a crime scene without going to jail? the trolls here can only sling shit in defeat like the monkeys they are,they cant get around that.

 

[JiggsCasey]

Sure. Your move.

Excellent.

I'd like to establish a few easy-to-satisfy conditions first for both of us. Nothing that should hinder your ability to present your argument, nor counter mine, ... but instead for the benefit of basic civil discourse and intellectual honesty.

• no personal attacks whatsoever. ... not even vague allusions to personal insinuation. Not that we both aren't quite talented at insulting the other, but just to cut through the endless loop of "you're gay/nazi/retarded" nonsense and stay focused.
• no straw man creation. ... along those lines, agree to read each other's prose very carefully, and only remark on what's been presented, not what one of us THINKS or extrapolates what the other must therefore believe.
• no partisan, small-time, private blogs can be used to buoy position. ... Metro daily news sites are preferred, but columns from reputable news sites, even if ideological, are acceptable. For example, I'll accept Fox and Weekly Standard links from you, and you accept Slate or Nation from me.
• we both agree to at least speed read each other's presented link, and get the basics down... if not read it entirely, on good faith.
• we both agree that evidence is not necessarily proof, and can tell the distinction.
• that the burden for me is to show that a new enquiry is ethically warranted. ... not necessarily to provide a conviction.

My list of demands on the rules of debate:

• Links are to be to specific webpages; i.e. I can't point you to cnn.com as my source.
• I move we do not link anything; just cite the source with a website address if applicable but it must include the aurthor's name in your citation (no he said, she said) and when they said it at the very least. I'm envisioning a bibliography; just like you did in European Literature your Freshman year.
• No videos of any kind, all arguments must be made in either your or my words only
• 3 Post limit; You present, I respond, You counter, I counter; summations from us both. Just like most testimony in courts of law are handled (testimony, cross, re-direct, re-cross, closing arguments)
• 3 Day Time Limit. So if you start on Sunday, I have the rest of Sunday, Monday, and most of the day on Tuesday to cross. If I don't respond by Wednesday, I concede. When I respond on Tuesday, you get the balance of Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday for Re-Direct. Then I have until Saturday for re-cross. I'm flexible on this one.
• If the thread you create is corrupted by ANY other poster, absolutely no comment is made by either of us pro/con, favor/unfavor, good/bad about the post. It doesn't exist in that thread. Now you can quote it in another thread...like this one for example...but for the debate purposes, you get 3 posts, I get 3 posts; no more, no less.
• I'm going on vacation yet again (audit AAR will be done on 4/13) between 4/15 and 4/25; I'll giv eyou until 4/26 to start the ball rolling if the intervening 2 weeks is not enough time. Frankly after the 25th will work better for me.

Just as I've asked of you, I'll listen to any conditions you may have as well.

If we've agreed, I'll create a thread on the topic in the coming days. Fair?

See objections in quoted areas above. Where the text is not in red, I agree to your bullet point.

No then. We need further negotiation.

Your rejection of the final condition means you're already trying to define the debate parameter for me, leaving it possible for you to just continue to say "that doesn't prove Cheney did it!! i'm not convinced!!" over and over again.

I am not a prosecutor with access to classified documents, and you're not a defense attorney. There is no judge and no jury here to declare a victor anyway. My only claim in this whole thing is that an investigation was never really conducted, relevant questions were never asked, and a new independent inquiry is fully warranted. Only THEN, with witness testimony, under oath, could we get to the meat of the case against Cheney. LIHOP "theory" insists they knew it was coming, and did nothing to stop it, and in fact greased the skids for the attacks to finish. No claims of controlled demolition, or missiles.

If you're unwilling to accept that very specific challenge, then I suppose we'll just agree to disagree, and we can all wonder why you wouldn't agree to such a challenge. Besides, according the coincidence theory, that burden should be hard enough for me to attain. You guys don't believe the case should even be allowed to be looked into further.

 

[candycorn]

Excellent.

I'd like to establish a few easy-to-satisfy conditions first for both of us. Nothing that should hinder your ability to present your argument, nor counter mine, ... but instead for the benefit of basic civil discourse and intellectual honesty.

• no personal attacks whatsoever. ... not even vague allusions to personal insinuation. Not that we both aren't quite talented at insulting the other, but just to cut through the endless loop of "you're gay/nazi/retarded" nonsense and stay focused.
• no straw man creation. ... along those lines, agree to read each other's prose very carefully, and only remark on what's been presented, not what one of us THINKS or extrapolates what the other must therefore believe.
• no partisan, small-time, private blogs can be used to buoy position. ... Metro daily news sites are preferred, but columns from reputable news sites, even if ideological, are acceptable. For example, I'll accept Fox and Weekly Standard links from you, and you accept Slate or Nation from me.
• we both agree to at least speed read each other's presented link, and get the basics down... if not read it entirely, on good faith.
• we both agree that evidence is not necessarily proof, and can tell the distinction.
• that the burden for me is to show that a new enquiry is ethically warranted. ... not necessarily to provide a conviction.

Just as I've asked of you, I'll listen to any conditions you may have as well.

