repentantandy wrote:Brian, I just listened to the (remarkably even-handed and informative) audio interview you did with Simon, and I don't recall anywhere that you derided Phil as a "gatekeeper," yet this is the accusation, IIRC, that he initially cited when he began to fill the chat board with invective against you.
OTOH, you've been saying, over here, that Phil went ballistic because you didn't asnwer his phone calls for three days.
Prior to the bust-up, did you ever call Phil a gatekeeper?
yankee451 wrote:repentantandy wrote:
I have never paid much attention to any radio programs, they're just not my thing, but I listened to the Shack interview and to me it sounded like Brian and Cookie were fawning over the guy;

simonshack wrote:yankee451 wrote:repentantandy wrote:
I have never paid much attention to any radio programs, they're just not my thing, but I listened to the Shack interview and to me it sounded like Brian and Cookie were fawning over the guy;
Yankee 451, hello!
I am "the guy" you mention above. Why don't you just contact me by e-mail and share your thoughts with me ("the guy")?
My e-mail is : simonshack@libero.it
We might actually make some progress towards 9/11 truth, just by exchanging our best research material !
yankee451 wrote:simonshack wrote:
Thanks Simon but I have little to exchange beyond what I have already offered. You have declared none of the photographic evidence is real, therefore I don't really know what more there is to discuss.
simonshack wrote:yankee451 wrote:simonshack wrote:
Thanks Simon but I have little to exchange beyond what I have already offered. You have declared none of the photographic evidence is real, therefore I don't really know what more there is to discuss.
Ok, so if you don't know what more there is to discuss, why are you even here discussing?
If I were you, I would naturally tackle/disprove/debunk the countless issues that this forum has proposed. To this day, not ONE person has done so. Will you be the first?
You may start here (I have even given this little thread containing a handful of our findings a most provocative title):
UNDEBUNKABLE SEPCLUES viewtopic.php?f=21&t=961
Good luck. Once you are done debunking the issues in that thread, you will be asked to debunk a ton of other material. Are you ready for this?
yankee451 wrote:
Undebunkable? Sure, it's easy to label it undebunkable when you won't address your mistakes.
Please point out the mistakes- NOW. Don't be lazy.
If you don't start doing so in your next post, I will say goodbye to you.
yankee451 wrote:
I couldn't care less.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest