Reply #3: You just posted from that same old biased Gov't report. No WTC stuff.

[Abe Linkman]

All you did was quote from a Gov't "report" that isn't objective or credible.

Obviously, you can't rebut what he says about the Pentagon events...and though most reasonable people would say that if the Gov't is lying about THAT, then they're probably lying about the rest of the 9/11 events.

However; in the interest of allowing you to redeem yourself, I'd like to invite you to try and rebut the arguments and conclusions Mr. Spencer makes about the WTC "attacks". And, do try to aim for something more than your usual minor detail. Which reminds me: The "Truth Ministry"
must use a lawyer to train student agents in how to argue, because all we get from them here is what you'd expect at a criminal trial -- a clever defense lawyer propounding an-often irrelevant little detail in hopes of influencing at least one juror to have enough doubt that s/he will vote "not guilty." That strategy works in a criminal defense case, but it doesn't work here, because at best, you will only influence ONE single DU reader, and that isn't enough to "win". You only need to convince ONE juror in a criminal trial, and you win your case, but not so here. You'll need to convince a lot more than just one person. And to do that, agents need an effective methodology for how to rebut an argument, not merely how to raise one irrelevant, minor detail and magnify it's importance out of all proportion to its worth as evidence of a theory.