# Can OCTAs Provide Positive Evidence Flt 77 Was Hijacked?



## CurveLight (Dec 9, 2009)

That's it.  Very clear and very simple.  While looking for positive evidence of a hijacking I have not been able to find anything conclusive.  Here are some facts we are aware of:

The xponder was turned off around 8:50am and air traffic controllers lost the plane.  For those who are unaware, turning a xponder off does not magically transform a plane into a stealth aircraft.  (If it does, the Air Force owes the American public am explanation for the billions spent on "stealth technology.")  


Flight 77 went missing and there was never confirmation it reappeared on radar.  The CR (commission report) has a suspected flight path with dotted lines between the early mid west and the Pentagon.  They claim that is the path but there has never been confirmation.  The obvious question is how was it possible for a 757 to fly in US airspace undetected?  We kind of have every square inch of our airspace under surveillance from a multitude of civilian and military radars not to mention satellites.

Norman Mineta has testified he was a witness to a conversation between Cheney and a soldier in the PEOC that occurred during the approach of an aircraft to the Pentagon.  That was about 9:25 which corresponds with the tracking of the aircraft that hit the Pentagon at 9:37.  For all you CR junkies, you know Mineta's testimony was stricken because the CR claimed Cheney didn't arrive in the PEOC until 9:58am.  Unfortunately, the CR lacks evidence and there are many sources that contradict this claim.  (That is a side issue from our purpose here and now.)

The CVR provided absolutely no information.

The FDR definitely has not proven a hijack had taken place.


One of the earliest items used was the claim by Ted Olson that his wife called him twice and informed him of the hijacking.  That claim has long been the center of evidence but now we know he never spoke to his wife.  In ZM's trial the FBI provided their evidence of communications between everyone on 77 to the rest of the world.  There is a single call attributed to Barbara Olson that lasted "zero seconds."  That means Ted never spoke to his wife even though he went on the networks to claim he had first hand evidence of a hijacking and he obtained that info from two phone calls his wife made.  Years later, many still wrongly believe those calls are legit.  Aside from the FBI evidence there are also other factors, including how Olson himself kept changing his claim. First he said she used a cell phone, then someone pointed out it was a collect call to the DOJ so it must have been an airphone. Then someone pointed out you can't make a collect call from an airphone.  Then someone pointed out Flt 77 didn't have airphones.  So Ted reverts back to his cell phone claim, that was once again proven false.  This link exhaustively checks out the info but the clincher is the FBI's evidence at ZM's trial showing Ted never spoke to Barbara.  Why did he lie?
An Analysis of New Evidence...


Another key piece missing is the hijackers were never confirmed by DNA. The FBI knew where they lived and even spoke with Hanjour's family so OCTAs
 cannot dismiss the lack of DNA confirmation on the basis there was no way a comparison could have been made.  Just as family members provided DNA for passenger/victim matches the FBI had the DNA to provide a match for the hijackers but it was never done.

I suspect OCTAs will refer to two items in haste: flight manifest and airport pics.  The only problem there is Hanjour's name was not on the earliest manifest released and the importance there is he is the only one to have been attributed to being hijacker trained pilot on 77.  The pics are fuzzy and photoshop makes them suspect.

In summary, it appears there is no positive evidence 77 was hijacked and I'm fully confident OCTAs
 brave enough to respond will help solidify this by pointing to assumptions and screaming "How did the place get there?!?" Logically, that is an assumption of proof, not positive evidence it happened the way we are told.  So if there is any positive evidence, what is it?


----------



## Fizz (Dec 9, 2009)

you can download a 27meg file with the evidence here..
U.S.D.C. Eastern District of Virginia

i believe there was more than one phone call from barbara olsen. she got disconnected once or twice.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 9, 2009)

Fizz said:


> you can download a 27meg file with the evidence here..
> U.S.D.C. Eastern District of Virginia
> 
> i believe there was more than one phone call from barbara olsen. she got disconnected once or twice.



Thanks for proving that once again you work from a conclusion backwards.  The op already has a link to that trial and info. Got anything else?


----------



## jillian (Dec 9, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > you can download a 27meg file with the evidence here..
> ...



If what you are claiming were close to true, they couldn't have lost the flight that overflew it's destination by 150 miles just a few weeks ago.

But if it makes you feel better, my keys keep disappearing and reappearing... i think it's a conspiracy...maybe a dibbuk. Perhaps you'd like to investigate.


----------



## Toro (Dec 9, 2009)

Maybe the pilots flew the plane into the Pentagon themselves.

We already know the plane was there.  We already know that body parts and mementos were found at the site.  We already know that wreckage was on the grounds.  We already have computer simulation of how the plane could have slammed into the Pentagon in the manner that it did.  We already have at least 136 documented eye-witnesses who saw the plane slam into the Pentagon.  We already know that five people on the plane who had links to al-Qaeda.  We already know that people were on the plane and took off.  We already know that al-Qaeda themselves claimed that they were behind the hijackings.  So maybe the terrorists didn't fly the plane into the Pentagon.  Maybe it was the pilots, even though terrorists were flying planes into other buildings in America.

Though that is highly unlikely.

There are always discrepancies in events.  People are not infallible and will misinterpret or misremember.  Instead, we must look at the body of evidence.  And the body of evidence suggests that the plane was hijacked and slammed into the Pentagon.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 9, 2009)

jillian said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



I guess you haven't been made aware I'm one of the world's biggest morons so could you please clarify your post?  If what claim is true?

(your keys issue is quite simple.  you're having an internal conflict that you are equipped to resolve but not fully emotionally prepared to close. Your keys disappearing is the manifestation of your denial that you have what you need.)


----------



## jillian (Dec 9, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> I guess you haven't been made aware I'm one of the world's biggest morons so could you please clarify your post?  If what claim is true?
> 
> (your keys issue is quite simple.  you're having an internal conflict that you are equipped to resolve but not fully emotionally prepared to close. Your keys disappearing is the manifestation of your denial that you have what you need.)



I don't think I'd say you're a moron. I just think you have a vivid imagination.... as proven by the second paragraph of your post.

Cheers.


----------



## eots (Dec 16, 2009)

Jillian is just afraid there may of been Israel prior knowledge so the subject is taboo its ok Jillian ...Bush knew it as well


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYIZW959vJc[/ame]


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8OyUoGUV7b8&feature=related[/ame]


----------



## Fizz (Dec 16, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> The xponder was turned off around 8:50am and air traffic controllers lost the plane.  For those who are unaware, turning a xponder off does not magically transform a plane into a stealth aircraft.  (If it does, the Air Force owes the American public am explanation for the billions spent on "stealth technology.")


nobody claims the plane turned into a stealth plane. the plane was tracked from the time the transponder was turned off. we now know where the plane was the entire time.




CurveLight said:


> Flight 77 went missing and there was never confirmation it reappeared on radar.  The CR (commission report) has a suspected flight path with dotted lines between the early mid west and the Pentagon.  They claim that is the path but there has never been confirmation.  The obvious question is how was it possible for a 757 to fly in US airspace undetected?  We kind of have every square inch of our airspace under surveillance from a multitude of civilian and military radars not to mention satellites.


 it didnt reappear on radar because it never disappeared. radar tracked the plane for the entire flight including from the minute the transponder was turned off. a 757 didnt fly through US airspace undetected.



CurveLight said:


> One of the earliest items used was the claim by Ted Olson that his wife called him twice and informed him of the hijacking.  That claim has long been the center of evidence but now we know he never spoke to his wife.  In ZM's trial the FBI provided their evidence of communications between everyone on 77 to the rest of the world.  There is a single call attributed to Barbara Olson that lasted "zero seconds."  That means Ted never spoke to his wife even though he went on the networks to claim he had first hand evidence of a hijacking and he obtained that info from two phone calls his wife made.  Years later, many still wrongly believe those calls are legit.  Aside from the FBI evidence there are also other factors, including how Olson himself kept changing his claim. First he said she used a cell phone, then someone pointed out it was a collect call to the DOJ so it must have been an airphone. Then someone pointed out you can't make a collect call from an airphone.  Then someone pointed out Flt 77 didn't have airphones.  So Ted reverts back to his cell phone claim, that was once again proven false.  This link exhaustively checks out the info but the clincher is the FBI's evidence at ZM's trial showing Ted never spoke to Barbara.  Why did he lie?


]the call didnt last zero seconds. it lasted 46 seconds. the call was to an operator and is a free call.

the question isnt why did ted olsen lie the question is why are you lying? first he said he didnt know if it was a cell phone or the airphone but it really is irrelevant since we have proof that it was the air phone. the plane did have air phones so the claim it didnt is false. so why is that person lying?



CurveLight said:


> I suspect OCTAs will refer to two items in haste: flight manifest and airport pics.  The only problem there is Hanjour's name was not on the earliest manifest released and the importance there is he is the only one to have been attributed to being hijacker trained pilot on 77.  The pics are fuzzy and photoshop makes them suspect.


it wasnt a passenger manifest it was a list of the victims. Hanjour was not a victim he was a perpetrator.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 17, 2009)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > The xponder was turned off around 8:50am and air traffic controllers lost the plane.  For those who are unaware, turning a xponder off does not magically transform a plane into a stealth aircraft.  (If it does, the Air Force owes the American public am explanation for the billions spent on "stealth technology.")
> ...




You have to be not only one of the most dishonest but also fucking sooper dooper jackasses around. The list i am referring to had both hijackers AND passengers on it!  It had the other hijacker's names but not hani hanjour's.

Then you lie again.  Your "evidence" of the call lasting 45 seconds came from a fucking OCTA site.  You ignore the FBI evidence and instead prefer to refer to that hack site?  I already posted the link for the FBi exhibit that showed there was one unconnected call from barb to ted.  But you ignore that evidence and claim it was 45 seconds?  Fucking dildo!


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 17, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Wow Curve!  You finally came out and told us what we already knew; that you are fucking truther loon!

Congratulations on your big step!


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 17, 2009)

geauxtohell said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...




You're sooper fucking stupid.  I have always said I don't know what happened that day.  Anybody who doesn't simply accept the OCT is a troofer by default you ass sucking idiot.


----------



## Fizz (Dec 17, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> You're sooper fucking stupid.  I have always said I don't know what happened that day.  Anybody who doesn't simply accept the OCT is a troofer by default you ass sucking idiot.


i already told you what happened that day. so you already know. saying you dont know is a lie.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Dec 17, 2009)

We are to believe that the Commercial pilots of the airplane flew it into the building according to you? Or that it never hit the building, which requires even MORE leaps of ignorance then that the pilots flew it into the building.

Once again which is it? You keep claiming it was never hijacked. SO what happened? Either the pilots flew it into the building or they flew it off to who knows where for who knows why where all the passengers, crew and the plane simply vanished. Further meaning that 136 eye witnesses all lied about what they saw that day.

Come on tell us which it is?


----------



## slackjawed (Dec 17, 2009)

I hate to repeat myself, but the truth about 911 is that space aliens abducted the planes and all the passengers to breed a super race to take over the world. They tried once before, but accidently abducted a midget, thereby creating a race of super midgets, which they used on 911. They also previously abducted Elvis, but he was impotent so they could not use him to breed a super race, but he is being used as a trainer. He trained the midgets that cleaned up all traces of the alien attack. The cleanup created enough bodies to 'prove' it was an earth based attack. 
That's it people, space aliens, Elvis, super midgets.......the truth is right here.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 17, 2009)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > You're sooper fucking stupid.  I have always said I don't know what happened that day.  Anybody who doesn't simply accept the OCT is a troofer by default you ass sucking idiot.
> ...




Lol!  Wow! Guess shitbag liars like you overcompensate by accusing other people of lying.  Here is an example of what lying looks like:


(Edited by Fizz)
"FAA radar equipment tracked the flight from the moment its transponder was turned off at 8:56."

You straight up lied by cutting off the first part of the sentence.  Here is the full sentence:

"Radar reconstructions performed after 9/11 reveal that FAA radar equipment tracked the flight from the moment its transponder was turned off at 8:56."
http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...vidence-of-octa-ignorance-in-full-flight.html


You're pathetic.


----------



## Fizz (Dec 17, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



the problem is that you dont understand english. my statement is correct. it was tracked from the time the transponder was turned off. if you wish to dispute that please provide proof of your accusations, jackass!!!


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 17, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> We are to believe that the Commercial pilots of the airplane flew it into the building according to you? Or that it never hit the building, which requires even MORE leaps of ignorance then that the pilots flew it into the building.
> 
> Once again which is it? You keep claiming it was never hijacked. SO what happened? Either the pilots flew it into the building or they flew it off to who knows where for who knows why where all the passengers, crew and the plane simply vanished. Further meaning that 136 eye witnesses all lied about what they saw that day.
> 
> Come on tell us which it is?



I have not claimed it was not hijacked you fucking jackass.  The OP simply asks for positive evidence it was.  It's pretty much useless discussing this issue because you pussies constantly put words in other's mouths, ignore evidence that undermines the OCT, and then concoct bizarre fairy tales of "Well it must have been a X error" every time something doesn't support the OCT.  You don't give a rat's ass the government has engaged in suppressing evidence for years, the 9E Commission omitted anything that challenged the OCT, and you simply broad brush all those who question the OCT as crazy.  In short, you're worthless.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 17, 2009)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



Lol....little whiny bitch.  You failed to support your claim, even with LYING and ignore the fact the CR states 77 flew UNDETECTED for 36 minutes.  You just helped demonstrate what I pointed out in my last post. Go change your tampon.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Dec 17, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > We are to believe that the Commercial pilots of the airplane flew it into the building according to you? Or that it never hit the building, which requires even MORE leaps of ignorance then that the pilots flew it into the building.
> ...



Look, either it was Hijacked or it wasn't. You claim there is no evidence it was hijacked, we keep telling you the evidence is the hole it made when it made contact with the Pentagon. The dead bodies in said building, the absolute proof the plane slammed into the Pentagon.

Which leaves you with several options. IF the plane was not hijacked the pilots flew the plane into the building or the pilots flew the plane off to never never land while a missile plowed into the Pentagon. Both of those options leave you with providing US with evidence either happened.

I can drudge up TONS of physical evidence, eye witness accounts and secondary evidence that CLEARLY provides overwhelming evidence the flight hit the Pentagon. You and your whiney " the door was never opened" and "there was no phone call" do not NEGATE any of the evidence that tell us the plane slammed into the Pentagon.

SO if it was not Hijacked, why were the known terrorists on the plane, why did it slam into the Pentagon and HOW? I repeat, do you have some evidence or any sane reason to suspect the commercial pilots flew the plane into the Pentagon?

Same with flight 93. OVERWHELMING evidence it slammed into the hole in the ground in Pennsylvania. Plane debris, body parts and eye witness accounts. Again if it was not flight 93 how did all the EVIDENCE get there? Who flew the plane off to never never land?


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 17, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...




Complete waste of time.  Then you bring up 93?  I've never said a word about that flight and even admitted I've never studied it....but that doesn't stop you from living in your neatly packaged bipolar world.  And I've also never said a cockpit door and the absence of a phone call proves the OCT is false.  You are utterly incapable of even the most rudimentary dialogue.


----------



## Fizz (Dec 17, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



hey jackass, it was tracked the entire time. you claim it wasnt so SHOW PROOF!! a controller not recognizing which radar blip is 77 in the confusion of what was happening on 9/11 doesnt mean we dont now know where it was the entire time.

you are fucking waste of carbon.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 17, 2009)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...




Wow. Your lying knows no boundaries.  Now you're trying to claim "a controller" couldn't recognize
 which blip was 77?  There were NO FUCKING BLIPS for 36 minutes.  You're trying to act like there were live blips of the flight all along but I was only "a controller" didn't know "which blip" was 77?  You deserve to have your nose broken.  At least twice.  

The CR point blank states it flew UNDETECTED for 36........never mind.  You're too much of a pathetic coward lying **** to admit anything.  The fact you shit bags can't even pretend to be honest is evidence in itself the OCT is not accurate.  Hell, you even ignore the FBI evidence.....you know what it is.  Have the last word here too you fucking waste.


----------



## Fizz (Dec 17, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> There were NO FUCKING BLIPS for 36 minutes.


prove it.


----------



## Toro (Dec 17, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Complete waste of time.  Then you bring up 93?  I've never said a word about that flight and even admitted I've never studied it....but that doesn't stop you from living in your neatly packaged bipolar world.  And I've also never said a cockpit door and the absence of a phone call proves the OCT is false.  You are utterly incapable of even the most rudimentary dialogue.



No, RGS is dead right.  You want to keep bringing up disputable minutia about flight data recorders and doors but avoid the overwhelming events.  You are deflecting from the very obvious, and refuse to answer the central issue.


----------



## eots (Dec 17, 2009)

oh please tell toto whats the _central issue_ ?


----------



## Toro (Dec 17, 2009)

eots said:


> oh please tell toto whats the _central issue_ ?



That a plane hit the Pentagon.

Arguing about how long the flight data recorder can go or whether a door was opened while ignoring whether or not there was a plane that hit the Pentagon is pointless, unless you are making the argument that the pilots flew the plane into the building.


----------



## candycorn (Dec 18, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> That's it.  Very clear and very simple.  While looking for positive evidence of a hijacking I have not been able to find anything conclusive.  Here are some facts we are aware of:
> 
> The xponder was turned off around 8:50am and air traffic controllers lost the plane.  For those who are unaware, turning a xponder off does not magically transform a plane into a stealth aircraft.  (If it does, the Air Force owes the American public am explanation for the billions spent on "stealth technology.")
> 
> ...



A phone call from the plane to a woman's parents told the parents to contact American Airlines to report the hijacking.  The parents called American Airlines.

*CHECK MATE BITCH​*


----------



## eots (Dec 18, 2009)

cornyhole..


----------



## eots (Dec 18, 2009)

*eots*

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igoV7W7la_0[/ame]

_candycorn_

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8yuvMsvNqY[/ame]

and they say _whats In a name_...eerie isn't it !


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 18, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


what he said was 100% correct, it is YOU that is pathetic


----------



## eots (Dec 18, 2009)

wow I think I am on to something here

*FIZZ*
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Naeq9l0ukJY[/ame]

*
DIVECON*
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyhsfnUkRos[/ame]


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 18, 2009)

eots said:


> wow I think I am on to something here
> 
> *FIZZ*
> 
> ...


stupid youtube videos is the best you got


----------



## Fizz (Dec 18, 2009)

not only can he not have thoughts of his own..... he needs to show the thoughts of others in youtube videos.... he cant even insult on his own. he needs a youtube video for that too..

fucking pathetic.


----------



## eots (Dec 18, 2009)

fizz said:


> not only can he not have thoughts of his own..... He needs to show the thoughts of others in youtube videos.... He cant even insult on his own. He needs a youtube video for that too..
> 
> Fucking pathetic.



a youtube can speak a thousand words ..gay tony


----------



## Fizz (Dec 18, 2009)

eots said:


> a youtube can speak a thousand words ..gay tony



not an original thought in your head, eh?

you're just a sheep.

BAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!


