It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by bsbray11
Snoopy I really want you to look at this link carefully before I respond to you anymore:
42 informal logical fallacies
We'll be talking about one thing, and I'll respond, and you'll respond again with something that completely contradicts what your originally said, or abandons your original point.
Here's an example:
Originally posted by snoopy
NIST didn't test for residue because it would not be possible.
You were just asking me where the evidence of explosives was, and now you say that it wouldn't really even be possible to test for them.
It's hard to really discuss anything intelligently with someone who can't remember what they just said in their last post.
Originally posted by snoopy
Do you understand now? Or are you going to pretend that I am changing the subject which is a complete lie?
4- Squibs..EVERY expert has come out to agree these are not FLUMES or Squibs, but air, dust and debris.
Originally posted by snoopy
NIST has stated that they found no such evidence what so ever. So of course they aren't going to test for residue because it would be completely and utterly pointless.