Again, your ignorant word salads aren't worth wasting the time to fully read.<quoted text>Sorry pal, not interested in the same propaganda that got you into this sorry state of affairs: a Canadian who apparently cares so much about the U.S. Government fairy tale-version of 9/11 that he is willing to spend all day making a fool of himself on their behalf.
Here's a list of media sources I consider reliable, at least to the extent that I'm aware they do the most fact-checking, have the most valid history of reporting news whether or not it agrees with the preferred government version of events, and actually care about their reputation for journalistic integrity:
The New York Times
Now, if you can post me some links to some NYT articles that somehow "debunk" 9/11 Truth, I'll be happy to click on them and comment on them.
But I'm not the YouTubed, Blogspotted, SuperPAC-sponsored baby bird you think I am, PH. I am literally so much smarter than you, the only analogy that comes to mind is that you are the Barney Fife to my Andy Taylor.
You take 9/11 Truth debate to such a low-level of evidence-ignoring snivelry, intellectual cowardice, ill-humored jokes, poorly-considered counterarguments, and juvenile asshattery, that you are, without question, the best evidence I could possibly present that Anti-Truthers may actually be retarded.
Now, gimme that bullet.
If the best you can do is reference a self debunking newspaper article perhaps you should look for a hobby that doesn't require thinking.
Maybe remedial basket weaving. At least then you wouldn't have to lie about being a productive member of society.