----------



## candycorn (Dec 18, 2009)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > a youtube can speak a thousand words ..gay tony
> ...



Posterchild for what too much XBOX and time on your hands will do to you; eots is.  
If we agreed on 9/11, I would probably have to seriously re-examine everything since only pondscum lodges any complaint in which he agrees with.


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 18, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> You're sooper fucking stupid.  I have always said I don't know what happened that day.  Anybody who doesn't simply accept the OCT is a troofer by default you ass sucking idiot.



No one knows knows 100% of the truth.

Most people feel the answers given, the 90% solution, are adequate.  

Those that demand a new investigation believe their was a nefarious plot afoot.  Hence, that is why you refer to the 9-11 report as the "official conspiracy theory".

I have no clue why you won't embrace yourself as a "truther".  Whether you continue to play this game or not is irrelevant to us.  We've all got you pegged.


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 18, 2009)

Toro said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Complete waste of time.  Then you bring up 93?  I've never said a word about that flight and even admitted I've never studied it....but that doesn't stop you from living in your neatly packaged bipolar world.  And I've also never said a cockpit door and the absence of a phone call proves the OCT is false.  You are utterly incapable of even the most rudimentary dialogue.
> ...



All while flirting with "truther" talking points while continually insisting that we are putting words in their mouth.

The whole dance is lame.  I have more respect for the truthers that will just state what they believe, even if I think it's crazy.  At least they don't hide behind semantics.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 18, 2009)

geauxtohell said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > You're sooper fucking stupid.  I have always said I don't know what happened that day.  Anybody who doesn't simply accept the OCT is a troofer by default you ass sucking idiot.
> ...




Holy shit you're a used tampon sucking cow ass licking genius.  How many times have I already pointed out I am a truther?  See, that doesnt satisfy turd lickers like you because you want to feel vindicated for your bullshit mind reading failures.  That's why a dumbfuck like you will quote me saying iam a troofer and completely miss that just to keep on your whiny we got you pegged parade.  You stupid fucking pussy.  I had the same position the entire time.  What pisses you little ***** off the most is you can't address the facts.  Thus, you call people crazy and such...anything to avoid honesty.  But nope.  Little crybabies like yourself want to get on a fucking soap box and preach about while you don't even know what you have said.


Then you claim those who demand a new investigation do so because they believe there was a "nefarious plot afoot."  You worthless fucking piss drinking hypocrite.  I say it is the Official Conspiracy Theory because that is exactly what it is.  If you cared more about honesty than perception you would have grasped that long ago.  Let's look at how much of a hypocrite piece of shit you are.

You just claimed:

"Those that demand a new investigation believe their was a nefarious plot afoot."

Don't even think about trying to weasel out of it by saying you didn't mean "all."  That is exactly what you meant.  "Those who..." is an exclusive claim.  Dumbasses like you are exactly why I started that thread on NYCCAN to expose your cowardice.  Here you claim those who demand a new investigation do so because they believe in some "nefarious plot."

From the FAQ of NYYCAN: 

Q: "Will the new Commission have a bias or pre-determined conclusion about the events of September 11?"

A: "The investigation will commence from a starting point of zero assumption or bias about the events of September 11. The investigation will be fact-driven and will use only the most rigorous legal standards for establishing the truth about those tragic events."
NYC Coalition For Accountability Now

Read that again you fucking jakass.  They demand a new full investigation so you just accused all of those victims families and first responders of believing in a "nefarious plot."  If there were any part of the OCT they accept without question they wouldn't demand a new investigation with "zero assumptions."

Now dance bitch!


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 18, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...




You're the **** that read a link showing planes sunk battleships only to respond and pretend it didn't say it sunk battleships.  Who the fuck are you to pretend you have the ability to read anything with accuracy?  Go back up yo momma's ass.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 18, 2009)

Fizz said:


> not only can he not have thoughts of his own..... he needs to show the thoughts of others in youtube videos.... he cant even insult on his own. he needs a youtube video for that too..
> 
> fucking pathetic.




You're the pussy who steals info from posts on other boards, which more often than not was flat out wrong, then you take credit for it here.  It's like you are on a mission to be the biggest fucking shitbag ever.  At least eots gives credit for the info he gets.  You're the kind of **** that looks at youtube for ideas then posts them here as your own.  Loser.


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 18, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


you have been measured and you come up lacking
fuck off pissant


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 18, 2009)

geauxtohell said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



I do believe you have got him.


----------



## eots (Dec 18, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > not only can he not have thoughts of his own..... he needs to show the thoughts of others in youtube videos.... he cant even insult on his own. he needs a youtube video for that too..
> ...



youtube is just another format of information and expression and I use that tool in an often original and creative way...I did not create words either but I  can use them in creative ways

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNEkOC8MK1g[/ame]


----------



## Fizz (Dec 18, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> You're the pussy who steals info from posts on other boards, which more often than not was flat out wrong, then you take credit for it here.  It's like you are on a mission to be the biggest fucking shitbag ever.  At least eots gives credit for the info he gets.  You're the kind of **** that looks at youtube for ideas then posts them here as your own.  Loser.



i dont take credit for anything, jackass. go back to sucking dick in the gay marriage room you fucking homo. its more "up your alley"


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 19, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...




You ignorant gomer shit pile.  I've never denied being a truther.  You dumb fucks invent strawmen everyday then celebrate as if you accomplished something.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 19, 2009)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > You're the pussy who steals info from posts on other boards, which more often than not was flat out wrong, then you take credit for it here.  It's like you are on a mission to be the biggest fucking shitbag ever.  At least eots gives credit for the info he gets.  You're the kind of **** that looks at youtube for ideas then posts them here as your own.  Loser.
> ...



You're such a retarded failed abortion turd you continue to lie then bring up gay marriage?  Are you really that pathetically psychotic you think searching my posts and bringing up the fact iam not a bigot is somehow detrimental?  That's why you have to search the net to steal ideas.....when you try to use your own mind you do dumb shit like believing if you point out someone is not a bigot you have created a slam.  Hahahahaha!!


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 19, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...




You're the **** that read a link showing planes sunk battleships only to respond and pretend it didn't say it sunk battleships.  Who the fuck are you to pretend you have the ability to read anything with accuracy?  Go back up yo momma's ass


----------



## candycorn (Dec 19, 2009)

This was posted yesterday:



CurveLight said:


> i don't care what worthless ***** think about me.



This was posted this morning:



CurveLight said:


> Go back up yo momma's ass





CurveLight said:


> You're such a retarded failed abortion turd...





CurveLight said:


> You ignorant gomer shit pile.



----------
*
Does anybody else get the feeling that he posts on his blackberry between "drops" of french fries and onion rings?  Dude seems to spend a lot of time posting to people whom he claims he cares nothing about.
*


----------



## Fizz (Dec 19, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> You're the **** that read a link showing planes sunk battleships only to respond and pretend it didn't say it sunk battleships.  Who the fuck are you to pretend you have the ability to read anything with accuracy?  Go back up yo momma's ass



it was US military TEST you fucking moron!! and even in the test they had to cheat in order to be able to sink it.


----------



## Trojan (Dec 19, 2009)

Ok, I've come to this thread late

if Flight 77 was not hijacked, then why did it crash into the Pentagon?

And I am working from a report which conclusively shows that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, a report that was not prepared by the federal government.


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 19, 2009)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > You're the **** that read a link showing planes sunk battleships only to respond and pretend it didn't say it sunk battleships.  Who the fuck are you to pretend you have the ability to read anything with accuracy?  Go back up yo momma's ass
> ...


he's too fucking STUPID to understand that


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 19, 2009)

Trojan said:


> Ok, I've come to this thread late
> 
> if Flight 77 was not hijacked, then why did it crash into the Pentagon?
> 
> And I am working from a report which conclusively shows that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, a report that was not prepared by the federal government.


you could have high speed HD video footage of it and these morons would still not accept the facts

the WORLD saw Planes hit the WTC and there are still some who want to claim they didnt
'


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 19, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Holy shit you're a used tampon sucking cow ass licking genius.  How many times have I already pointed out I am a truther?



By my count, this thread is the first time.  You have been almost obsessive about your attempts to hide your truther motives in the other thread.



> See, that doesnt satisfy turd lickers like you because you want to feel vindicated for your bullshit mind reading failures.  That's why a dumbfuck like you will quote me saying iam a troofer and completely miss that just to keep on your whiny we got you pegged parade.



You are somewhat correct.  We like to know who we are dealing with in these matters so we can make a sanity assessment.  



> You stupid fucking pussy.  I had the same position the entire time.



You've repeatedly refused to state your position.  



> What pisses you little ***** off the most is you can't address the facts.  Thus, you call people crazy and such...anything to avoid honesty.  But nope.  Little crybabies like yourself want to get on a fucking soap box and preach about while you don't even know what you have said.



You are not in the command of facts.  Another trait inherent to the conspiracy theorist is the belief that their "theories" are facts.  

Sorry, that is not the case.



> Then you claim those who demand a new investigation do so because they believe there was a "nefarious plot afoot."  You worthless fucking piss drinking hypocrite.  I say it is the Official Conspiracy Theory because that is exactly what it is.  If you cared more about honesty than perception you would have grasped that long ago.  Let's look at how much of a hypocrite piece of shit you are.



If you didn't suspect a nefarious plot, why would you demand a new investigation?  As an aside, I do care about honesty.  That is why I have been adamant in pointing out your dishonesty.  Again, you proved you were a class act when you tried to get people from this board to pick a fight with the families of victims.  

As always, if you feel you are being misrepresented, you can merely tell us what you believe.  

I won't hold my breath.


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 19, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> I do believe you have got him.



Yeah, but then he called me a bunch of dirty names!

My feelings are hurt!


----------



## eots (Dec 19, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Trojan said:
> 
> 
> > Ok, I've come to this thread late
> ...


divemoroncon why are lying and saying that anyone here is saying planes did not hit the towers ??? again with the strawman you are pathetic


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 19, 2009)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Trojan said:
> ...



He never stated that those claims were made by posters on this board.


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 19, 2009)

geauxtohell said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


Id-Eots doesnt have the brain capacity to understand simple things like that


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 19, 2009)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > You're the **** that read a link showing planes sunk battleships only to respond and pretend it didn't say it sunk battleships.  Who the fuck are you to pretend you have the ability to read anything with accuracy?  Go back up yo momma's ass
> ...




Your claim was prior to pearl harbor no planes had ever sunk a battleship.  You're so fucking pathetic you use any childish excuse to avoid admitting you were flat out wrong.

The first time battleships were sunk by planes only was in 1921.  You're such a bitch loser you whine "it was a test" and "they cheated."  Do you see how fucking pathetic that is?  None of that changes the fact you made another false claim and the most revealing aspect is even on such a petty issue you refuse to admit you fucked up. If you're tired of getting pwned then don't try to speak about issues you are clearly ignorant about.
William &#8216;Billy&#8217; Mitchell: An Air Power Visionary » HistoryNet


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 19, 2009)

geauxtohell said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Holy shit you're a used tampon sucking cow ass licking genius.  How many times have I already pointed out I am a truther?
> ...




What a dumbass.  I said long ago in many different threads I don't know what happened.  That makes me a troofer.  And to think, any number of birth control methods could have prevented your existence thereby reducing the amount of stupidity you spill every day.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 19, 2009)

candycorn said:


> This was posted yesterday:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




There is a wealth of OCTA hypocrisy and stupidity on display.  It's like rubber necking a bad car wreck.....you know there is nothing good to see but you still can't look away.


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 19, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


again, a TEST is not an actual battle
you fail once again


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 19, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...




You stupid fucking loser.  Look at the original claim.  Look at what you said....what was it? Something like:

December 6, 1941, no planes had ever sunk a battleship.

December 7, 1941, planes sunk battleships for the first time.

You piggyback on Fizz's claim and neither you nor him said anything about being in battle or not. 

This is what happened:  you read the link I provided and realized you fucked up but instead of admitting it was a false claim you try to change the original claim.  That's why you guys are some pathetic bitches. You hate me more than you love honesty.  Now dance some more you pathetic fucking ****.  And don't forget, my offer to buy you a beer if you ever come to Boston is an open invitation.  I would write it off as Charity for helping to feed the mentally handicapped.


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 19, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


you are too fucking stupid for words
grow a brain asswipe


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Dec 19, 2009)

There is OVERWHELMING evidence Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon. The aircraft remains, the human remains, the artifacts from the flight and its passengers and crew.

Leaving the simple concept that either it was hijacked or the commercial pilots flew it into the building.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 19, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> There is OVERWHELMING evidence Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon. The aircraft remains, the human remains, the artifacts from the flight and its passengers and crew.
> 
> Leaving the simple concept that either it was hijacked or the commercial pilots flew it into the building.



Well, since there were verifiable phone conversations from the plane claiming it was hijacked, That's good enough for me. And I don't care about the pretty little chart that bent light tries to use from the Moussui court case. There were other calls besides the Olsen calls.


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 19, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> There is a wealth of OCTA hypocrisy and stupidity on display.  It's like rubber necking a bad car wreck.....you know there is nothing good to see but you still can't look away.



Waaah! Waah!  Stupid OCTAs won't just accept my wild eyed theories!  Waaah!  Waaah!  They are such a bunch of morons!  Waah!  Waah!


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 19, 2009)

geauxtohell said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > There is a wealth of OCTA hypocrisy and stupidity on display.  It's like rubber necking a bad car wreck.....you know there is nothing good to see but you still can't look away.
> ...


of course anyone that doesnt accept his bullshit is an OCTA


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 19, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Of course. 

"In the absence of proof.  Label."


----------



## Fizz (Dec 19, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> What a dumbass.  I said long ago in many different threads I don't know what happened.  That makes me a troofer.  And to think, any number of birth control methods could have prevented your existence thereby reducing the amount of stupidity you spill every day.


i told you what happened. you cant claim you dont know anymore because you were informed.

now you have any evidence that terrorists didnt hijack 4 planes and i am lying?

didnt think so.....


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 19, 2009)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > What a dumbass.  I said long ago in many different threads I don't know what happened.  That makes me a troofer.  And to think, any number of birth control methods could have prevented your existence thereby reducing the amount of stupidity you spill every day.
> ...



If you weren't an OCTA, you would be able to see the truth.....


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 19, 2009)

geauxtohell said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...





i have to admit thought, being called an "OCTA" is slightly more advanced that the "Bush dupe" they used to say


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 19, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



I have to admit I didn't know what the fuck OCT/OCTA meant when it was first tossed around here by the toss-offs.

They have created an alternate language to go with their alternate world.


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 19, 2009)

geauxtohell said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...


i asked that moron what he meant, he never answered
i assume it means something to the effect of "Official Conspiracy Theory Agent"


----------



## RadiomanATL (Dec 19, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



He said somewhere that it stands for "Official Conspiracy Theory Apologist"

I just call him wacko.


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 19, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



He/she never answers anything.

And wonders why we think he/she is a moron.


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 19, 2009)

RadiomanATL said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...


either would be fucking moronic, but can we really expect more from them?


----------



## candycorn (Dec 19, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > This was posted yesterday:
> ...



Which is why I respond to your lame attempts to do...well...nobody knows what your vaporous point is and you, like a real whacko, won't say what it is you're trying to illustrate or point out or, well, anything.

I have 100% full faith in the correctness of the 9/11 Commission Report on the major points.  

I have 0 faith in anything that contradicts that report on the major points.  Why?  Because it makes perfect sense.  You're posts make no sense whatsoever in terms of the overall events of the morning.  You need to account for all events if you're going to play the conspiracy card.  You say you're not playing it but the difference is pure semantics and bullshit which are the only commodities that which you have an abundance.  

Again, if you have proof, bring it to the eyes of justice and let it go from there.  The Government gets sued everyday from removing the 10 Commandments from a town square to police brutality to grazing rights, to equal rights legislation.  C'mon you can do it (snicker).  

The fact that you won't put your "proof" or your story or your "experts" to any scrutiny indicates that you have no faith in them.  Which is a marvelous reason to shut the fuck up about right now.  You won't of course; you'll come back with some sort of hair-splitting gibberish excuse about why nobody has ever brought anything forward or how you're not really looking for justice blah blah blah.

All in all, 8 years; and you got zippo.


----------



## eots (Dec 19, 2009)

cuntycorn...


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 19, 2009)

eots said:


> cuntycorn...



You out-did yourself with that one, didn't you?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 19, 2009)

geauxtohell said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > cuntycorn...
> ...



He keeps that written on the wall so he can remember it.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 20, 2009)

geauxtohell said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...




Whiner.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 20, 2009)

RadiomanATL said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...




That's because whiners like yourself go on auto-shut down every time your brain gets overloaded.  "Wacko" is only one of ten words available so it's not like you have many choices.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 20, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> There is OVERWHELMING evidence Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon. The aircraft remains, the human remains, the artifacts from the flight and its passengers and crew.
> 
> Leaving the simple concept that either it was hijacked or the commercial pilots flew it into the building.




Please research "false dilemma." Your negative imagination is not positive evidence of anything.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 20, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > There is OVERWHELMING evidence Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon. The aircraft remains, the human remains, the artifacts from the flight and its passengers and crew.
> ...




Thank you for once again demonstrating the OCTA bullshit of ignoring any evidence that doesn't support your claim.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 20, 2009)

geauxtohell said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > There is a wealth of OCTA hypocrisy and stupidity on display.  It's like rubber necking a bad car wreck.....you know there is nothing good to see but you still can't look away.
> ...




Nice! More lying.  Where have I stated any theories?


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 20, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...




Dumb ****.  An OCTA is anyone who accepts the bush admin's theory.  Let me know when that begins to sink in.


----------



## RadiomanATL (Dec 20, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



You claiming others brains go in auto-shutdown? You, who closes their eyes to literally metric tonnes of evidence?

LOL!!


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 20, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...




Hahahahahaha....what a fucking reject!  I've explained it about 20 and it's even in an OP I started.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 20, 2009)

RadiomanATL said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > RadiomanATL said:
> ...




Guess you must invent shit to compensate for your pathetic abilities.  You guys are the biggest fucking whiners.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 20, 2009)

candycorn said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...




Do you get paid to whine?  Do you get a bonus when you try to make yourself look as insecure as possible?  You dumb punk there are many FOIA lawsuits against the government.


----------



## RadiomanATL (Dec 20, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Got-DAMN you project like a muthafucka.

We accept the overwhelming and incontrovertible mountain of evidence. You don't. And WE invent things?

You get called on your bullshit and start throw ad-homs that have about as much effect as kids snap-popper, and WE whine?

LOL.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 20, 2009)

RadiomanATL said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > RadiomanATL said:
> ...




Yes you whine like little mother fucking ***** who are volunteering to be in Jonestown Part 2.  You accept what the government told you because you don't give a shit about what it means to be a Citizen.  Look at how many posts are given "thanks" when it's nothing but name calling.  You actually enjoy that childish bullshit.  Then you accuse me of "closing my eyes" based on nothing more than not accepting the OCT.  Your "incontrovertible" claim is super retarded considering the amount of evidence that casts doubt on the OCT. Your projection accusation is more proof of your stale mind as you simply repeat what you believe to be trendy.  Now fool yourself into being original and use the neg rep button and lie some more. Worthless bitch.


