Advertisement
Not a member of Pastebin yet?
Sign Up,
it unlocks many cool features!
- Lesta Nediam LNC2017-08-17 0910 +kam1k4ze gg
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kSIlKqPYt8&lc=z23medtiik3bhpdji04t1aokgzfappbytxkiimpwa3kvrk0h00410
- https://pastebin.com/jLwViX7T
- __
- +kam1k4ze gg __ I am not sure I understand what you are saying. Without "sufficient proof" we should not assert _as a fact about reality_ that something did or did not happen. In the presentation I used footage of "Building 7" collapsing as an example of "sufficient proof". The *absence* and *obscuring* of "sufficient proof" is what enables people to rationally doubt events and claims - including those that are genuine. Which conclusions of mine do you think could be wrong? Are you suggesting that perhaps "Building 7" _didn't_ collapse?!
- ____________________________________________________________
- My name is Lesta Nediam and I am cracking reality like a nut.
- Lesta on YouTube
- https://www.youtube.com/c/LestaNediamHQ
- Lesta on Twitter
- https://twitter.com/lestanediam
- Lesta on Google Plus
- https://plus.google.com/+LestaNediamHQ
- What does not exist - exists to exist.
- What exists - exists to always exist.
- As it is written - so it is done.
Advertisement
Add Comment
Please, Sign In to add comment
Advertisement