The untruther has been escorted from the premises.
Because, you see, it's my board. And yes, I am Dale Price, and I am painfully easy to find if you have a Michigan phone directory. Bonus info: I, like the rest of my family, adhere to an individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights, too. I find it ironic that an untruther gets all snarky about questions, but your mileage may vary.
But s/he left with a panicked squirt of pixels. OK, I had the nightstick in hand, but still. Note the pontificating blather with which s/he attempts to baptise his/her otherwise inexplicable passivity in the face of a hellish regime, and the long indictment of American society's (real) moral failures. Which are, of course, a shared concern for the Catholic untruther's hard-left associates.
You know--the ones driving untrutherism. You can lie down with whatever dogs you like. Just don't expect a big hug from the rest of us afterwards.
Here's the crux of the jib:
I find the ignoring of facts when they are presented to you in an open manner to be contemptible. Others are willing the talk over the points. What's the problem?
Ah, the truth. The "facts." Well, of course--who better to trust than anonymous folks who aren't expert in the relevant fields? Trouble is, what was offered weren't really "the facts." They aren't even tested theories. They are hypotheses fueled by unreason, conjecture and a corrosive irrational distrust coupled with a deficiency of real critical thinking skills. It ain't pretty. Want to see real critical thinking in action? Zach Frey manages it in one sentence:
An administration so competently evil as to pull off 9/11 as a Reichstag fire would surely have "found" a few more WMDs in Iraq as well.
I'll toss in a few more examples: the discovery of the wiretapping and CIA prisons by the New York Times. The massive conspiracy that a staged 9/11 requires would have far more people involved, and yet not a one has talked? Okay.
There's nothing to discuss. The illogic behind untrutherism is worthy of a Chick tract. No, wait--that's not fair to Mr. Chick. Some things are so absurd as to deserve no serious discussion. And I could really care less if--allegedly--the Ground Zero workers thought there was a government conspiracy involved. The truth is not subject to overturning by a majority vote. Likewise if veterans of the 4th Armored Division suddenly started saying "maybe there wasn't a Holocaust after all." The Holocaust happened regardless of what the ballot returns at Hutton Gibson's poker night are. Sadly, there's no point in having a discussion with untruthers, as they have demonstrated that their faith is not subject to disproof.
The facts are readily available to all, shiny-eyed and infidel. Leave it to my beloved late grandfather's favorite magazine to respond with this magisterial piece. For a broader treatment of the 9/11 claims in general, go here. The way critical thought is going, you probably ought to get the book-length version. For an examination of the functional insanity of conspiracy thinking, I strongly recommend this essay. [Big h/t to Mike Inman.] In short, there is a point where continuing to "ask questions" constitutes bad faith and culpable ignorance, and is corrosive of the very concept of objective truth.
Especially so when the questions have been definitively answered by witnesses and people in the know. Irrefutably so when the questioner's position depends upon a farrago of conjecture, fantasy and, yes, flat out lies ("melting steel," for God's sake). And metaphysically so when the questioner doesn't have the courage of his shoddy convictions to actually do anything about it except to anonymously to emit carbon dioxide. When the questioner is a follower of Christ...words fail.