----------



## RadiomanATL (Dec 20, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



I don't neg-rep unless someone negs me first. But nice to see that you fear da mighty rep!

You may continue with your projection now...


----------



## candycorn (Dec 20, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



So by that statement, you're stating you DONT have information?  Yet you post as if you do.  Hmmm.  Time to drop the fries punk.  Or, at this time of the morning, its probably french toast sticks and hashbrowns; right?


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 20, 2009)

RadiomanATL said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > RadiomanATL said:
> ...




Fear it? ROTFL!  I'm simply pointing out how little useless bitches like yourself use it and the thanks button as if they are some type of tool of power.  I've also never neg repped you or anyone else so in addition to being a punk you want to also be proven as a liar.  Since I've never negged you your above claim is a flat out lie since you negged me in the "I keep asking thread."  Now dance bitch!


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 20, 2009)

candycorn said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



Goodness you're a dumb one.  I pointed out there have been and currently are several lawsuits against the government regarding 9/11.  Even the fucking airlines sued....and this was after the bush admin helped them out by offering extortion to victims families.  You also keep try to hint at what I do for work....I don't give a fuck if you ***** think I mop port-a-potties.  That's just more of your deflection bullshit and an attempt to fool yourself into believing you are definitely brighter.  Grow the fuck up.


----------



## candycorn (Dec 20, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...




Believe me
Nobody is delusional enough to think that you're smarter than a gnat.  You are not only an idiot, you're especially fucked in the head because any and all attempts to nudge you toward stating what you think happened have been futile.  You, like all conspiracy whackos, understand that the moment you take a stand and say anything happened for sure...you have to defend it.  You don't know much but you know you really can't defend shit so you don't say anything.  When the questioning gets tough, you start another thread complaining about your treatment on the last thread.  

I give you about 2 more months and you'll move on to another whacko messageboard and start schilling for support there.

But in the spirit of the OP, 

Here is the title of this thread that you started:
_*
Can OCTAs Provide Positive Evidence Flt 77 Was Hijacked?
*_
Are we going to argue about that?  I hope not.  Its your words dipshit.  

Okay...so there is the question.  Can "we" provide positive evidence Flight 77 was hijacked?

A flight attendant on UAL Flight 77, Renee May, called her mother in Las Vegas NV to ask her to report that her plane was hijacked.  They did so.  

National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States

Whether or not you feel phones worked on this flight; how in the fuck does a flight attendant's parents call American Airlines and tell them that their daughter's flight has been hijacked...*WITHOUT BEING NOTIFIED OF A HIJACKING?????????????????????????*

So either her parents are clairvoyant and just channeled their daughter on that very moment in time and called AA with that hunch or they were notified about a hijacking by their daughter....agreed?  

So was the call from Ms. May authentic?  Well, shit, the call was to her parents in Las Vegas; not her fiancee.  Perhaps *you* could and would concoct some whackjob theory about how a fiancee would be willing to cover up the death of his bride-to-be but can you honestly sit there and try to say that a mother will do that to her own child?  

So, yes, there is proof from someone who was there that the hijacking  of Flight 77 took place. 

You now have permission to act like a damn fool; you don't need my permission since we all know you're going to do it anyway.  Keep an eye on the drive-thru dumbfuck.


----------



## RadiomanATL (Dec 20, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Wow. 

People using the thanks button really gets under your skin, doesn't it?

Just how thin is your skin anyway?


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 20, 2009)

RadiomanATL said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > RadiomanATL said:
> ...


its got to be pretty thin


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 20, 2009)

RadiomanATL said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > RadiomanATL said:
> ...




Good job completely ignoring the fact you lied.  Don't worry that is exactly what was expected.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 20, 2009)

candycorn said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...




I got through the first couple lines and stopped reading.  You stupid ***** actually believe you are insulting someone by whining that they haven't "taken a stand." Wtf is wrong with you? Do you not realize it is NORMAL to not make claims you cannot support.  But you fucks are actually pissed when someone does that.  Hahahahah.....I have taken a stand but the problem is you children live in a bipolar world, probably due to a lack of intelligence or an over abundance of insecurities that dampen your actual abilities.  You hate it that I am honest.  You hate it when you cannot completely control the discourse.  You hate it when anyone shows you the world is much bigger than the "Bush admin was right!" or "they're conspiracy nutjobs!"  There are more than two options dumb fucks.


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 20, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Oh, I am the one that is whining?

How many pejoratives have you thrown out in this thread?  

You're participation on this board can basically be described as a adolescent temper-tantrum.


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 20, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



More semantics from you. 

Just how chickenshit are you?


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 20, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Yes you whine like little mother fucking ***** who are volunteering to be in Jonestown Part 2.  You accept what the government told you because you don't give a shit about what it means to be a Citizen.  Look at how many posts are given "thanks" when it's nothing but name calling.  You actually enjoy that childish bullshit.  Then you accuse me of "closing my eyes" based on nothing more than not accepting the OCT.  Your "incontrovertible" claim is super retarded considering the amount of evidence that casts doubt on the OCT. Your projection accusation is more proof of your stale mind as you simply repeat what you believe to be trendy.  Now fool yourself into being original and use the neg rep button and lie some more. Worthless bitch.



Perhaps if you made a definitive statement, backed it up with some evidence, and then defended it, you know, like a real persuasive argument; you wouldn't be treated as the simpleton we all believe you to be.


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 20, 2009)

RadiomanATL said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > RadiomanATL said:
> ...



Don't sweat that.  CL likes to claim other people neg repped him when they did not.  He made the same vague accusation against me.

I've never neg repped him, and when I pressed him/her on it, they had to admit they were speaking in generalities.


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 20, 2009)

geauxtohell said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


i HAVE neg repped him
and i will again
its a peer review system
if you only neg rep those that neg you, it kinda defeats the purpose


IMHO anyway


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 20, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > RadiomanATL said:
> ...



A matter of personal preference, I suppose.  I've neg-repped few people on here.  I don't even think I've neg repped any of the people on here from previous boards that I but heads with.

I basically have neg repped a handful of people for blatantly racist posts.  Most of the people I NR are banned w/in 24 hours.  

I have never NR'd CurveLight, though he/she tried to claim I did.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 20, 2009)

geauxtohell said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



I would be glad to neg rep him/her/it. But it just wouldn't be right while he/she/it is on ignore.


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 20, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > RadiomanATL said:
> ...


i suppose i could put these morons on ignore, but i find it more fun to just insult them


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 20, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



I'll take it back off ignore next year.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 20, 2009)

geauxtohell said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



You dimwitted diaper lover.  I've never said you neg repped me.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 20, 2009)

geauxtohell said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Yes you whine like little mother fucking ***** who are volunteering to be in Jonestown Part 2.  You accept what the government told you because you don't give a shit about what it means to be a Citizen.  Look at how many posts are given "thanks" when it's nothing but name calling.  You actually enjoy that childish bullshit.  Then you accuse me of "closing my eyes" based on nothing more than not accepting the OCT.  Your "incontrovertible" claim is super retarded considering the amount of evidence that casts doubt on the OCT. Your projection accusation is more proof of your stale mind as you simply repeat what you believe to be trendy.  Now fool yourself into being original and use the neg rep button and lie some more. Worthless bitch.
> ...



Lol.....like I said....you punks are pissed I won't let you tell me what to think, believe, or claim.  I don't give a fuck if you think I'm a simpleton or not.  Your personal opinion of me is ridiculously meaningless.


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 20, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


no one is trying to tell you what to think, moron
we already know thought is beyond your capabilities


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 20, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > RadiomanATL said:
> ...



90% of your actions are nothing but whining like a worthless shitcup.


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 20, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



No, douchebag, we don't want to tell you what to think.  We want you to tell us what you think. 

If our opinion of you is so meaningless, why do you keep coming back for more abuse?


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 20, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > RadiomanATL said:
> ...



http://www.usmessageboard.com/1778147-post36.html

Of course the exchange after that was classic Curvelight semantic bullshit.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 20, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > RadiomanATL said:
> ...




Instead of repeatedly posting I'm on your iggy list why not put it in your sig you fucking spineless ****.


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 20, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...


projection from a moronic troofer


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 20, 2009)

geauxtohell said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...




Wow you're fucking idiocy is marvelous.  I didn't state you neg repped me.  I said drop more childish one liners with the rep button.  Meaning, instead of doing it only on threads, do it also with the rep button.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 20, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...




Lol.....you do stupid one liners way more than anyone else.  It's not projection when the evidence is abundant but hey, guess you need anything you can get...


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 20, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Well, I appreciate your willingness to finally explain what you meant about something.  Even if it was trivial.

You really don't care about rep at all do you?  You just spend a significant amount of time whining about it.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 20, 2009)

geauxtohell said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



You're such a shitty liar.  How many times have you alone accused me of thinking something I have not stated? 5? 10?

As for why I'm still around...I've been compiling a list of posts from OCTAs who make factually wrong claims about the OCT.  It isn't simply the quantity that is amazing, but the significance of the claims themselves.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 20, 2009)

geauxtohell said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



Yep he/she/it definitely implied that you negged him/her/it.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 20, 2009)

geauxtohell said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



I pointed out the neg rep and thanks use as evidence of the insecurities in OCTAs.  It is the obsession with using those buttons as an attempt to signal quality.  This pathology from OCTAs
 is easily observable as they have an affinity for the argument ad populum fallacy.  Their arguments usually suck in quality so they seeking compensation by quantity.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 20, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Stop whining you American hating pussy.  For someone who constantly tells everyone I'm being ignored you sure do make a lot of personal references to me.  Figures you can't be consistent.


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 20, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


i do one liners to stupid morons that are only worthy of one liners
see a pattern yet?


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 20, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Until called on on it.  Then the mental gymnastics started.  

CL is a fairly decent mental gymnast.


----------



## candycorn (Dec 20, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 20, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



I've never "repped" you, postive or negative, period.  So if you are going to whine about it, whine to someone else.


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 20, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> You're such a shitty liar.  How many times have you alone accused me of thinking something I have not stated? 5? 10?



I am not sure.  You like to throw the term "liar" around, even when it's not altogether appropriate.  

Why don't you tell me?  



> As for why I'm still around...I've been compiling a list of posts from OCTAs who make factually wrong claims about the OCT.  It isn't simply the quantity that is amazing, but the significance of the claims themselves.



Compiling a list of posts for what purpose?  Are going to turn us into the tin foil brigade for reeducation classes?


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 20, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> *Stop whining you American hating pussy.*



Uh oh.

"Tommy Toughnuts" just made an appearance on the thread.

And is he PISSED!


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 20, 2009)

geauxtohell said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > *Stop whining you American hating pussy.*
> ...



LOL I bet He/she/it is cute when mad.


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 20, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



You just have to shake them up, set them on the floor, and watch them go nuts.


----------



## candycorn (Dec 20, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 21, 2009)

candycorn said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 21, 2009)

geauxtohell said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



You fucking whiner....I didn't say you did rep me. Didn't we just get done with that?  If you want it explained again re-read the posts on the last page.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Dec 21, 2009)

I notice you are still to cowardly to answer the poll on this flight. All the other NON OCTA's that have been on have answered it. You to afraid?


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 21, 2009)

geauxtohell said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...




You're the bitch who's pussy hurt so bad you had to use the ignore button.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 21, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> I notice you are still to cowardly to answer the poll on this flight. All the other NON OCTA's that have been on have answered it. You to afraid?



I did answer it you simple fuck.  Was I supposed to have Fedex drop a bouquet of flowers for your notification?  I believe I even quoted your post when I gave my answer but I'm not surprised you missed it as most OCTAs have a natural reflex for closing their eyes while looking at anything they don't want to see.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Dec 21, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > I notice you are still to cowardly to answer the poll on this flight. All the other NON OCTA's that have been on have answered it. You to afraid?
> ...



LIAR. You have NOT answered the poll question. I just checked.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 21, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...




You dumb fuck.  You asked me if 77 hit the pentagon and you gave three possible answers: yes, no or I don't know.  I said I didn't know.  How is that not answering your question?


----------



## candycorn (Dec 21, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 21, 2009)

candycorn said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 21, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Run? Lol.  Start a thread complaining about treatment?   Funny again you dildo....I started a thread about your bipolar world about your inability to have a dialogue on the issue and you keep proving it correct.  Got anything useful to say?



"Bipolar"?

What in the fuck are you talking about?


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 21, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



I've never used the ignore button.  Ever.

You've mixed me up with someone else.

If I wanted to take your tack, I could call you a liar, but I'll assume you just made a mistake.  

Plus, I know you have a hard time keeping your facts straight.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 21, 2009)

geauxtohell said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



He/she/it is probably talking about me. I have to place it in the ignore bin every so often or his insanity drives me crazy. I'll pluck it out of ignore land sometime after 1 Jan, you know,  next year.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 21, 2009)

geauxtohell said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...




My post should have quoted #134 and not yours so yes it was my mistake.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 21, 2009)

geauxtohell said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Run? Lol.  Start a thread complaining about treatment?   Funny again you dildo....I started a thread about your bipolar world about your inability to have a dialogue on the issue and you keep proving it correct.  Got anything useful to say?
> ...




OCTAs view the issue in two extremes:  you fully accept the OCT or you believe it was all a false flag.  That is a false dilemma.  I believe it was you who claimed anyone who demands a new investigation does it only on the motivation they suspect a "nefarious plot was afoot." Whether it was specifically you or not is at this point irrelevant.  I responded by showing many victims families and first responders demand a new investigation to show how childish and selfish it is to constantly paint dissenters as wackos.  This is why you obsessively accuse me of having motivations that are not mine.  When I say I don't know what happened you and many others refuse to believe that then complain I am constantly challenging the OCT.  Well no shit. Since I don't know what happened then researching the OCT is a good starting point, correct?


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 21, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...




Of course I was talking about you.  Who else broadcasts their ignore list five times a day?


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 21, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> OCTAs view the issue in two extremes:  you fully accept the OCT or you believe it was all a false flag.  That is a false dilemma.  I believe it was you who claimed anyone who demands a new investigation does it only on the motivation they suspect a "nefarious plot was afoot." Whether it was specifically you or not is at this point irrelevant.  I responded by showing many victims families and first responders demand a new investigation to show how childish and selfish it is to constantly paint dissenters as wackos.  This is why you obsessively accuse me of having motivations that are not mine.  When I say I don't know what happened you and many others refuse to believe that then complain I am constantly challenging the OCT.  Well no shit. Since I don't know what happened then researching the OCT is a good starting point, correct?



What the fuck does that have to do with being bipolar?  Do you think we are cycling in between mania and depression over here?

I assure you we are not.  Mostly we are just laughing at you.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 21, 2009)

Does anyone know how many calls from 77 were made?  I got this from the CR:

"57.The records available for the phone calls from American 77 do not allow for a determination of which of four "connected calls to unknown numbers" represent the two between Barbara and Ted Olson, although the FBI and DOJ believe that all four represent communications between Barbara Olson and her husband's office (all family members of the Flight 77 passengers and crew were canvassed to see if they had received any phone calls from the hijacked flight, and only Renee May's parents and Ted Olson indicated that they had received such calls).The four calls were at 9:15:34 for 1 minute, 42 seconds; 915 for 4 minutes, 34 seconds; 9:25:48 for 2 minutes, 34 seconds; and 9:30:56 for 4 minutes, 20 seconds. FBI report, "American Airlines Airphone Usage," Sept. 20, 2001; FBI report of investigation, interview of Theodore Olson, Sept. 11, 2001; FBI report of investigation, interview of Helen Voss, Sept. 14, 2001;AAL response to the Commission's supplemental document request, Jan. 20, 2004."


After looking around I can't find any source that says there were more than four connected calls.  There better be......


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 21, 2009)

geauxtohell said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > OCTAs view the issue in two extremes:  you fully accept the OCT or you believe it was all a false flag.  That is a false dilemma.  I believe it was you who claimed anyone who demands a new investigation does it only on the motivation they suspect a "nefarious plot was afoot." Whether it was specifically you or not is at this point irrelevant.  I responded by showing many victims families and first responders demand a new investigation to show how childish and selfish it is to constantly paint dissenters as wackos.  This is why you obsessively accuse me of having motivations that are not mine.  When I say I don't know what happened you and many others refuse to believe that then complain I am constantly challenging the OCT.  Well no shit. Since I don't know what happened then researching the OCT is a good starting point, correct?
> ...




Goodness you're disadvantaged.  I didn't say anything about a mental disorder.

"Relating to or having two poles or charges."
bipolar - definition of bipolar by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Need it explained again?  Probably.  So.....OCTAs view it in a bipolar framework of two poles.  

1.  Confess the OCT is true

Or

2.  You are guilty of claiming it was all a false flag op.


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 21, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Put me down for option 1, though I prefer to refer to it as the findings of the 9-11 commission were correct and a bunch of pissed of muslims hijacked a bunch of commercial airliners and flew them into our buildings.


----------



## Fizz (Dec 21, 2009)

there are four airphone calls in which they dont know where it was connected. this doesnt account for any calls they know where it was connected or any calls that may have been made from cell phones.


----------



## candycorn (Dec 21, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


----------



## candycorn (Dec 21, 2009)

Fizz said:


> there are four airphone calls in which they dont know where it was connected. this doesnt account for any calls they know where it was connected or any calls that may have been made from cell phones.



Renee May (flight attendant) called her parents.

She told them to call AA and report a hijacking.

They did.

Proof that there was a hi-jacking.

All of the rest of this is just curvelight exhibiting his bi-polar diorder.


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 21, 2009)

geauxtohell said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Run? Lol.  Start a thread complaining about treatment?   Funny again you dildo....I started a thread about your bipolar world about your inability to have a dialogue on the issue and you keep proving it correct.  Got anything useful to say?
> ...


its projection
troofers do that A LOT


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 21, 2009)

Fizz said:


> there are four airphone calls in which they dont know where it was connected. this doesnt account for any calls they know where it was connected or any calls that may have been made from cell phones.




My question was pretty clear but some how got confuzzled.  Does anyone have a link showing how many TOTAL calls were made from 77?  Don't even think about citing the 9/11myths site.


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 21, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


well then, by your definition of an OCTA, i'm not one

LOL
you just busted your own self


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 21, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...




Good golly you're fucking dumb.  I already pointed out I wasn't referencing the medical use of bipolar.  Useless bitch.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 21, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...




You claim the OCT is true so that means you're an OCTA.   Guess you want me to clarify the above post and will do so right now.  Of course not ALL OCTAs have the bipolar view and did not mean to imply it is 100%.  Got any other stupid complaints?


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 21, 2009)

candycorn said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > there are four airphone calls in which they dont know where it was connected. this doesnt account for any calls they know where it was connected or any calls that may have been made from cell phones.
> ...



So what is the claim here?  That a plane didn't fly into the pentagon?  

You know, you'd think that a plane flying at rooftop level over a major metropolitan area during rush hour would have a few witnesses.