If we've agreed, I'll create a thread on the topic in the coming days. Fair?

See objections in quoted areas above. Where the text is not in red, I agree to your bullet point.

No then. We need further negotiation.

Your rejection of the final condition means you're already trying to define the debate parameter for me, leaving it possible for you to just continue to say "that doesn't prove Cheney did it!! i'm not convinced!!" over and over again.

Pot meet kettle.

You, in fact, were doing the same thing with your "ethically warranted" plank. Its a pathetically low standard to achieve.

I am not a prosecutor with access to classified documents, and you're not a defense attorney. There is no judge and no jury here to declare a victor anyway. My only claim in this whole thing is that an investigation was never really conducted, relevant questions were never asked, and a new independent inquiry is fully warranted.

The FBI had an investigation.
Congress had hearings.
Then a Commission was set up to investigate further.

To date, not one inaccuracy has been brought to light on the major points of their findings. Not one.

Only THEN, with witness testimony, under oath, could we get to the meat of the case against Cheney.

Okay...I'll go on without you...please tell us what witness is going to flip when they are placed under oath? Whose story will change? Be specific.

LIHOP "theory" insists they knew it was coming, and did nothing to stop it, and in fact greased the skids for the attacks to finish. No claims of controlled demolition, or missiles.

Gee, you should try to convince the other retards before you take me on then because for them, its all about CD and missiles.

If you're unwilling to accept that very specific challenge, then I suppose we'll just agree to disagree, and we can all wonder why you wouldn't agree to such a challenge.

I'm not bringing a knife to a gunfight by accepting your "If I hit the ground after falling off a log" standard for victory. You've had 9 years to make your case for LIHOP, MIHOP, LOLLY POP, FLIP FLOP, or SUCK MY COCK. If you can't make your case after 9 years, perhaps you should come to the obvious conclusion that you ain't got a case.

Besides, according the coincidence theory, that burden should be hard enough for me to attain. You guys don't believe the case should even be allowed to be looked into further.

Look into it; nobody is stopping you. I invited you to a forum where you can prove it agreeing to most of your terms except for your "ethically warranted". I also think that the standards for source material were a bit open to interpretation. I clarified them suggesting that we simply use the MLA Guidelines--you DO know what those are do you not?

The record shows that you backed away; not I.

Good luck.

 

[candycorn]

Sure. Your move.

Excellent.

I'd like to establish a few easy-to-satisfy conditions first for both of us. Nothing that should hinder your ability to present your argument, nor counter mine, ... but instead for the benefit of basic civil discourse and intellectual honesty.

• no personal attacks whatsoever. ... not even vague allusions to personal insinuation. Not that we both aren't quite talented at insulting the other, but just to cut through the endless loop of "you're gay/nazi/retarded" nonsense and stay focused.
• no straw man creation. ... along those lines, agree to read each other's prose very carefully, and only remark on what's been presented, not what one of us THINKS or extrapolates what the other must therefore believe.
• no partisan, small-time, private blogs can be used to buoy position. ... Metro daily news sites are preferred, but columns from reputable news sites, even if ideological, are acceptable. For example, I'll accept Fox and Weekly Standard links from you, and you accept Slate or Nation from me.
• we both agree to at least speed read each other's presented link, and get the basics down... if not read it entirely, on good faith.
• we both agree that evidence is not necessarily proof, and can tell the distinction.
• that the burden for me is to show that a new enquiry is ethically warranted. ... not necessarily to provide a conviction.

Just as I've asked of you, I'll listen to any conditions you may have as well.

If we've agreed, I'll create a thread on the topic in the coming days. Fair?

your making a mistake

Thanks for the compliment; by the way it's "you're", not "your" dipshit.

 

[eots]

YOUR A FAG...



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEbsgEsjy9s]YouTube - The Fag Bomb[/ame]

 

[candycorn]

eots=garbage

 

[JiggsCasey]

See objections in quoted areas above. Where the text is not in red, I agree to your bullet point.

No then. We need further negotiation.

Your rejection of the final condition means you're already trying to define the debate parameter for me, leaving it possible for you to just continue to say "that doesn't prove Cheney did it!! i'm not convinced!!" over and over again.

Pot meet kettle.

You, in fact, were doing the same thing with your "ethically warranted" plank. Its a pathetically low standard to achieve.


The FBI had an investigation.
Congress had hearings.
Then a Commission was set up to investigate further.

To date, not one inaccuracy has been brought to light on the major points of their findings. Not one.


Okay...I'll go on without you...please tell us what witness is going to flip when they are placed under oath? Whose story will change? Be specific.


Gee, you should try to convince the other retards before you take me on then because for them, its all about CD and missiles.

If you're unwilling to accept that very specific challenge, then I suppose we'll just agree to disagree, and we can all wonder why you wouldn't agree to such a challenge.

I'm not bringing a knife to a gunfight by accepting your "If I hit the ground after falling off a log" standard for victory. You've had 9 years to make your case for LIHOP, MIHOP, LOLLY POP, FLIP FLOP, or SUCK MY COCK. If you can't make your case after 9 years, perhaps you should come to the obvious conclusion that you ain't got a case.