Oh wait, it totally does!

Flight 77 Crash at the Pentagon - Eyewitness Accounts


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 21, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> You claim the OCT is true so that means you're an OCTA.   Guess you want me to clarify the above post and will do so right now.  Of course not ALL OCTAs have the bipolar view and did not mean to imply it is 100%.  Got any other stupid complaints?



Correction: 

We claim that what *you* dub the OCT is true, so *in your opinion* we are "OCTA"s or whatever.

Unfortunately for you, we've already established that you opinion is meaningless to us.


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 21, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...


see ^^^^^

more evidence of projection


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 21, 2009)

candycorn said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > there are four airphone calls in which they dont know where it was connected. this doesnt account for any calls they know where it was connected or any calls that may have been made from cell phones.
> ...




Then the evidence should be clearly given.  Where in the CR is the evidence of the call?  Then you bring up bipolar? Lol....guess you missed where it was already explained I wasn't referencing the medical term.   But this is yet another great example of how bitch OCTAs repeat ignorant info.  You and divecon both assumed geux knew what he was talking about so you piggyback his ignorance.  Thanks!


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 21, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


where have i EVER done that, useless bitch


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 21, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...





Hahaha.....figures you're such an arrogant fuck even after you are proven wrong you continue squawking.  You and liability, fizz, ollie, geaux, etc have to be one of the best examples of ignorant ***** trying to defend the OCT.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 21, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...




You defend the OCT on a regular basis. Got anything else einstein?


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 21, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


More projection


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 21, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


i do?
not what you call the OCT
you dumbfucking retard

btw fucktard, i'm on record on SEVERAL message boards(including this one) of calling the 9/11 commission report nothing but a political CYA job
so shove your shit back up your ass, i don't need your approval for anything


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 21, 2009)

candycorn said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 21, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



"Bipolar" has one connotation to me.  Especially when used in reference to behavior.  If your point was misunderstood, it's only because you suck at articulating a point.


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 21, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


----------



## eots (Dec 21, 2009)

diveconmoron stole the projection like from myself..you didint really think he came up with on his own did you ?


----------



## candycorn (Dec 21, 2009)

geauxtohell said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



He won't state what he thinks happened.
He won't state anything; he's just here to make noise.


----------



## Fizz (Dec 21, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



you have any evidence that the official version 's evidence is not correct?


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 21, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



So what hit the pentagon?


----------



## eots (Dec 21, 2009)

good question lets have a real investigation and determine that


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 21, 2009)

candycorn said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



Yeah, I know.  It's hilarious.  We are sheep because we "support the OCT".   Yet for all his squawking, he's yet to offer an alternative explanation.

I was always taught that part of persuasive argument is actually articulating your position and then trying to persuade people to adhere to it.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 21, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...




For someone who constantly accuses others of not being able to read you sure fail pretty badly.  I didn't say anything about the CR in relation to you.  Got anything else genius?


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 21, 2009)

eots said:


> good question lets have a real investigation and determine that



There should be some sort of indication for a new investigation.  

What is the indication?


----------



## candycorn (Dec 21, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



Page 9 of "We have some planes".

You are sick.
You need help.
No kidding.


----------



## eots (Dec 21, 2009)

how about rather than offering an alternative we have a full independent investigation of the events of 9/11


----------



## Fizz (Dec 21, 2009)

eots said:


> good question lets have a real investigation and determine that


nobody is stopping you. go ahead.


----------



## eots (Dec 21, 2009)

how about the failure of 9/11 commission and the complaints of its participants or the failure of NIST to find a conclusive cause to the collapse corroborated  it with evidence  and it denouncement by the lead investigator for 7 years ..is not that reason enough ??


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 21, 2009)

geauxtohell said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...




You being sheep for defending the OCT is independent of any actions taken by all Truthers.  You should also learn some basics about logic.


----------



## eots (Dec 21, 2009)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > good question lets have a real investigation and determine that
> ...



yes it is being stopped the government controls all the evidence and keeps it classified and under lock and key


----------



## candycorn (Dec 21, 2009)

eots said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Have you asked any of the rescue workers/first responders if there were any signs of passengers remains at the Pentagon?  They're not being controlled.  Just pick up the phone and give them a call.  Let them explain it to you.

If you haven't done so, why not?  What is stopping you?  You DO want the truth; do you not?


----------



## candycorn (Dec 21, 2009)

eots said:


> how about the failure of 9/11 commission and the complaints of its participants or the failure of NIST to find a conclusive cause to the collapse corroborated  it with evidence  and it denouncement by the lead investigator for 7 years ..is not that reason enough ??



No.

Such an event had never happened before.  

Who was this "lead" investigator you're talking about?


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 21, 2009)

candycorn said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...




So once again you fail to provide the evidence.  Why would I care if you think I'm sick or not?  You're just a pathetic **** that does nothing but whine.  For the last time, you got a link for the evidence or not?


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 21, 2009)

geauxtohell said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...




You dumb fuck.  You assumed I used "bipolar" in the medical sense so I posted the definition of the word and showed it was in reference to two poles but you still ignored that....just to make another dumbass remark.  You're fucking pathetic.


----------



## candycorn (Dec 21, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...




It's on page 9 of the section, "We Have Some Planes" dumb fuck.  
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf

I don't think you're sick;  I know you're sick.  The diagnosis is that you're paranoid and desperately alone in this world.  And for good reason.


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 21, 2009)

eots said:


> diveconmoron stole the projection like from myself..you didint really think he came up with on his own did you ?


liar
i stole NOTHING from you you fucking moron


----------



## Fizz (Dec 21, 2009)

eots said:


> yes it is being stopped the government controls all the evidence and keeps it classified and under lock and key



bullshit. there is evidence everywhere. your complaints that some info is classified is a cop out.


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 21, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


who the fuck can tell WHAT you are talking about when you use unknown fucking acronyms all the fucking time
say what you mean for a change


----------



## candycorn (Dec 21, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



*I didn't make that assumption; I simply diagnosed you with your all-too-apparent mental disorder.  

Now be a good boy and drop the fries.
*


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 21, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



The post you responded too was me explaining why I assumed you meant the medical term of "bipolar" as opposed to what you actually meant.

Apparently it went over your head.

So what hit the pentagon?


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 21, 2009)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > good question lets have a real investigation and determine that
> ...




Still waiting for the evidence of how many total calls (connected or not) came from 77.  Surely as well informed as you OCTAs are on that day you don't even have to google.  You have that info readily available, correct?


----------



## candycorn (Dec 21, 2009)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > yes it is being stopped the government controls all the evidence and keeps it classified and under lock and key
> ...



*Eots is copping out.  There were thousands of first responders in NY and DC and PA.  He's talked to none of them personally.  Yet somehow, he claims he can't get at any evidence because its all being controlled.  

He's full of shit but, hell, we knew that!!!*


----------



## eots (Dec 21, 2009)

Dr. Quintiere, one of the world&#8217;s leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, also encouraged his audience of fellow researchers and engineers to scientifically re-examine the WTC collapses. &#8220;I hope to convince you to perhaps become 'Conspiracy Theorists', but in a proper way



 Quintiere said he originally &#8220;had high hopes&#8221; that NIST would do a good job with the investigation. &#8220;They&#8217;re the central government lab for fire. There are good people there and they can do a good job. But what I also *thought they would do is to enlist the service of the ATF [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives], which has an investigation force and a laboratory of their own for fire. And I thought they would put people out on the street and get gumshoe-type information. What prevented all of this? *I think it&#8217;s the legal structure that cloaks the Commerce Department and therefore NIST. And so, instead of lawyers as if they were acting on a civil case trying to get depositions and information subpoenaed, *those lawyers did the opposite and blocked everything.&#8221; *

&#8220;In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause, by not sufficiently linking recommendations of specificity to cause, by *not fully invoking all of their authority to seek facts in the investigation, and by the guidance of government lawyers to deter rather than develop fact finding. *

OpEdNews - Page 2 of Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation


----------



## candycorn (Dec 21, 2009)

eots said:


> Dr. Quintiere, one of the worlds leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, also encouraged his audience of fellow researchers and engineers to scientifically re-examine the WTC collapses. I hope to convince you to perhaps become 'Conspiracy Theorists', but in a proper way
> 
> 
> 
> ...



"In my opinion"

His opinion.  Others disagree.  
Not enough to re-open an investigation.


----------



## Fizz (Dec 21, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



why on earth would you think i am here to do research for you? do it yourself you fucking lazy homo.


----------



## eots (Dec 21, 2009)

*investigators could not even get requested information*


World Trade Center Building 7. &#8220;And that building was not hit by anything,&#8221; noted Dr. Quintiere. &#8220;It&#8217;s more important to take a look at that. Maybe there was damage by the debris falling down that played a significant role. But other than that you had fires burning a long time without fire department intervention. And firefighters were in that building. I have yet to see any kind of story about what they saw. What was burning? Were photographs taken? Nothing!&#8221;

 the key has been to establish a timeline. And the timeline is established by witness accounts, by information from alarm systems, by any video that you might have of the event, and then by calculations. And you try to put all of this together. And if your calculations are consistent with some of these hard facts, then perhaps you can have some comfort in the results of your calculations. I have not seen a timeline placed in the NIST report.&#8221;

"I have over 35 years of fire research in my experience. I worked in the fire program at NIST for 19 years, leaving as a division chief. I have been at the University of Maryland since. I am a founding member and past-Chair of the International Association for Fire Safety Science&#8212;the principal world forum for fire research. ... 
*
"All of these have been submitted to NIST, but never acknowledged or answered.*


OpEdNews - Page 2 of Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 21, 2009)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > yes it is being stopped the government controls all the evidence and keeps it classified and under lock and key
> ...




Are you really trying to say the concealment of evidence is not sufficient to doubt the OCT?


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 21, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



You see, this is where you keep fucking up.

You are making the claim that bucks the status quo.  That means it's up to you to make a claim and provide evidence to support your claim.  

It's not that hard.  The fact that you refuse to do it is why no one takes you seriously.

So if flight 77 didn't hit the pentagon, what did?


----------



## eots (Dec 21, 2009)

Yes in the opinion of the investigator responsible for the first 7 years of the investigation
that you support but he does not


----------



## candycorn (Dec 21, 2009)

eots said:


> Yes in the opinion of the investigator responsible for the first 7 years of the investigation
> that you support but he does not



Others who have looked at it in-depth disagree.

Not enough to warrant a new investigation.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 21, 2009)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...




You made the claim you ignorant ****.  Your stupidity is further revealed by trying to offend me by calling me a homo.  Only bigots would be offended you fucking waste. But I fully expected you not to provide any evidence because you are fucking clueless.


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 21, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Good thing you have clean hands in the whole "name calling" department, huh?

Your righteous indignation is a little hollow considering how many times you've used the term "****" in this thread.


----------



## Fizz (Dec 21, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



more proof that you lie.

i never claimed i knew the total number of phone calls attempted, faggot.


----------



## Fizz (Dec 21, 2009)

eots said:


> *investigators could not even get requested information*
> 
> 
> World Trade Center Building 7. And that building was not hit by anything, noted Dr. Quintiere.



not hit by anything? HAHAHAhahaha!!!


----------



## eots (Dec 21, 2009)

Senator Max Cleland  Former member of the 9/11 Commission, resigned in December 2003.  Currently serves on the board of directors of the Export-Import Bank of the United States.  U.S. Senator from Georgia 1997 - 2002.  Secretary of State of Georgia 1982 - 1996.  Administrator of the U.S. Veterans Administration 1977 - 1981.  Former Captain, U.S. Army.  Awarded Silver Star and Bronze Star for bravery in Viet Nam.  Triple amputee from war injuries.  

Article New York Times 10/26/03: "As each day goes by, we learn that this government knew a whole lot more about these terrorists before Sept. 11 than it has ever admitted." Common Dreams | News & Views 


Article Boston Globe 11/13/03: "If this decision stands [to limit access to White House documents], I, as a member of the [9/11] Commission, cannot look any American in the eye, especially family members of victims, and say the Commission had full access. This investigation is now compromised. . . . This is `The Gong Show'; this isn't protection of national security." ... fIENDISH.net .... 


Article Salon 11/21/03: Regarding the 9/11 Commission "It is a national scandal." Directory - Salon.com 


Resigned from the 9/11 Commission, 12/03, after having served on it for 12 months.  Former Senator Bob Kerrey from Nebraska was selected to replace him.  The 9/11 Commission Report was issued 7 months later. 


Interview Democracy Now 3/23/04: "One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up."   A daily TV/radio news program, hosted by Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez, airing on over 800 stations, pioneering the largest community media collaboration in the U.S. 


Bio: American Memory from the Library of Congress - Home Page


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 21, 2009)

candycorn said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Yes in the opinion of the investigator responsible for the first 7 years of the investigation
> ...




You dumbass.  Those most responsible for the 9E Commission are also some of the most vocal about a new investigation.  Is there any area of this subject you are even remotely informed about?


----------



## Fizz (Dec 21, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



so investigate!! nobody is stopping you!!


----------



## eots (Dec 21, 2009)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > *investigators could not even get requested information*
> ...



Our study found that the fires in WTC 7, which were uncontrolled but otherwise similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings, caused an extraordinary event initiating a fire-induced progressive collapse that brought the building down. Finally, the report notes that while debris impact from the collapse of WTC 1 initiated fires in WTC 7, the resulting structural damage had little effect in causing the collapse of WTC 7.

NIST WTC 7 Investigation Finds Building Fires Caused Collapse, 08/21/08


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 21, 2009)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



And, if I might add, make sure you let us know what you find.

That will be more productive than simply jumping on here and calling people names because they don't believe, well, whatever the hell it is that you believe.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 21, 2009)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



Was going by your post that said:

(Fizz)
"there are four airphone calls in which they dont know where it was connected. this doesnt account for any calls they know where it was connected or any calls that may have been made from cell phones."


So what calls do you know they know about?  It's also funny you don't know how many calls were made.  Just more OCTA ignorance.


----------



## Fizz (Dec 21, 2009)

eots said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



WTF?!!

that has nothing to do with the original claim that WTC7 was not hit by anything!!


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 21, 2009)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > *investigators could not even get requested information*
> ...



It makes perfect sense you don't know what NIST said about wtc 7.  The info is less than a decade old.


----------



## Fizz (Dec 21, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



holy fuck you are stupid....

do you even understand what you read? where do you see me claiming i knew the total number of phone calls made?

you are such a lying piece of shit. you just got caught AGAIN!!!


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 21, 2009)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



You stupid fuck.  Eots pointed out the rest of the paragraph where it is admitted debris from the towers hit.  The "not hit by anything" references planes or anything else that could be as a weapon or assigned blame for the collapse.  You really love cherry picking anything to fit your bullshit.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 21, 2009)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



Dodging again?  Okay.....you don't know the total number of calls.  That doesn't matter because you claimed there are other phone calls besides the 4 connected ones to unknown numbers.  So where are these phone calls you claim?


----------



## Fizz (Dec 21, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


you stupid fuck..... one of his "experts" claims it want hit by anything.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 21, 2009)

geauxtohell said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...




How can you be so stupid as to repeat the same fallacy numerous times without realizing it?


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 21, 2009)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...




It was not hit by anything that caused the collapse you turd tard.  That was the point.


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 21, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



What fallacy?  I am just trying to get you to tell us what your theory is on the matter.

Short of that, your only point seems to be: "You are idiots for accepting the OCT!" without offering up your own theory as to what happened.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 21, 2009)

geauxtohell said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...




Last freebie......

Definition: False Dilemma

A limited number of options (usually two) is given, while in reality there are more options. A false dilemma is an illegitimate use of the "or" operator. 

Putting issues or opinions into "black or white" terms is a common instance of this fallacy. 

Examples: 

Either you're for me or against me. 

America: love it or leave it. 

Either support Meech Lake or Quebec will separate. 

Every person is either wholly good or wholly evil. 
The Logical Fallacies: False Dilemma


The fallacy is claiming the absence of an alt theory is evidence the OCT is true.  If I have to tutor you any further on logic 101 it will not be for free.  Nobody has to give an alt theory to show the OCT isn't true.


----------



## Fizz (Dec 21, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



hey dumbfuck, show me where i claim there are any other phone calls. there's no dodging going on. you simply are lying and cant back up your claim.

you got caught lying again.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 21, 2009)

It appears so far the CR does not provide any conclusive evidence of phone calls for May or Olson.  The great and wonderful candycorn cited page 9 of the "We have some planes." The problem is the footnote (#56) for supporting that simply refers to footnote #57.  I've already posted that footnote but let's look at it again:


"57.The records available for the phone calls from American 77 do not allow for a determination of which of four "connected calls to unknown numbers" represent the two between Barbara and Ted Olson, although the FBI and DOJ believe that all four represent communications between Barbara Olson and her husband's office (all family members of the Flight 77 passengers and crew were canvassed to see if they had received any phone calls from the hijacked flight, and only Renee May's parents and Ted Olson indicated that they had received such calls).The four calls were at 9:15:34 for 1 minute, 42 seconds; 915 for 4 minutes, 34 seconds; 9:25:48 for 2 minutes, 34 seconds; and 9:30:56 for 4 minutes, 20 seconds. FBI report, "American Airlines Airphone Usage," Sept. 20, 2001; FBI report of investigation, interview of Theodore Olson, Sept. 11, 2001; FBI report of investigation, interview of Helen Voss, Sept. 14, 2001;AAL response to the Commission's supplemental document request, Jan. 20, 2004."

The FBI's report on phone calls does not provide any evidence a successful call was made between 77's airphones and May's parents or Ted Olson.  Is there more evidence available from the FBI's report?


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 21, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Why are you so scared just to tell us what you believe?  

Don't insult our intelligence by simply saying "I don't believe the OCT!". 

What specifically don't you believe about it, and why not? 

Spare me the bragging about your logical prowess.  You lost any intellectual high ground you had early on in this matter.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 21, 2009)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...




How can you be so fucking pathetic?  I cited the footnote from the CR showing the FBI reported there were 4 connected calls to unknown numbers.  I asked if there were any other calls and a couple of posts later you said:

(Fizz--approximately post 154)
"there are four airphone calls in which they dont know where it was connected. this doesnt account for any calls they know where it was connected or any calls that may have been made from cell phones."

You are saying the 4 airphone calls to unknown numbers are not the only calls.  You stupid ****.  You clearly said there were also airphone calls where they knew where they were connected and cell phone calls.  So again.  What were the calls to the known numbers and calls from cell phones?  Or is your dumb punk ass going to lie again and say you never claimed there were more calls than the 4 connected ones to unknown numbers?

It's funny as hell such a fucking loser like yourself, who is a proven liar, goes around accusing others.  Even after I proved you did claim there were other calls you won't admit you fucked up.  Just like when you claimed prior to pearl harbor no planes had ever sunk a battleship.  I provided a link showing it was done 20 years earlier and like the predictable little pussy you are you absolutely refused to admit you were wrong.  


So what kind of whining will you use now?  We can all see you claimed there were two types of different calls (cell phone and airphone connected to known numbers)  in addition to the airphone connected to unknown numbers.


----------



## Fizz (Dec 21, 2009)

before you get hung up on some type of case you seem to be building keep in mind that at least one and maybe all of the calls may have been made to the operator. the operator could have connected them to more than one phone number without them hanging up the phone completely and starting over.


----------



## candycorn (Dec 21, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> It appears so far the CR does not provide any conclusive evidence of phone calls for May or Olson.  The great and wonderful candycorn cited page 9 of the "We have some planes." The problem is the footnote (#56) for supporting that simply refers to footnote #57.  I've already posted that footnote but let's look at it again:
> 
> 
> "57.The records available for the phone calls from American 77 do not allow for a determination of which of four "connected calls to unknown numbers" represent the two between Barbara and Ted Olson, although the FBI and DOJ believe that all four represent communications between Barbara Olson and her husband's office (all family members of the Flight 77 passengers and crew were canvassed to see if they had received any phone calls from the hijacked flight, and only Renee May's parents and Ted Olson indicated that they had received such calls).The four calls were at 9:15:34 for 1 minute, 42 seconds; 915 for 4 minutes, 34 seconds; 9:25:48 for 2 minutes, 34 seconds; and 9:30:56 for 4 minutes, 20 seconds. FBI report, "American Airlines Airphone Usage," Sept. 20, 2001; FBI report of investigation, interview of Theodore Olson, Sept. 11, 2001; FBI report of investigation, interview of Helen Voss, Sept. 14, 2001;AAL response to the Commission's supplemental document request, Jan. 20, 2004."
> ...



*
The Mays contacted American Airlines.
The Mays informed American Airlines of their daughter's plane being hijacked.
Therefore, the Mays knew.

How did they know?  
Their daughter called them.

This is the fourth time that has been posted.  This will be the fourth time you've ignored the proof.  Either you're mentally unstable (which is what I'm guessing) or you are so fucking illiterate that you can't read.  
*


----------



## Fizz (Dec 21, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



you dont understand english very well. i said there are 4 phone calls which they dont know what number they were connected to.

so far you got that right.

then you try to put words in my mouth by saying i claim there are more phone calls.

my only claim is that the 4 phone calls to unknown numbers do not account for any other phone calls where they do know the number. i make no claim on whether they exist or dont exist. i have no idea and have never claimed otherwise.

you lie by claiming i did.


----------



## candycorn (Dec 21, 2009)

*Definition:

Dumbfuck = Curvelight.
Examples--every single post that waste of oxygen has ever made.
Also see--"poster child for abortion", "fuckstain", "asswipe", and "fry-chief"*


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 21, 2009)

geauxtohell said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...




Another strawman.  This time I am "scared" to say what I believe happened? Lol.  I wasn't bragging about my intellectual prowess....I have very little of that.  What I did do was point out your lack of understanding the false dilemmas you keep presenting.  Your post here is another example.  You claim I'm scared to say what I believe even though I've repeated it ad nauseum my belief is I don't know what happened.  Wasn't too long ago you said you weren't trying to tell me what to think but now you're trying to extort a different position by saying I'm scared to say what I "really" believe.


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 21, 2009)

candycorn said:


> *Definition:
> 
> Dumbfuck = Curvelight.
> Examples--every single post that waste of oxygen has ever made.
> Also see--"poster child for abortion", "fuckstain", "asswipe", and "fry-chief"*



I am beginning to think CL is a rebel without a cause on this matter.

He doesn't know what he believes, he just doesn't believe the "OCT" from the "Guberment!".  He's so passionate about his disbelief that he's created special terms and labels for those who disagree with him, all while never forming an alternate conclusion!


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 21, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Another strawman.  This time I am "scared" to say what I believe happened? Lol.  I wasn't bragging about my intellectual prowess....I have very little of that.  What I did do was point out your lack of understanding the false dilemmas you keep presenting.  Your post here is another example.  You claim I'm scared to say what I believe even though I've repeated it ad nauseum my belief is I don't know what happened.  Wasn't too long ago you said you weren't trying to tell me what to think but now you're trying to extort a different position by saying I'm scared to say what I "really" believe.



For fuck's sake, man.  There must be some sort of collection of thoughts on this matter rattling around in your cranial vault that you could share with us.

Labeling something a "conspiracy" as in the "OCT" implies criminality.  Criminality has a motive.  

I am just trying to give you the opportunity to contribute to some form of rational dialogue on this matter beyond insulting those who accept the facts as we see them.

It's asinine to insult people's beliefs without offering up some sort of alternative.

Did you come on here to win people to your cause?  If so, provide some evidence.

If not, why did you come here?  To simply insult people?


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 21, 2009)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



You really suck at backpedaling.  If there are other calls where they know the number then what are they?  If you aren't claiming they exist then how can you claim that list "does not account" for other calls?  If you don't know what other calls exist (if any) then you have absolutely no basis for saying the list of 4 calls to unknown numbers is incomplete.  Since you don't know of any other calls why claim the list is incomplete?


----------



## candycorn (Dec 21, 2009)

geauxtohell said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...




*
The moment he takes a stand is the moment he has to defend a position.
He can't defend anything he says so he will not take any position whatsoever.
And it's a very good hedge...he'll always be able to say (with his fists on his hips) "Well, I never said I knew what happened" when he finally has to account for his lame comments.  There actually is a small movement to extend libel laws to the Internet.  The day it happens is the day you see him go bye bye.
*


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 21, 2009)

candycorn said:


> *Definition:
> 
> Dumbfuck = Curvelight.
> Examples--every single post that waste of oxygen has ever made.
> Also see--"poster child for abortion", "fuckstain", "asswipe", and "fry-chief"*




Hahahahahaha.......fucking whiner.  Looks like you are a bit upset the information you tried to present as "iron clad evidence" of May's call is the exact same information I provided as evidence there is no objective evidence supporting that claim.  You cited page 9 of. "We have some planes."  The part on May has footnote 56 which references footnote 57, that points out the FBI does not have evidence Olson or May made successful calls.


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 21, 2009)

candycorn said:


> *
> The moment he takes a stand is the moment he has to defend a position.
> He can't defend anything he says so he will not take any position whatsoever.
> And it's a very good hedge...he'll always be able to say (with his fists on his hips) "Well, I never said I knew what happened" when he finally has to account for his lame comments.  There actually is a small movement to extend libel laws to the Internet.  The day it happens is the day you see him go bye bye.
> *



I think you are correct.  I guess that's one way to do it.  As lame as it ultimately is.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 21, 2009)

geauxtohell said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Another strawman.  This time I am "scared" to say what I believe happened? Lol.  I wasn't bragging about my intellectual prowess....I have very little of that.  What I did do was point out your lack of understanding the false dilemmas you keep presenting.  Your post here is another example.  You claim I'm scared to say what I believe even though I've repeated it ad nauseum my belief is I don't know what happened.  Wasn't too long ago you said you weren't trying to tell me what to think but now you're trying to extort a different position by saying I'm scared to say what I "really" believe.
> ...




Ummmmmm.....yes it is fully correct the term "conspiracy" denotes criminality.  Maybe that's why the bush admin stated 9/11 was a conspiracy among extremist terrorists?  The term "Official Conspiracy Theory" does not implicate the bush admin at all.  

It is: 

Official because that is the government's explanation.

Conspiracy because it said terrorist conspired to attack.

Theory because it has never been proven.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 21, 2009)

candycorn said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...




Thank you for reinforcing my argument in the OCTA/Bipolar thread OP.  I have taken a stand but you bitches are obsessed with trying to get me to change it.  Saying I don't know what happened is not in line with saying the OCT is true or it was a false flag op.


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 21, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



So what part about the words "official" and "conspiracy" do you not accept and why not?

I have my doubts that you would invest this much energy into this issue if it was one of minor nuance.


----------



## Fizz (Dec 21, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Ummmmmm.....yes it is fully correct the term "conspiracy" denotes criminality.  Maybe that's why the bush admin stated 9/11 was a conspiracy among extremist terrorists?  The term "Official Conspiracy Theory" does not implicate the bush admin at all.
> 
> It is:
> 
> ...



so you think it is complete coincidence that 4 planes got hijacked on the same day? and then 2 of them hit the same target?

if so you are correct. the terrorists conspiring is only a theory.
if you think they all worked together then the theory has been proven.


----------



## candycorn (Dec 21, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



*
I don't know who is going to win the Oscar for best picture this year.  I think it will be Nine.  

See what I did there dumbfuck?  I amitted I don't know something but I stated my opinion.*


----------



## candycorn (Dec 21, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > *Definition:
> ...



Then how did they know it was hijacked?  Why did they call American Airlines?  Its in the report on page 9 of "We Have Some Planes"

Not upset; just reporting facts there Fry-Chief.


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 21, 2009)

candycorn said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



LOL!

Speaking of.... I am going to see an advanced screening of that tonight.


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 21, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



Simply saying "I don't know what happened" is a pretty weak stance.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 21, 2009)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Ummmmmm.....yes it is fully correct the term "conspiracy" denotes criminality.  Maybe that's why the bush admin stated 9/11 was a conspiracy among extremist terrorists?  The term "Official Conspiracy Theory" does not implicate the bush admin at all.
> ...



Coincidence?  I never said the OCT is prophetic or casting predictions.  It is a Theory because it has not been proven in our legal system (ie. Bin laden has never been charged with anything 9E related yet the bush admin claimed he was responsible.)  It has also not been proven in the public arena as demonstrated by the Truth movement which was formed mainly by victims families and first responders.  OCTAs believing the OCT is not proof it is true.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 21, 2009)

candycorn said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...




The fact is the CR provides no objective evidence May or Olson were called from anyone on 77.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 21, 2009)

candycorn said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...




Dumb mother fucking analogy.  Shit you are idiotic.  Since the award has not been given the ONLY thing you can state is your opinion.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 21, 2009)

geauxtohell said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



The bipolar glasses get shined up again.  What is "weak" is spending more energy trying to manipulate someone to say something than there is spent on examining the facts.


----------



## candycorn (Dec 21, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



What is weak is your spine if you're supposedly 8 years into your examination of the events and you don't even have an opinion youre "brave" enough to share.

You're simply a coward; loser.  On second thought, please keep it to yourself.  You're adding nothing so fuck off and die or whatever.  Nobody cares.  And, as you know, nobody will miss you outside of the drive thru lane.


----------



## candycorn (Dec 21, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Neither do you, in that case.  Does Art Bell know about you?


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 21, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



I'd gladly examine your facts if you had any sort of position other than "I don't accept the OCT!"

As it stands, I am getting bored of having my intelligence insulted.  We all know damn well that you have definitive beliefs about this.  You just won't state them, because as CandyCorn observed, that would require you to actually defend them.

As it stands, my best guess is that you simply create these threads to insult people who don't suspect a conspiracy under every rock.


----------



## candycorn (Dec 21, 2009)

geauxtohell said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



I think he's just crying for the attention he never received from women.  Some guys are like that.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 21, 2009)

candycorn said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...




Looks like the typical garbage.  So far there has been no objective evidence provided May or Olson received calls from 77.  So you try to hide that by focusing on me personally.  Losers like you are so boring because you are so predictable.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 21, 2009)

candycorn said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



I have never said I've been studying it for 8 years.  It's just another example of an OCTA **** putting words in others' mouths to try and score points.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 21, 2009)

geauxtohell said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...





Hmmmmm.....well thank you!  Damn it's so pathetic when OCTAs do this shit.  Earlier in this thread I pointed out OCTAs were trying to tell me what to think and you responded in post 114 by saying:

(geauxtohell. Post 114)
"No, douchebag, we don't want to tell you what to think.  We want you to tell us what you think. 

If our opinion of you is so meaningless, why do you keep coming back for more abuse."


Now you say:

"We all know damn well that you have definitive beliefs about this."

But.....you aren't trying to tell me what to think?  How can you not be embarrassed?


Then you say you'd gladly look at any facts if I stated my position.  That makes no sense.  The facts are the facts, period.  Anyone's belief is independent of addressing the facts.


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 21, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Again.  Asking you to tell us what you believe is not telling you what to believe.

Quit the contrary.  

Then I said, we know you must have some sort of strong belief about this.  I didn't say what the belief was or that you "had to believe" this or that (as you dishonestly accused me of doing), I stated that I don't believe you when you state your only belief is that we need a new investigation.


----------



## Fizz (Dec 21, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Zacarias Moussaoui, you fucking dumbass.


----------



## Toro (Dec 21, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> OCTAs view the issue in two extremes:  you fully accept the OCT or you believe it was all a false flag.  That is a false dilemma.



And this is a false statement.

But that's not a surprise.

Most non-twoofers do not _fully_ accept the official report.  Most non-twoofers _generally_ accept the official report.

We spend most of our time continuously debunking ridiculous theories like "a missile hit the Pentagon" for the same reason why we debunk the ridiculous theory that the world is flat.


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 21, 2009)

Toro said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > OCTAs view the issue in two extremes:  you fully accept the OCT or you believe it was all a false flag.  That is a false dilemma.
> ...



Now prepare for CL to tell you that he doesn't believe that a missle hit the Pentagon.

He won't tell you what he does believe, but he will be more than happy to tell you what he doesn't believe.  So far we've got it narrowed down to the "OCT" and that's about it.


----------



## eots (Dec 21, 2009)

no you are the flat earthers and in control of the mock trails.. investigations and critical evidence you buffoon


----------



## Toro (Dec 21, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Yes, and another example of a false dilemma is



CurveLight said:


> Need it explained again?  Probably.  So.....OCTAs view it in a bipolar framework of two poles.
> 
> 1.  Confess the OCT is true
> 
> ...


----------



## Toro (Dec 21, 2009)

eots said:


> no you are the flat earthers and in control of the mock trails.. investigations and critical evidence you buffoon



No

*You  are!*


----------



## Toro (Dec 21, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> the Truth movement which was formed mainly by victims families and first responders.



You want to back that up?

Seems to me that the founders of the truth movement were unemployed drop-outs making movies in the woods, talk-radio show hosts, preachers unaffiliated with 9/11, architects, etc.


----------



## eots (Dec 21, 2009)

Toro said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > the Truth movement which was formed mainly by victims families and first responders.
> ...



so you are in willful ignorance then

Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report

OpEdNews - Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deoAo1LxnbA[/ame]


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-n3ayDFUXI0&feature=related[/ame]


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcxjJDlbnC4&feature=related[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NW4NopI4tvU&feature=related[/ame]


----------



## Fizz (Dec 21, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Looks like the typical garbage.  So far there has been no objective evidence provided May or Olson received calls from 77.  So you try to hide that by focusing on me personally.  Losers like you are so boring because you are so predictable.



testimony of the secretary that answered Barbara Olson's calls
http://intelfiles.egoplex.com/2001-09-14-FBI-FD302-lori-lynn-keyton.pdf


and also phone records showing the 4 calls to unknown numbers IN ADDITION TO two calls from Renee May to her parents. T7 B12 Flight 93 Calls- General Fdr- 5-20-04 DOJ Briefing on Cell and Phone Calls From AA 77 408

(still looking at more evidence that as many as 15 other calls had taken place but not sure yet if it is before or after the hijacking or if they were ever connected.)


----------



## Toro (Dec 21, 2009)

eots said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



He said that the Truth movement was founded *mainly* by victims and first responders.  You want to show where you links confirm this?


----------



## candycorn (Dec 21, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



Except the testimonies of the secretaries of Mr. Olson.
Except that the Mays called AA to report the hi-jacking after being urged by their daughter.

Other than that, you're right.


----------



## candycorn (Dec 21, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



You've known about it for 8 years I suspect....most people form opinions within like 2 minutes or something; you haven't yet.  I'm guessing you're developmentally disabled and a social neophyte.  You get your ass kicked all the time don't you?  Tell those girls not to be so rough.


----------



## Fizz (Dec 22, 2009)

and lets not forget that al qeda takes credit for the attacks.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCUN7KbUg5M&NR=1[/ame]


----------



## eots (Dec 22, 2009)

who is this Jewish guy and what does he know ????


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 22, 2009)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Looks like the typical garbage.  So far there has been no objective evidence provided May or Olson received calls from 77.  So you try to hide that by focusing on me personally.  Losers like you are so boring because you are so predictable.
> ...



Scrib addition from August 2009?

So let me get this straight--the 9E CR is the source to explain 9/11 except when you can't support the OCT using that document, and if that happens you can use any other source?

Since it keeps getting overlooked I will say it again: so far there is no objective evidence proving any calls from 77 were made to May or Olson.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 22, 2009)

Toro said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > the Truth movement which was formed mainly by victims families and first responders.
> ...




Another stellar example of OCTA ignorance.  It's not even worth my time to post the links.  Great job in putting another nail in the coffin of OCTA credibility.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 22, 2009)

candycorn said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...




You stupid fuck.  Do you know what "objective" evidence means?  Apparently not.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 22, 2009)

candycorn said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...




Great!  That's perfect!  On another occasion when it is shown you make a false claim you once again do nothing but try to keep it to personal jabs and completely avoid admitting you fucked up.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 22, 2009)

Toro said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...



Are you aware......hmmm.....scratch that.  It's obvious you are not aware of anything of relevance.  Less than 2 weeks after 9E the Bush admin drafted a Bill that would give welfare to victims families in exchange for the victims not suing airlines.  It was the first and fastest public move to suppress any type of investigation.  Not all families bought into the extortion.  The Commission was formed from pressure of lobbying by victims families.

GovTrack: House Record: RECOGNIZING BEVERLY ECKERT FOR 9/11 VICTIMS WORK (111-h20090304-31)

Victimsâ families continue fight for new 9/11 probe - RT Top Stories

9/11 Family Steering Committee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

9-11 Commission Funding Woes - TIME

Jersey Girls - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How in the fuck can you be so unbelievably ignorant about 9E basics?  This just shows OCTAs on the whole are ill informed and really have little to any business trying to speak on the matter lest they reveal their ignorance.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 22, 2009)

Fizz said:


> and lets not forget that al qeda takes credit for the attacks.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCUN7KbUg5M&NR=1




You bimbo.  We've already covered this.  Bin laden denied involvement and he's never been charged with anything about 9E.  Yeah, yeah, your next move is to say he admitted it.  Well genius, if that admission was credible the FBI would have used it to charge him.  They never have.  That means the FBI doesn't have enough evidence to charge bin laden.  As for alkida admitting it.....do you even know who they are or do you just turn on the tv and wait for the government to tell you?  How can you tell the difference between a member and non-member?  Do they have Alkida Club Cards?  As for extremists admitting responsibility.  Well no shit!  Do you have any idea how beneficial it would be for any anti-Western group to claim they played a role?  Of course not because you're fucking clueless.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 22, 2009)

Couple things about the phone calls.  It seems pretty strange the CR cannot provide a single objective piece of evidence showing successful calls from 77 were made.  Whether the calls were by cell or airfone it makes absolutely no sense the billing records from the private companies cannot confirm the numbers.  How many times has it happened where you get your phone bill without the destination numbers?  The FBI, one of the most powerful law enforcement agencies in the world cannot find the destination numbers?  