Besides, according the coincidence theory, that burden should be hard enough for me to attain. You guys don't believe the case should even be allowed to be looked into further.

Look into it; nobody is stopping you. I invited you to a forum where you can prove it agreeing to most of your terms except for your "ethically warranted". I also think that the standards for source material were a bit open to interpretation. I clarified them suggesting that we simply use the MLA Guidelines--you DO know what those are do you not?

The record shows that you backed away; not I.

Good luck.

Actually, I challenged you, not the other way around. And, I didn't back away at all, I put it up for further negotiation when you weren't willing to accept the burden level.

Regardless, as I predicted, you were completely unable to debate the topic without resorting to insecure personal vitriol, calling me a "retard" once again.

I win the bet, not that there was any doubt. You are completely unable to debate without personal attack. That, right there, is a starting point that puts you perpetually behind.

To recap:

I'll bet you right now you could not manage to debate LIHOP without resorting to infantile behavior like this above. Wanna try?

Sure. Your move.

...

Gee, you should try to convince the other retards before you take me on then because for them, its all about CD and missiles.
...
You've had 9 years to make your case for LIHOP, MIHOP, LOLLY POP, FLIP FLOP, or SUCK MY COCK.

Easiest bet ever.

 

[candycorn]

No then. We need further negotiation.

Your rejection of the final condition means you're already trying to define the debate parameter for me, leaving it possible for you to just continue to say "that doesn't prove Cheney did it!! i'm not convinced!!" over and over again.

Pot meet kettle.

You, in fact, were doing the same thing with your "ethically warranted" plank. Its a pathetically low standard to achieve.


The FBI had an investigation.
Congress had hearings.
Then a Commission was set up to investigate further.

To date, not one inaccuracy has been brought to light on the major points of their findings. Not one.


Okay...I'll go on without you...please tell us what witness is going to flip when they are placed under oath? Whose story will change? Be specific.


Gee, you should try to convince the other retards before you take me on then because for them, its all about CD and missiles.


I'm not bringing a knife to a gunfight by accepting your "If I hit the ground after falling off a log" standard for victory. You've had 9 years to make your case for LIHOP, MIHOP, LOLLY POP, FLIP FLOP, or SUCK MY COCK. If you can't make your case after 9 years, perhaps you should come to the obvious conclusion that you ain't got a case.

Besides, according the coincidence theory, that burden should be hard enough for me to attain. You guys don't believe the case should even be allowed to be looked into further.

Look into it; nobody is stopping you. I invited you to a forum where you can prove it agreeing to most of your terms except for your "ethically warranted". I also think that the standards for source material were a bit open to interpretation. I clarified them suggesting that we simply use the MLA Guidelines--you DO know what those are do you not?

The record shows that you backed away; not I.

Good luck.

I didn't back away at all, I put it up for further negotiation.

Regardless, as I predicted, you were completely unable to debate the topic without resorting to insecure personal vitriol, calling me a "retard" once again.

I win the bet, not that there was any doubt.

The record clearly shows that you said you'd start a thread where the stipulations would be in effect. Since the thread never started, the stipulations do not exist--sort of like any evidence of LIHOP. Also; you yourself said, "further negotiation", not 'debate started'.

I made the last proposal; your turn to counter; I'm guessing you're now going to claim some victory (laughs). Whatever gets you through the night.

I'm guessing you'll also ignore the challenge:

Okay...I'll go on without you...please tell us what witness is going to flip when they are placed under oath? Whose story will change? Be specific.

Don't worry, everybody I debate on 9/11 gets their ass handed to them; why do you think rimjob won't debate anybody ever again?

 

[JiggsCasey]

The record clearly shows that you said you'd start a thread where the stipulations would be in effect. Since the thread never started, the stipulations do not exist--sort of like any evidence of LIHOP. Also; you yourself said, "further negotiation", not 'debate started'.

I made the last proposal; your turn to counter; I'm guessing you're now going to claim some victory (laughs). Whatever gets you through the night.

I'm guessing you'll also ignore the challenge:

Okay...I'll go on without you...please tell us what witness is going to flip when they are placed under oath? Whose story will change? Be specific.

Don't worry, everybody I debate on 9/11 gets their ass handed to them; why do you think rimjob won't debate anybody ever again?

For some reason, you appear to be a very excitable individual.

When you're ready to calm down, debate with some semblance of respect, and lose the condescension, we can get started.

The bet, from the start, was for you to debate without resorting to insult. You lost. I can play that game also, but it gets no one anywhere. But I'm willing to see if you can make it 1-1.

The challenge was for me to show how a new investigation is entirely warranted. For you to claim no inconsistency was ever found in the first "investigation" shows this is going to be an easy game.

I'm ready to proceed when you're ready to calm down. If you'd prefer to wait until you're more relaxed after your vacation, that is also fine.

 

[BrianH]

The problem with a new investigation is that truthers will not be satisfied with the "investigation" unless it is done by truthers themselves. If done by anyone else, truthers will claim that they are government puppets.