Another issue is the straight up deception.  This is from a link posted by Ollie:

(looks like a government run website by address "america.gov")

"Mr. Meyssan&#8217;s book also ignores the fact that several passengers from American Airlines flight 77 made phone calls reporting that their plane had been hijacked."


Look at that!  "Several" passengers?  From my knowledge it has always been TWO.  Suddenly "2" is on par with "several?"  Puuuleeease!  That is a deliberate attempt to give false info to boost the OCT.

The last item, which may or may not be important is the only 2 people said to have called were also people who's voice would have been publicly audible on many many occasions.  This suggests fake phone calls were possible.  Once you have recordings of their voices you can dub their tone through different types of software.  Also, if fake phone calls happened it would answer all relevant questions.  It would solve these issues:

1. No confirmation on the phone numbers. (a fake call would use trace blocking technology)

2. May's parents and Ted Olson would have been telling the truth about receiving calls.

3.  There is no objective proof May and Olson made successful calls.


People are also forgetting the initial evidence used to say 77 was hijacked was Olson's rather strange media circuit run.  The dude's wife just got whacked and he's making talk show rounds like he pushing a rogue book.  By the time he got done anyone within a mile of the Pentagon was saying they saw flight 77.

For all the rabid readers, no I'm not claiming fake phone calls definitely happened but based on all information I am currently aware of, the scenario clearly answers more questions than the other popular theories.


----------



## Fizz (Dec 22, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Bin laden denied involvement and he's never been charged with anything about 9E.  Yeah, yeah, your next move is to say he admitted it.  Well genius, if that admission was credible the FBI would have used it to charge him.  They never have.  That means the FBI doesn't have enough evidence to charge bin laden.  As for alkida admitting it.....do you even know who they are or do you just turn on the tv and wait for the government to tell you?  How can you tell the difference between a member and non-member?  Do they have Alkida Club Cards?  As for extremists admitting responsibility.  Well no shit!  Do you have any idea how beneficial it would be for any anti-Western group to claim they played a role?  Of course not because you're fucking clueless.



you really have no idea how the legal system works, apparently. filing charges before he is caught would accomplish what exactly?

fucking moron....


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 22, 2009)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



ZM's trial covered ALL of 9E?  Of course it didn't but ***** like you have a deep affinity for rewriting anything that fits your agenda.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 22, 2009)

geauxtohell said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



Holy shit.  When you state:

"We all know damn well that you have definitive beliefs about this."

You are trying to tell others what they think.


----------



## Fizz (Dec 22, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Couple things about the phone calls.  It seems pretty strange the CR cannot provide a single objective piece of evidence showing successful calls from 77 were made.  Whether the calls were by cell or airfone it makes absolutely no sense the billing records from the private companies cannot confirm the numbers.  How many times has it happened where you get your phone bill without the destination numbers?  The FBI, one of the most powerful law enforcement agencies in the world cannot find the destination numbers?
> 
> Another issue is the straight up deception.  This is from a link posted by Ollie:
> 
> ...



holy fuck!!! 

your denials are fucking hilarious!!!

there are phone records the calls happened. there are independent witnesses the calls happened. now you are saying that some type of voice morphing technology is actual more credible than the actual phone calls?


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 22, 2009)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Bin laden denied involvement and he's never been charged with anything about 9E.  Yeah, yeah, your next move is to say he admitted it.  Well genius, if that admission was credible the FBI would have used it to charge him.  They never have.  That means the FBI doesn't have enough evidence to charge bin laden.  As for alkida admitting it.....do you even know who they are or do you just turn on the tv and wait for the government to tell you?  How can you tell the difference between a member and non-member?  Do they have Alkida Club Cards?  As for extremists admitting responsibility.  Well no shit!  Do you have any idea how beneficial it would be for any anti-Western group to claim they played a role?  Of course not because you're fucking clueless.
> ...




Rotfl!  You dumb fuck.  Look at the FBI's list.  He has already been charged with other crimes and you got it fucking backwards.  So if filing charges before he is caught accompishes nothing then you better call the FBI legal department immediately and tell them to drop all charges until bin laden is caught.  In this situation charges have to be filed before an arrest is legal.  What do you think the Most Wanted list is?  Stupid. Mother.  Fucker.


----------



## Fizz (Dec 22, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> ZM's trial covered ALL of 9E?  Of course it didn't but ***** like you have a deep affinity for rewriting anything that fits your agenda.



hey jackass, you claimed it was only a theory because it was not proven in our legal system. cant you even remember what you wrote? now you try to change what you said to something else entirely. you cant even keep your own story straight.

typical fucking terrorist apologist.


----------



## Fizz (Dec 22, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



how stupid can you possibly be?

he's already been charged with other crimes so what would charging him with 9/11 accomplish?

you actually made my point for me. lets see how you try to squirm out of this one.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 22, 2009)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Couple things about the phone calls.  It seems pretty strange the CR cannot provide a single objective piece of evidence showing successful calls from 77 were made.  Whether the calls were by cell or airfone it makes absolutely no sense the billing records from the private companies cannot confirm the numbers.  How many times has it happened where you get your phone bill without the destination numbers?  The FBI, one of the most powerful law enforcement agencies in the world cannot find the destination numbers?
> ...




This is why you are a laughable piece of shit.  You fucking pussy.  There are no records the phone calls happened as OCTAs claim.  Once again the facts from the FBI in the CR states:

(footnote from page 9 of We Have Some Planes)
"57.The records available for the phone calls from American 77 do not allow for a determination of which of four "connected calls to unknown numbers" represent the two between Barbara and Ted Olson..."


Look at my post.  I clearly said iam not claiming fake phone calls definitely happened.  I pointed out there is no objective evidence proving calls took place between 77 and May's parents or ted olson.

You want to continue being the lying sack of shit you are by ignoring what my post actually says (just like you do with the CR or anything else) and use your editing practices to make it say whatever you want it to say.  Don't worry, I fully expected a piece of worthless shit like yourself to try and change what I said.  Do the world a favor...........


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 22, 2009)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...




First you claimed I have no idea how the legal system works because they wouldn't charge him until he got caught.  I point out your fucking idiocy by highlighting the fact the law says they have to be charged before being arrested and he is already charged with other crimes....WHILE NOT BEING CAUGHT!

Then your dumbass asks what would be accomplished by charging him with 9E?  

YOU STUPID FUCKING MORONIC ASS LICKING DOUCHEBAG!

The government does not have a choice!  If there is evidence someone committed a federal crime the Feds, BY LAW, HAVE TO CHARGE THE PERSON!

I guess I should just say thank you for yet another example of you trying to talk about something you are fucking clueless about.

Tell us again how he can't get charged until he gets caught? Rotfl! Idiot.


----------



## Fizz (Dec 22, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



whats wrong? you wake up today with sand in your pussy? quit fucking crying about what i choose to include or not include in my posts. my god you fucking whine and cry about everything. do you need your mommy to hold your hand and wipe your nose when you read the boards or what?

you claim that the phone morphing answers more questions than the actual phone call records.


----------



## candycorn (Dec 22, 2009)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Bin laden denied involvement and he's never been charged with anything about 9E.  Yeah, yeah, your next move is to say he admitted it.  Well genius, if that admission was credible the FBI would have used it to charge him.  They never have.  That means the FBI doesn't have enough evidence to charge bin laden.  As for alkida admitting it.....do you even know who they are or do you just turn on the tv and wait for the government to tell you?  How can you tell the difference between a member and non-member?  Do they have Alkida Club Cards?  As for extremists admitting responsibility.  Well no shit!  Do you have any idea how beneficial it would be for any anti-Western group to claim they played a role?  Of course not because you're fucking clueless.
> ...



*Some researcher...he can't spell Al Queda correctly.  
You're dealing with someone who is simply crying for attention in Curvelight.
He's dead to me until he produces some sort of contradictory story.  *


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 22, 2009)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > ZM's trial covered ALL of 9E?  Of course it didn't but ***** like you have a deep affinity for rewriting anything that fits your agenda.
> ...




Lol....."terrorist apologist?"  ZM's trial was not a legal proceeding that proved the OCT true you fucking ****.  I didn't change anything I said.  All you do is lie like a little crack bitch.  Go kill yourself.  At least you could be useful by giving other people work to do....you know... the morgue technicians, funeral home etc.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 22, 2009)

candycorn said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...




It's always telling when ***** like you focus on how Alkida is spelled instead of the substantive issues.  You can't provide objective evidence of your claim so you pull this stupid shit.


----------



## Fizz (Dec 22, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



you claimed it was only a theory because it was not proven in our legal system. ZM is convicted with evidence from all four hijacked flights.

you lied.


----------



## Fizz (Dec 22, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> [
> It's always telling when ***** like you focus on how Alkida is spelled instead of the substantive issues.  You can't provide objective evidence of your claim so you pull this stupid shit.



it has been provided. your denials are stupid.

this is apparently caused by a small particle of brain that is located inside your skull.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 22, 2009)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



The theory of fake phone calls do answer more questions than the OCT you useless ****.  Have you already forgotten there is no solid evidence of the calls due to "unknown" numbers?  ***** like you pretend you are being honest but you fail to address the simple points laid out here.  I'm looking at every single aspect of the calls and factoring them into a possibility.  You are doing nothing but cherry picking to fit your agenda you useless bitch.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 22, 2009)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



You're so fucking dumb it's not even worth it.


----------



## Fizz (Dec 22, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> I'm looking at every single aspect of the calls and factoring them into a possibility.  You are doing nothing but cherry picking to fit your agenda you useless bitch.



so share with us all the info you have. that way you cant accuse me of cherry picking.

for instance, share with us how long Renee May's call to her parents lasted. was this one of the "unknown" calls?


----------



## Fizz (Dec 22, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> You're so fucking dumb it's not even worth it.



typical cop out. you got caught again saying stupid shit and instead of admitting you were wrong you simply claim i am dumb and not worth it.

so if i am dumb and not worth it why dont you stop replying to me?


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 22, 2009)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > I'm looking at every single aspect of the calls and factoring them into a possibility.  You are doing nothing but cherry picking to fit your agenda you useless bitch.
> ...




You have to be fucking kidding.  I did that already and it was in the post you quoted....what the fuck is wrong with you?  From what I could find the only calls verified by the FBI are 4 calls to unknown numbers as stated in footnote 57 that I've posted several times.  Candycorn said there was "iron clad" proof Renee made the call but then referenced page 9 of the "We Have Some Planes."  That was footnote 56 which simply references footnote 57.  So where in the CR does it prove Renee made the call?


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 22, 2009)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > You're so fucking dumb it's not even worth it.
> ...




You're the dumb **** that said the reason bin laden was not charged with 9E is because it would be worthless to do it before he was caught. I explained why that was stupid shit and you ignored it. I keep responding because you keep showing how fucking dumb and ignorant you are and this "why bin laden not charged" bit shows it even more.  You're the one who made another stupid claim you can't support.

So explain to us all einstein how the Feds don't charge someone UNTIL the suspect is caught you dumb fucking ****.


----------



## Fizz (Dec 22, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> You have to be fucking kidding.  I did that already and it was in the post you quoted....what the fuck is wrong with you?  From what I could find the only calls verified by the FBI are 4 calls to unknown numbers as stated in footnote 57 that I've posted several times.  Candycorn said there was "iron clad" proof Renee made the call but then referenced page 9 of the "We Have Some Planes."  That was footnote 56 which simply references footnote 57.  So where in the CR does it prove Renee made the call?



so consider this an early christmas present....

T7 B12 Flight 93 Calls- General Fdr- 5-20-04 DOJ Briefing on Cell and Phone Calls From AA 77 408

notice renee's call of 158 seconds is NOT one of the unknown calls.


----------



## Fizz (Dec 22, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



apparently i am stupid so please explain what the advantage of charging him now.we both know he already has charges against him for which he can be arrested. if they charge him now does that mean they get to arrest him twice or something?


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 22, 2009)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Bin laden denied involvement and he's never been charged with anything about 9E.  Yeah, yeah, your next move is to say he admitted it.  Well genius, if that admission was credible the FBI would have used it to charge him.  They never have.  That means the FBI doesn't have enough evidence to charge bin laden.  As for alkida admitting it.....do you even know who they are or do you just turn on the tv and wait for the government to tell you?  How can you tell the difference between a member and non-member?  Do they have Alkida Club Cards?  As for extremists admitting responsibility.  Well no shit!  Do you have any idea how beneficial it would be for any anti-Western group to claim they played a role?  Of course not because you're fucking clueless.
> ...




So here is Genius Fizz claiming I'm ignorant of our legal system because charges shouldn't be filed until the perp is caught.  Let's look at the FBI page:


"A federal arrest warrant was recently issued and a manhunt is still under way for alleged murderer Paul Merhige."
Federal Bureau of Investigation - Wanted by the FBI

Golly gee gomer!  An arrest warrant cannot be issued without CHARGES BEING FILED!  Guess what? They haven't even caught him so by your sooper logic the FBI has wasted time and energy by charging the guy before he has been caught.  

Tell me again how I have "no idea" how our legal system works!  Rotfl.....you're such a fucking dildo!!!!!

Now squirm and dance you whiny ****!


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 22, 2009)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



It's the rule of law you dumb fuck.  If they have evidence they HAVE TO FILE CHARGES!  They have not filed charges because they do not have sufficient evidence.  You have claimed bin laden has admitted guilt. (while wholly ignoring the evidence he denied involvement days after 9E).  If bin laden's confess was legitimate the FBI would have to file charges.  Obviously they have not so the confession you speak of is not credible.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 22, 2009)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > You have to be fucking kidding.  I did that already and it was in the post you quoted....what the fuck is wrong with you?  From what I could find the only calls verified by the FBI are 4 calls to unknown numbers as stated in footnote 57 that I've posted several times.  Candycorn said there was "iron clad" proof Renee made the call but then referenced page 9 of the "We Have Some Planes."  That was footnote 56 which simply references footnote 57.  So where in the CR does it prove Renee made the call?
> ...




One.  More.  Time.

Where in the 9/11 Commission Report does proof of Renee's call exist?

You fucking cite a public sharing board?  You do realize scribd is set up a lot like wiki?  Anyone can post documents from anywhere on there.  

Can you show where her calls are proven in the CR or not?


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 22, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


ROFLMAO

you have no credibility to begin with, moron
who gives a rats ass who YOU think is "credible"


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 22, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


now prove any of them believe what you do?

oh wait, you STILL havent said what YOU believe


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 22, 2009)

candycorn said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


actually, there is no "correct" spelling since it it a phonetic spelling of something without an english translation


but MOST people do spell it Al Qaeda


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 22, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


Occam's Razor, is it more likely that the calls were real, or that some huge conspiracy faked them?


----------



## Fizz (Dec 22, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



let me type this really slow so you can understand.

if something isnt in the 9/11 commission report it doesnt mean that it doesnt exist.

so if you think the documents i posted are fake then feel free to go through the process of verifying them through the freedom of information act.


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 22, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


you're the dumbfuck that doesnt know what Charges mean
Bin Laden hasnt been CHARGED with anything yet
you are not "charged" untill your arraignment, which is AFTER you are caught


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 22, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


an "arrest warrant" is NOT charges you dumbfuck

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrest_warrant


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 22, 2009)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...


clearly this dumbfuck doesnt know ANYTHING of which he posts


----------



## Toro (Dec 22, 2009)

bump


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 22, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...




I never said an arrest warrant is charges you dumb bitch.  Good job on laying out another strawman.


----------



## Fizz (Dec 22, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



no you didnt say it. you did even worse. in response to a conversation about charges you provide evidence of an arrest warrant for somebody completely unrelated to the conversation.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 22, 2009)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...




But you OCTAs have been screaming all along the CR is a full report of that day.  Yet, you are now saying it is incomplete.  So which is it you ignorant ****?  Once again you have shown you don't know what you are talking about.  That's why Candycorn stopped trying to post evidence of Renee's call.  When it was realized the CR did not provide the evidence the next move was to dodge.  

So it appears you are also conceding that the CR does not provide objective evidence Renee made the call.  I would ask but since you lie so much why waste the time?

Surely there must be at least one OCTA willing to address the fact the CR is lacking evidence of the OCT.  You ***** kept screaming it has evidence Renee made the call but when you really had to prove that you realized it is not true.  Look on the bright side, you can say the reason you won't continue is because I'm such an asshole.  That's always a good mulligan for lying fucks like you and candycorn.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 22, 2009)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...




You. Stupid. Mother. Fucker.  I linked the FBI page to show they don't wait until they have physically caught someone before charging him with a crime.


----------



## Fizz (Dec 22, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



you clearly thought "arrest warrant" and "charges" were the same thing as you quoted the arrest warrant portion in your post.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 22, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



You're just proving how fucking dumb you are too.  The arraignment is simply a legal procedure that happens after a suspect is charged.  Sometimes people get pulled over for a traffic violation then arrested DUE TO UNRELATED CHARGES.  You ignorant useless ****.  Why do you keep making an ass of yourself?


----------



## Toro (Dec 22, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > and lets not forget that al qeda takes credit for the attacks.
> ...



God you're a fucking idiot.

The fact that the FBI does not have enough evidence _admissible in a civilian court of law_ does not mean bin Laden wasn't responsible for it.  Much gathered intelligence is not admissible in a civilian court of law.  

Now the government HAS charged Al Zawahiri.  Zacarias Moussaoui was found guilty.  Or is this all part of the conspiracy too?


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 22, 2009)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



YOU USELESS LYING ****

I said charges had to be filed in order for an arrest warrant to be issued!

HOW CAN YOU BE THIS FUCKING PATHETIC?

You are so obsessed with trying to show I am wrong on anything you can't even read simple posts.


----------



## Fizz (Dec 22, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



first of all, i am not a OCTA (whatever that is) i am a Truther seeking the truth. 

The commission report says she made the call. are you denying that? is that what you are disputing and are you claiming the 9/11 commission is lying about it??

have you proved she didnt make the call? how do you explain her parents calling american airlines to pass her message on?

did you have a dick in your ass all night or what? i think it damaged your brain.


----------



## Toro (Dec 22, 2009)

Please link other examples of leaders who have committed acts of war against the United States who have been charged by the FBI for civilian crimes.


----------



## Fizz (Dec 22, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


jackass, you are the that likes getting involved in the minutia of everything and loses the big picture. so if you want to get into minutia and claim that the official version of events were never proven in a court of law when they were i am going to call you out on every little thing i see. you are the jackass that quoted an arrest warrant, not me. now you call it pathetic. 

you want to know what is pathetic? its that you are an apologist for the terrorists that committed these acts on america.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 22, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...




Since Fizz is practicing his art of lying again I had to quote this to show I've never said an arrest warrant is the same as charges.  In fact, back in post 294 I even said:

(CL post 294)
"I point out your fucking idiocy by highlighting the fact the law says they have to be charged before being arrested."

And in the post I just quoted look at this sentence: 

"An arrest warrant cannot be issued without CHARGES BEING FILED!"

Now Fizz wants to claim I said "charges" and "arrest warrants" are the same thing?  You fucking idiot ****!  Read that sentence again you fucking waste.  If an arrest warrant cannot be issued without charges being filed how the hell do you accuse me of saying they are the same thing?  Holy shit you are making liability and divecon look like geniuses!  The arrest warrant is issued only AFTER charges have been filed. Damn you're so fucking dumb! No wonder you believe the OCT!


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 22, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


except he wasnt CHARGED you dumbfuck
he has an arrest warrant


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 22, 2009)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...





Hahahaha....you're such a fucking useless pussy.  You tried to say bin laden wasn't charged because it would be "useless" to charge someone before catching the person.  You stupid fuck.  The charges have to be filed before arresting the person.  Then you want to twist my questioning the OCT into claiming I am a terrorist apologist?  You're fucking pathetic and you continue to prove it by lying and trying to find any way to demonize me instead of discussing the facts.  Fucking **** loser.


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 22, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


please show proof Bin Laden has been charged with anything?


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 22, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



The arrest warrant only happens AFTER CHARGES HAVE BEEN FILED YOU FUCKING ****!  At the Arraignment is where the Formal charges as returned by a Grand Jury are presented you dumbass!  Read this you simple spunk fucking turd:

"Step 2: File charges with a District Court commissioner. Step 3: How to complete the application. Step 4: Issuing a summons or an arrest warrant."
Criminal Issues

Do you see how CHARGES get filed before the arrest warrant is issued?  Read it until you understand how fucking wrong you are.....but just like everything else you will find a way to weasel out of admitting you fucked up.  Bitch.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 22, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...




Goodness you're a stupid fucking loser.  It only happened over ELEVEN YEARS AGO!

"Osama bin Laden was first indicted by the United States on 8 June 1998, when a grand jury indicted Osama bin Laden on charges..."
Osama bin Laden - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## candycorn (Dec 22, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



Testimony of Mr. Olson's secretaries and the May's contacting AA about 77 being hijacked is proof.  That you can't see it only strengthens my position that you guys are all morons.  

Anyway, good luck in life; you'll need it fry chief.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 22, 2009)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



The CR never proves she made the call you dumbass.  I've posted that evidence several times.


----------



## candycorn (Dec 22, 2009)

I read Curvelight's words and this comes to mind:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcrF346sS_I"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcrF346sS_I[/ame]


----------



## candycorn (Dec 22, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



No, you posted that 'accusation' several times.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 22, 2009)

Toro said:


> Please link other examples of leaders who have committed acts of war against the United States who have been charged by the FBI for civilian crimes.



9E fell under the jurisdiction of the FBI so it wouldn't matter who did it.....that does not change the jurisdiction.  Aren't you the genius that said you didn't know the Truth movement was started by victims families and first responders?  Now you want to delve into the legal arena of jurisdictions? Aha..slow down tyke and learn some basics before embarrassing yourself some more


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 22, 2009)

candycorn said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...




You're fucking pathetic.  You said there was "iron clad proof" of the phone call but all you have is hearsay evidence.  You call me a moron because I can see the difference between hearsay and iron clad evidence? Lol...what a worthless bitch.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 22, 2009)

candycorn said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



No, the evidence.  Look at page 9 of "We Have Some Planes" and look at footnote 56.  That is the evidence given by the CR.  It simply refers the reader to footnote 57 which states:

57.The records available for the phone calls from American 77 do not allow for a determination of which of four "connected calls to unknown numbers" represent the two between Barbara and Ted Olson, although the FBI and DOJ believe that all four represent communications between Barbara Olson and her husband's office (all family members of the Flight 77 passengers and crew were canvassed to see if they had received any phone calls from the hijacked flight, and only Renee May's parents and Ted Olson indicated that they had received such calls).The four calls were at 9:15:34 for 1 minute, 42 seconds; 915 for 4 minutes, 34 seconds; 9:25:48 for 2 minutes, 34 seconds; and 9:30:56 for 4 minutes, 20 seconds. FBI report, "American Airlines Airphone Usage," Sept. 20, 2001; FBI report of investigation, interview of Theodore Olson, Sept. 11, 2001; FBI report of investigation, interview of Helen Voss, Sept. 14, 2001;AAL response to the Commission's supplemental document request, Jan. 20, 2004. 


That's the actual footnote from the CR you stupid ****.  It point blank says they could not confirm the numbers.  Without that confirmation the evidence is hearsay and not iron clad as you claimed.  Hey, it was your dumbass that cited that page as evidence.  Guess you should have done more homework before trying to pass off hearsay evidence.


----------



## Liability (Dec 22, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



No no, you dishonest imbecile.  I highlighted it for you (although you are so fundamentally dishonest and woerfully stupid, it probably won't serve to clear anything up for your retarded apthetic excuse of a mind).  

The records, of course, are not "hearsay."

The records are -- records.  The records reflect a number of telephone calls to unknown numbers.  Thus, the records establish that calls were made, but they cannot alone tell which numbers were reached.

This is not brain surgery.  It's not even difficult.  Well, it's not difficult, that is, except for utter morons with no common sense or interest in honesty.  That explains why _you_ persist in saying such empty, mindless, dishonest bullshit.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 22, 2009)

Liability said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...




You stupid mother fucker.  They are saying they don't know which two calls AS STATED BY TED OLSON are represented by the numbers.  The FBI has never proven the calls to Ted and in the ZM trial which was 2 years after the CR report they actually contradicted his claim by pointing out they could only attribute one unconnected call to Barb olson.  The evidence is hearsay because ted Olson told people what his wife supposedly said but nobody can confirm that happened.  You really are too stupid to be in this discussion.  That's not meant to be an insult just like saying a fish cannot pedal a bike is not an insult.  You lack basic equipment.


----------



## candycorn (Dec 22, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


*
His secretaries testified to the affirmative.
The Mays contacted AA.
Your accusations are just your twisted cries for help.  Were you not loved as a child?
Anyway, those are the facts and they are not in dispute.*


----------



## candycorn (Dec 22, 2009)

Liability said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



*I think the only thing that would appease the claim is if somehow we go back in time to put ourselves in the room when the phone calls are made.  

The only thing that would appease Curvelight is someone to actually like him.  Thats not going to happen.*


----------



## Toro (Dec 22, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > Please link other examples of leaders who have committed acts of war against the United States who have been charged by the FBI for civilian crimes.
> ...



Aren't you the guy that dodges and weaves when asked questions?  Why, yes you are!  Its no surprise that you cannot link another person who has committed acts of war against the United States and has been charged by the FBI. Embarrassing yourself seems to be a constant for you.  

The fact that 9/11 fall under the jurisdiction of the FBI does not mean bin Laden is not responsible.  The standards of proof and admissible evidence in a court of law are high, and much of the evidence linking bin Laden to 9/11 comes through intelligence, much of which is not admissible in a court of law.

Acts of war against the United States are the purview of the legislative and executive branches.  We may disagree with the Bush administration's prosecution of the War on Terror, but they viewed 9/11 as an act of war.  The Obama administration appears to think differently.

Also, as any prosecutor knows, it is far more difficult to prove a case against the guy at the top who directed or sponsored the crime than it is to prove a case against the guys who carried it out.  Simply because bin Laden has not been charged does not mean al-Qaeda is not responsible.  That is akin to saying that simply because a mob boss has not been charged, there is no proof of crimes by the mafia, or simply because the CEO of a corporation has not been charged, there is no proof of malfeasance by a corporation.


----------



## Fizz (Dec 22, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



hey jackass, where does it say that the 4 calls were the only calls made from the plane? 

clearly the commission report think both Olson and May made phone calls. it states it can not confirm which calls were from Olson. It does not say the May call is one of the calls to and unknown number.


----------



## Fizz (Dec 22, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Hahahaha....you're such a fucking useless pussy.  You tried to say bin laden wasn't charged because it would be "useless" to charge someone before catching the person.  You stupid fuck.  The charges have to be filed before arresting the person.  Then you want to twist my questioning the OCT into claiming I am a terrorist apologist?  You're fucking pathetic and you continue to prove it by lying and trying to find any way to demonize me instead of discussing the facts.  Fucking **** loser.



you gay moron. that isnt what i said at all. you are fucking lying again!!!

it is useless to file additional charges at this point because he already has charges filed against him.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 22, 2009)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...




You dumbfuck.  I asked SEVERAL times for the evidence in the CR the May call was confirmed with objective evidence and you produced nothing.  You also know I point blank said I didn't know if those were the only calls......that is why asked if people knew of other calls.  Got anything else einstein?


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 22, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


stop lying, charges are NOT filed until after the arrest


----------



## Fizz (Dec 22, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



holy fuck... i think that dick up your ass all night really did fuck up your brain.

the commission report says there was a phone call by May. if you dont like what the commission report claims or how they document those claims then take it up with them. 

i provided you other evidence that May made the phone calls. you seem to not like it. i told you what you can do to find out if it is fake or not. you are just too lazy to do it.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 22, 2009)

candycorn said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...




That is hearsay evidence you drippy ****.  You fucked up by claiming you have "iron clad" evidence when really all you have is hearsay.


----------



## Liability (Dec 22, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



bent tight, that stupid lying cockgobbler, doesn't even comprehend that records such as those are *not* "hearsay."  Correcting him doesn't help.  He just repeats his prior "error," because he is a dumbass lying fucktard.

But, even so, the records are not "hearsay."


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 22, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



You dumb bastard.  I posted the evidence showing the US charged bin laden with crimes way back in 1998.  Obviously we have not arrested bin laden yet, but he has already been charged.  Holy shit you are fucking stupid.


----------



## Fizz (Dec 22, 2009)

hear&#8901;say&#8194;&#8194;[heer-sey]  Show IPA
noun
1.	unverified, unofficial information gained or acquired from another and not part of one's direct knowledge: I pay no attention to hearsay.
2.	an item of idle or unverified information or gossip; rumor: a malicious hearsay.
adjective
3.	of, pertaining to, or characterized by hearsay: hearsay knowledge; a hearsay report.


hey jackass, the secretary spoke with Olson. she is providing direct confirmation of a phone call she was involved in. that isnt hearsay. hearsay would be if she repeated the claims that there were hijackers on the flight made by Olson.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 22, 2009)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...




Lol...the CR claims there was a call so it must be true! Rotfl!  Thank you for admitting you accept what the government says without verification.   Also, why do you keep talking about your fantasies of dicks in asses? Doesn't the net have better places for you to find what you are looking for?


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 22, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


no, you posted BULLSHIT
not evidence


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 22, 2009)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Hahahaha....you're such a fucking useless pussy.  You tried to say bin laden wasn't charged because it would be "useless" to charge someone before catching the person.  You stupid fuck.  The charges have to be filed before arresting the person.  Then you want to twist my questioning the OCT into claiming I am a terrorist apologist?  You're fucking pathetic and you continue to prove it by lying and trying to find any way to demonize me instead of discussing the facts.  Fucking **** loser.
> ...




Hmmm.....no you lying piece of shit fuck face.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1833121-post286.html

You really are too pathetic.


----------



## Fizz (Dec 22, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Lol...the CR claims there was a call so it must be true! Rotfl!  Thank you for admitting you accept what the government says without verification.   Also, why do you keep talking about your fantasies of dicks in asses? Doesn't the net have better places for you to find what you are looking for?



i already showed you records of the calls. these records were prepared for the 9/11 commission so i am fairly certain they saw them too. if you dont like they way they cite things take it up with them.

as far as the gay places to hang out on the net you seem to have infinitely more knowledge than me in that area. i dont go around championing gay rights like you do. i have no interest in the dick up your ass other than how it causing you to have brain damage that causes you to spew idiotic statements.


----------



## Fizz (Dec 22, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



no fuck, jackass.... because he already has charges filed against him!!!

so why dont you answer the fucking question and tell us what filing more charges would accomplish!!!


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 22, 2009)

Fizz said:


> hear&#8901;say&#8194;&#8194;[heer-sey]  Show IPA
> &#8211;noun
> 1.	unverified, unofficial information gained or acquired from another and not part of one's direct knowledge: I pay no attention to hearsay.
> 2.	an item of idle or unverified information or gossip; rumor: a malicious hearsay.
> ...




Wow.  You really keep reinforcing how fucking stupid you are.  His regular secretary did not relay the call.  Even if she did she had no way of knowing who was on the phone except for hearsay. SHE HEARD SOMEONE SAY SOMETHING.  THAT MAKES IT HEARSAY YOU DUMB ****.


Ted claims his wife said some things but there is no way to verify who exactly he spoke with or what was said.  He repeated WHAT HE HEARD WHICH MAKES IT HEARSAY YOU WORTHLESS LITTLE SNIVELING ****.


----------



## Liability (Dec 22, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > hear&#8901;say&#8194;&#8194;[heer-sey]  Show IPA
> ...



Hearsay has a more precise meaning, which you are incapable of grasping because you remain a fucktard, an idiot and a liar, bent tight.

Hearsay is objectionable because it cannot be "tested" via cross examination.  

But when one is able to have one's recollections examined under oath, the objection really (for the most part) wafts away....

And the RECORDS are not hearsay, anyway, you idiot.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 22, 2009)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Lol...the CR claims there was a call so it must be true! Rotfl!  Thank you for admitting you accept what the government says without verification.   Also, why do you keep talking about your fantasies of dicks in asses? Doesn't the net have better places for you to find what you are looking for?
> ...



You didn't show any records of confirmed calls from the CR that proved May or Olson made the calls.  Thank you for admitting you stalk my posts on here then try to insult me because I argue for Equal Rights.  What kind of anti-American little bitch are you?  Haha....you're such a loser and you know it.


----------



## Fizz (Dec 22, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



again you dont comprehend what you read. where the fuck did i say i had confirmed calls from the CR?

....and it was a similar claim by you when you claimed you didnt say something that i went back over your posts and proved you did say it. it was during this time i stumbled across your homo interests.

trust me, even if i was a stalker you still wouldnt be important enough to stalk.


----------



## candycorn (Dec 22, 2009)

Has anybody discrened anything that would lead you to believe curvelight has ever had a friend?


----------



## Liability (Dec 22, 2009)

candycorn said:


> Has anybody discrened anything that would lead you to believe curvelight has ever had a friend?



It is possible that he is "asshole buddies" with Yukon or confusedatious.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 22, 2009)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...




You are such a pathetic liar.  Your first proclamation was it would be useless to charge him before being caught:

(Fizz)
"you really have no idea how the legal system works, apparently. filing charges before he is caught would accomplish what exactly?

fucking moron...."

You claim charges have not been filed because he has not been caught.  Later on you change your statement to say he hasn't been charged due to him already having charges.  Like divecon, you didn't know he had been charged with other crimes and when you found out you changed your original claim.  You're such a lying lame ****.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 22, 2009)

candycorn said:


> Has anybody discrened anything that would lead you to believe curvelight has ever had a friend?



Is this thread about me or 9E you toxic twat?


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 22, 2009)

Liability said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...




You are one dumb bitch.

"Hearsay is an out of court statement, made in court, to prove the truth of the matter asserted."
"Hearsay" Evidence - Criminal Law


----------



## eots (Dec 22, 2009)

Liability said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Has anybody discrened anything that would lead you to believe curvelight has ever had a friend?
> ...



wow you sure spend a lot of time with your homo erotic little fantasies....don't you


----------



## candycorn (Dec 22, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Has anybody discrened anything that would lead you to believe curvelight has ever had a friend?
> ...



Since you won't give us your opinion on what happened...we are forced to wonder what it is you are lacking.  I think you have no friends and are simply being an idiot on purpose to get a reaction.  In the real world, people shun morons like you so you're trying to make some sort of impact here. 

Someday you may amount to a pile of shit but you'd better get busy if you want to achieve, what we know for you, such a lofty goal.


----------



## Liability (Dec 22, 2009)

eots said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...





No ma'am.  I just like to call out the scumbags, like you, as the occassion to do so comes around.

I can discuss drug abuse without being a user.  I can discuss drunk driving without drinking and driving.  And I can discuss the disgusting behavior of filth like Yukon and Confuredatious without being interested in pedophilia.


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 22, 2009)

candycorn said:


> *
> I don't know who is going to win the Oscar for best picture this year.  I think it will be Nine.
> 
> See what I did there dumbfuck?  I amitted I don't know something but I stated my opinion.*



I went to an advance screening of "Nine" last night.  I don't think it will win much of anything.

That movie sucked.


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 22, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



LMAO.

Pwned.

BTW, I wasn't aware that prosecuting criminals was the job of the FBI.  I was under the impression that they were in charge of capturing criminals and bringing them to the courts where they are properly charged and tried.


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 22, 2009)

Toro said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



I think I just figured out why CL doesn't want to ever state his position.

He doesn't know a fucking thing.

Now it will only be my mission to go and give a "thumbs up" to every post where he is pounded for her stupidity.

"PWNED".


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 22, 2009)

toro said:


> curvelight said:
> 
> 
> > toro said:
> ...



bwahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Fizz (Dec 22, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> You are such a pathetic liar.  Your first proclamation was it would be useless to charge him before being caught:
> 
> (Fizz)
> "you really have no idea how the legal system works, apparently. filing charges before he is caught would accomplish what exactly?
> ...



then answer the fucking questions, fucking homo.

what is it going to accomplish?

it must suck to be so wrong all the time. as for your claim i didnt know he was already charged with other crimes here is proof you are lying once again:



Fizz said:


> he already is charged with crimes. (i did get your joke but want to make the point anyway).
> 
> he also declared war on the USA in the 90s.


----------



## candycorn (Dec 22, 2009)

geauxtohell said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > *
> ...



It couldn't have sucked worse than "Shakespeare in Love" or "American Beauty".  Both of those won.


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 22, 2009)

candycorn said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



You can be the judge.  I don't want to give too much away since it was a screening, but ugh...............

I like musicals too.  

Based on the audiences reaction and considering that we had to fill out a feedback sheet, I'll bet there are some nervous studio execs right now.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 23, 2009)

candycorn said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...




Is this thread about me or 9E you toxic twat?


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 23, 2009)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > You are such a pathetic liar.  Your first proclamation was it would be useless to charge him before being caught:
> ...



You're such a pathetic bitch that lies no matter what.  I know you changed your claim......that's why I said:


"Like divecon, you didn't know he had been charged with other crimes and when you found out you changed your original claim."


Go ahead and keep lying....


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 23, 2009)

geauxtohell said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...




You are just another dumb and pathetic ****.  How can you be this fucking stupid?  That's not a joke.  There must be some scientific explanation for how ***** like you make it from day to day with no life support system.  You ****.  Read carefully. You just applauded a post that said bin laden has never been charged because he has not been caught yet.  Read this....if you are able you dumb bastard:

"Bin Laden was placed on the Ten Most Wanted list in June 1999 after being indicted for murder, conspiracy and other charges in connection with the embassy bombings, and a $5 million reward was put on his head at that time."
Bin Laden, Most Wanted For Embassy Bombings? - washingtonpost.com


Do you know what that means?  It's evidence bin laden has been charged with crimes and you try to say I don't know anything when you laud posts that claim bin laden has never been charged?  Fucking dumbass pussy is all you are.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 23, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...




You dumb pathetic useless bitch.  How will you and your cry baby **** buddies ignore a copy of the actual indictment?

TEXT: US GRAND JURY INDICTMENT AGAINST USAMA BIN LADEN

You screamed about how nobody gets charged until they get caught.  You. Sooper. Dooper.  Dumb. Mother. Fucker.  If you tried to be any more of a useless ****, would it be possible?  I'm pretty sure you're such a useless whiny bitch you will try and find some way to ignore the charges.  ****.


----------



## candycorn (Dec 23, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



*Since you won't give us your opinion on what happened...we are forced to wonder what it is you are lacking.  I think you have no friends and are simply being an idiot on purpose to get a reaction.  In the real world, people shun morons like you so you're trying to make some sort of impact here. 

Someday you may amount to a pile of shit but you'd better get busy if you want to achieve, what we know for you, such a lofty goal.*


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 23, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


exceptr he HASNT BEEN CHARGED you dumbfuck
he has an arrest warrant
he would be CHARGED at his arraignment AFTER he is captured


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 23, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


an indictment is not the same thing you dumbfuck
you can indict a ham sandwich
you are not charged until the arraignment
and that comes AFTER you are arrested


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 23, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



**** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** cunty **** **** ****.

You are insipid and dull.  Multiple other posters have already pointed out your stupidity, so I won't rehash old posts simply because you feel you need to save face.

At any rate, if you are the spokesman for whatever the hell it is you believe, your movement is screwed.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 23, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...




You stupid ****.  I already posted the link of copies of the indictment by the grand jury.  He got charged and I posted the fucking court papers proving it you absolutely stupid useless worthless lying piece of rabbit shit.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 23, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...




You're unbelievably fucking dumb.

"A written accusation charging that an individual named therein has committed an act or omitted to do something that is punishable by law."
indictment legal definition of indictment. indictment synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

Notice the word "charging?" That means when someone is indicted that person is charged you useless fucking moron.

Want another one?

"The formal charge issued by a grand jury stating that there is enough evidence that the defendant committed the crime to justify having a trial; it is used primarily for felonies."
Legal Definition of Indictment

Oh wow.  Doesn't that say something about being charged?  You fucking idiot ****.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 23, 2009)

geauxtohell said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



Typical loser **** move.  You ignore the facts only to focus on posters.  The difference is, I call you ignorant ***** when I've posted the info showing why you are idiotic.  Just like I posted the indictment on bin laden that shows he has been charged.  Your dumb punk ass will probably continue on the bandwagon because you are simply too fucking arrogant and idiotic to actually address the facts you useless tampon juicer.


----------



## Fizz (Dec 23, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



are you accusing me of having a time machine or what, jackass?? according to you i found out *yesterday* that bin laden already was charged with crimes then i went back in time and wrote the post dated *december 12th*?

i just proved that i already knew there were charges BEFORE i made the statement in this thread.

you are truly a moron.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 23, 2009)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...




You stupid bitch.  In post 286 you said he won't get charged until he gets caught.  After I showed your ignorance you tried to change your position with post 308:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/1833378-post308.html#

You changed your claim when you realized you fucked up then tried to hide that by accusing me of lying.  You're such a fucking waste.


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 23, 2009)

While all cheeses have their merit.  I like provolone and think it is far superior to any other form of cheese.


----------



## Fizz (Dec 23, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



i didnt change my claim, jackass.

you claimed i didnt know there were already charges against him when i said that its useless to charge him for 9/11 at this point.

you lied.

i proved i already knew.

you got pwned AGAIN!!!


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 23, 2009)

geauxtohell said:


> While all cheeses have their merit.  I like provolone and think it is far superior to any other form of cheese.




Clearly the best contribution you have ever made anywhere.  Ever.  So does your punk ass have any objective evidence of the calls or will you continue to hide under divecon's skirt?


----------



## Fizz (Dec 23, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > While all cheeses have their merit.  I like provolone and think it is far superior to any other form of cheese.
> ...


and how much evidence have you shown? fucking hypocrite!!!


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 23, 2009)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...




Holy shit you're a jackass.  You pull in a post from a different thread then blame others for what you posted in this thread?  Lol.....what a pathetic ****.  Post 286 is you making one claim and post 308 is you changing that claim.  That is what I went on you unbelievably ignorant fucking pussy.  Damn you guys are a fucking waste of time.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 23, 2009)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...




I've shown there is no objective evidence the calls were made from Flt 77.  A useless **** like yourself whines "Well the CR says they were made!"  lol.....dumbass bitch.


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 23, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > While all cheeses have their merit.  I like provolone and think it is far superior to any other form of cheese.
> ...



Cheddar is good too, but still, pound for pound, I'll go with provolone as it has that smokey taste and fine texture.


----------



## Liability (Dec 23, 2009)

geauxtohell said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



If the provolone is a very exceptionally good one, I think it does often take the lead.

Even so, a quality cheddar is very difficult to beat.

Oh, and an excellent "blue" is always welcome, too.


----------



## candycorn (Dec 23, 2009)

Liability said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


3

Muenster (sp?) is the way to go.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 23, 2009)

Liability said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



You're learning!  Stick to issues that are mostly opinion so you won't have reveal how fucking dumb you are.  That's much better than trying to sell anything else you've said.


----------



## candycorn (Dec 23, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



*You've only offered accusations.

Mr. Olson's secretaries and assistants offered testimony.
The Mays called American Airlines.

Keep an eye on the drive through.*


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 23, 2009)

Liability said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



I like Blue.

Of course, we are only considering single cheeses, which ignores the "mixed cheeses" like Colby Jack.

That's a whole nother ball game right there.....


----------



## Liability (Dec 23, 2009)

geauxtohell said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



It certainly is.  That's akin to a discussion about the subtleties of good Scotch whiskey:  single malt or blended.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 23, 2009)

candycorn said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



Accusations?  Lol....I pasted the evidence from the CR showing the FBI could not confirm any of the calls.  You ignore that evidence because dishonest useless ***** like yourself are not capable of honesty as also demonstrated by your obsession with fantasizing about what others do for work.  It's clear there is no objective evidence proving the calls came from 77 or one of you would have posted it by now.  Thanks!


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 23, 2009)

Liability said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



Oh!  I know this makes me a philistine, but I prefer blended scotch.  I guess I am a cheap date, because I'd rather have Dewar's over MacCallan.  My girlfriend in college went to Scotland and brought back a bottle of MacCallan 12 and was somewhat offended that it sat on the shelf for a couple of months before I got to the bottom of it, while my Dewars bottle kept running out.


----------



## Liability (Dec 23, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Since there is objective evidence that Barbara WAS on that flight, and there is also objective evidence that she called her husband during the commission of the terrorist hijacking, your contention is false and that was mighty dishonest of you.

You don't seem able to grasp the meaning of "objective."


----------



## Liability (Dec 23, 2009)

geauxtohell said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



I enjoy both a good single malt and a good blended.  My taste buds must not be all that sophisticated, I guess.

I absolutely appreciate the difference, for example, between the blended Johnny Walker Black (my standard Scotch) and the blended Johnny Walker Gold or the blended Johnny Walker Blue.

But I don't turn up my nose at a good single malt like The Glenlivet, Laphroaig or Lagavulin.


----------



## candycorn (Dec 23, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



*
Its been posted several times.  Your pananoia and hatred for all of your superiors in and out of government is what keeps you from seeing it.  You're what we refer to as a waste.

Your standard for evidence of phone calls being made is whether or not you were conferenced in on them apparently.

Its a standard that nobody could ever meet, and thankfully because you're nobody, grown ups don't have to meet them.  

So keep an eye on the drive through and try to learn something that has a practical application sometime.
*


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 23, 2009)

Liability said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...




You dumb bitch.  Saying there is objective evidence is not the same as providing it.  You're so fucking dumb you think hearsay evidence being put on record means it is no longer hearsay evidence.  You're so fucking clueless.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 23, 2009)

candycorn said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...




More strawmen.  You dumb ass clown.  Objective evidence would be records of the phone calls.  As I've pointed out several times the FBI has never been able to substantiate the claims of calls made from flt 77 to May's parents or Ted Olson.  You fucking lie and say my standard of evidence is being "conferenced" in on the calls.  You're such a pathetic fucking ****.


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 23, 2009)

Liability said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



I don't turn my nose up at any good alcohol.  That's positively un-American.

Either way, it's all good.  Kind of like arguing over a fillet versus a strip.  Some people always go with the fillet, but there are some damn good strips out there.


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 23, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> You dumb bitch.  Saying there is objective evidence is not the same as providing it.  You're so fucking dumb you think hearsay evidence being put on record means it is no longer hearsay evidence.  You're so fucking clueless.





> Do you like Phil Collins? I've been a big Genesis fan ever since the release of their 1980 album, Duke. Before that, I really didn't understand any of their work. Too artsy, too intellectual. It was on Duke where, uh, Phil Collins' presence became more apparent. I think Invisible Touch was the group's undisputed masterpiece. It's an epic meditation on intangibility. At the same time, it deepens and enriches the meaning of the preceding three albums. Christy, take off your robe. Listen to the brilliant ensemble playing of Banks, Collins and Rutherford. You can practically hear every nuance of every instrument. Sabrina, remove your dress. In terms of lyrical craftsmanship, the sheer songwriting, this album hits a new peak of professionalism. Sabrina, why don't you, uh, dance a little. Take the lyrics to Land of Confusion. In this song, Phil Collins addresses the problems of abusive political authority. In Too Deep is the most moving pop song of the 1980s, about monogamy and commitment. The song is extremely uplifting. Their lyrics are as positive and affirmative as, uh, anything I've heard in rock. Christy, get down on your knees so Sabrina can see your ass. Phil Collins' solo career seems to be more commercial and therefore more satisfying, in a narrower way. Especially songs like In the Air Tonight and, uh, Against All Odds. Sabrina, don't just stare at it, eat it. But I also think Phil Collins works best within the confines of the group, than as a solo artist, and I stress the word artist. This is Sussudio, a great, great song, a personal favorite.



.


----------



## candycorn (Dec 23, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



*Well, call the Mays and ask them.  If you're that interested.  Oh wait, your paranoia won't allow you to do that, will it?  Besides, in your mind, everybody is lying to you so it doesn't matter.  You weren't conferenced in on the call so you will never believe it happened.  

For adults, the 9/11 Commission Report is pretty much bulletproof and you've offered nothing except piss and vinegar to counter it.

Again, tell us what you think and we'll consider it.  But you won't do that either because you're not here to do anything other than gain attention which is why you are profane, which is why you are (hopefully) acting like such a lunatic, which is why you will never be more than fry-chief.  

Are you ever going to state your point?*


----------



## Liability (Dec 23, 2009)

candycorn said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



*Are you ever going to state your point?*

There is no chance of that.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 23, 2009)

candycorn said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...




Lol....the CR is bulletproof for adults?  You stupid fucking drippy ****.  The families are one of the loudest groups pushing for a full new investigation....

Bottom line is you have no objective evidence and you know it.  That's why you invent shit to blame those of us capable of seeing why the CR lacks credibility.   You're such a fucking loser.


----------



## Fizz (Dec 23, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Lol....the CR is bulletproof for adults?  You stupid fucking drippy ****.  The families are one of the loudest groups pushing for a full new investigation....



yea, this guy sure sounds like he wants a new investigation....



[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFf-buObxl8[/ame]


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 23, 2009)

geauxtohell said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > You dumb bitch.  Saying there is objective evidence is not the same as providing it.  You're so fucking dumb you think hearsay evidence being put on record means it is no longer hearsay evidence.  You're so fucking clueless.
> ...




Very wise to stick to subjects where the only option is opinion.  That way you don't have to keep embarrassing yourself by revealing you don't have a clue.  On a side note, Disturbed has done a great job of covering land of confusion.


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 23, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Very wise to stick to subjects where the only option is opinion.  That way you don't have to keep embarrassing yourself by revealing you don't have a clue.  On a side note, Disturbed has done a great job of covering land of confusion.



Thanks for proving my theory.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 23, 2009)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Lol....the CR is bulletproof for adults?  You stupid fucking drippy ****.  The families are one of the loudest groups pushing for a full new investigation....
> ...




Did your dumbass try to point to one person as evidence many families don't want a new investigation?  Lol.....you're an idiot!


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 23, 2009)

geauxtohell said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Very wise to stick to subjects where the only option is opinion.  That way you don't have to keep embarrassing yourself by revealing you don't have a clue.  On a side note, Disturbed has done a great job of covering land of confusion.
> ...




When I help out the mentally challenged such as yourself, I'm able to use it in tax deductions so to be honest, I didn't do it all for you but iam glad to have helped.  Have a good day you fucking ****.


----------



## Fizz (Dec 23, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Did your dumbass try to point to one person as evidence many families don't want a new investigation?  Lol.....you're an idiot!



he is a fireman, jackass. he was there, homo. where did i say he was even a family member? you really are a moron.


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 23, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



No, that wasn't my theory.

My theory was this:  "I'll bet if I make a completely inane post that has absolutely nothing to do with this thread and address it to CL, he'll respond to it with a bunch of insults as opposed to ignoring something that was not germane to his point".

My first question is this:

"Have you ever heard of the concept of "displacement" as a defense mechanism?"

My second question is this:

"How bad does your life suck?"


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 23, 2009)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Did your dumbass try to point to one person as evidence many families don't want a new investigation?  Lol.....you're an idiot!
> ...



Did your dumbass try to point to one person as evidence many families don't want a new investigation?  Lol.....you're an idiot!

Did your dumbass try to point to one person as evidence many families don't want a new investigation?  Lol.....you're an idiot!

Did your dumbass try to point to one person as evidence many families don't want a new investigation?  Lol.....you're an idiot!


Did your dumbass try to point to one person as evidence many families don't want a new investigation?  Lol.....you're an idiot!

(maybe now you will actually read the post?  I said you tried to use ONE PERSON. Never said he was a family member you idiotic ****)


----------



## Fizz (Dec 23, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



if you tell a lie enough times does it eventually become true?  (this seems to be the Christophera objective. maybe you are lovers?)


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 23, 2009)

geauxtohell said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...





Lol.....what a fucking dumbass.  Do you practice by watching dr phil?


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 23, 2009)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...




You fucking dumbass......I didn't say he was a family member.  I said you tried to point to ONE PERSON.   You will ignore you fucked up like always.


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 23, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Lol.....what a fucking dumbass.  Do you practice by watching dr phil?



Seriously, what is it?

Pissed off at your boss?  Wife bitching at you?  Cornflakes too soggy?

I mean, since it's obvious that your only real interest is to be a screaming jackass, I am just curious as to why.


----------



## Fizz (Dec 23, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



not only did i try to point to one person i am fairly certain i succeeded. so what is your link to the family claim again? 

do you think he wants a new investigation or not?


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 23, 2009)

geauxtohell said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Lol.....what a fucking dumbass.  Do you practice by watching dr phil?
> ...



You're a fucking idiot and a hypocrite.


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 23, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Yeah, yeah, yeah.

I've heard that from you already.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 23, 2009)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



Yep. Knew you would ignore your fuck up.  Its dumb to try and make one person speak for all the family members you ignorant fuck.


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 23, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


yet you claim you dont believe the CR yet you use it as evidence?
this is why you are called a dumbfuck so much


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 23, 2009)

candycorn said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...


hey, don't tell this nutjob to harrass them
LOL
we already have one nutjob on this forum that has done that


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 23, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


wow, more projection from a fucking moronic troofer


----------



## Fizz (Dec 23, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



here you go lying again!! 

where did i say anything about this person speaking for family members?


----------



## candycorn (Dec 23, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



As soon as an idiot goes active, its a matter of time before they are incarcerated.  I hear the prisons need some short-order cooks (or is that kooks).  He'd fit in nicely.

Does anybody think its going to end well for that dumbfuck?


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 23, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



You dumbass.  I pointed out the CR does not prove its own claims.


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 23, 2009)

At this point, the only thing that is readily obvious is that CL needs us more than we need him.

What would you do without us, Curvelight?

Kick your dog?


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 23, 2009)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...




You posted that in response to me saying there are families who want a new full investigation.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 23, 2009)

geauxtohell said:


> At this point, the only thing that is readily obvious is that CL needs us more than we need him.
> 
> What would you do without us, Curvelight?
> 
> Kick your dog?




Figures you would make such stupid accusations.  Why are you posting more about me than the topic you idiot?


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 23, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > At this point, the only thing that is readily obvious is that CL needs us more than we need him.
> ...



I want you to acknowledge how fucking important we are to you.

I mean seriously, you should send us a check for all the money on psycho therapy we are saving you.


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 23, 2009)

geauxtohell said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...


he clearly likes the attention
LOL
is it wrong of us to keep giving it to him?


----------



## Fizz (Dec 23, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> You posted that in response to me saying there are families who want a new full investigation.


right. and its a fireman that doesnt.

so why are you totally fabricating and lying about other shit??


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 23, 2009)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > You posted that in response to me saying there are families who want a new full investigation.
> ...



 Haven't fabricated anything you dumb fucking ****. Candycorn claimed the CR is bulletproof according to adults so I responded by pointing out there are many families that want a new full investigation so by her proclamation she is labeling those families as not being "adult." Then your dumbass pops in referencing one guy.  Then you falsely accused me of saying he was a family member.  Goodness you're fucking dumb.


----------



## Liability (Dec 23, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



I am so sorry that your severe mental retardation prevents you from grasping the meaning of "objective."


----------



## Fizz (Dec 23, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



and i responded by showing an adult that doesnt see the need for another investigation. you then tried and failed to tie that into some scenario that it was evidence families dont want an investigation. you completely fabricated that.

did i mention yet today that you are a fucking jackass?


----------



## candycorn (Dec 23, 2009)

If the plane wasn't hijacked; where is it?


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 23, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Nah.

His un-kicked dog is grateful for us.


----------



## Liability (Dec 23, 2009)

candycorn said:


> If the plane wasn't hijacked; where is it?



The Troofers evidently believe that it ran out of gas, so it got stuck up there in the air.


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 23, 2009)

candycorn said:


> If the plane wasn't hijacked; where is it?



He doesn't know!

He only knows the OCT if full of shit!

Why?

He doesn't know!

He only knows the OCT is full of shit!

Why?

He doesn't know!






....er.  Excuse me.  I seem to got stuck in the stupidity loop that is CL's logical thought process.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 23, 2009)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



You lying fuck.  It's not even worth showing why.


----------



## Fizz (Dec 23, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> You lying fuck.  It's not even worth showing why.



that is your typical reaction when you are caught lying!!


----------



## eots (Dec 23, 2009)

candycorn said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



*cuntycorns*


----------



## candycorn (Dec 23, 2009)

eots said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Or this one?

EOTS=


----------



## candycorn (Jan 6, 2010)

candycorn said:


> This was posted yesterday:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Thanks for the love.


----------

