# Twoofer Strategy



## candycorn (Jan 29, 2011)

And I use the term in the title loosely...very loosely.  

Well kids it's been 9 years and you've gotten nowhere.  Less than nowhere actually because you morons can't even agree on a central set of "facts" (I'm using the quotes because what you idiots call facts are usually nothing more than opinions from people with an agenda).

So I'm curious, where are you going to go from here?  We realized Rome wasn't built in a day but they had some blueprints drawn up in 9 years I betcha.  Put another way; some GOP dipshit somewhere will end up as his party's standard bearer in 2012 to face President Obama.  At this point, that man/woman has not filed.  They have only an outline of an election machine at best.  A staff of thousands has not been hired.  Advertising has not been bought.  There is no organization in place.  Yet somehow in the next 647 days, all of that will come to pass from literally nothing in place today.  You guys have had 3,427 days and you can't come up with a single "fact" or actual FACT to prop up your claims.  

Whats next?


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jan 29, 2011)

the agent troll is at it again.since you spend your life on the computer going to dozens of message boards everywhere,wonder how many others you have gone to today and posted the same thing.


----------



## Jos (Jan 29, 2011)

9/11 inside job said:


> the agent troll is at it again.since you spend your life on the computer going to dozens of message boards everywhere,wonder how many others you have gone to today and posted the same thing.



[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gh3F1BCsZ_8&feature=related[/ame]


----------



## candycorn (Jan 29, 2011)

9/11 inside job said:


> the agent troll is at it again.since you spend your life on the computer going to dozens of message boards everywhere,wonder how many others you have gone to today and posted the same thing.



Poor baby; can't face the truth.  Well, the library will close in a little while and you'll be back to your empty FEMA trailer to spend the rest of your pathetic life watching basic cable.  Pissant.


----------



## psikeyhackr (Jan 29, 2011)

This is funny:

Let's Roll Forums - View Single Post - 911 and Child Psychology

The Laws of Physics are incapable of giving a damn about Conspiracy Theories.

In fact the Laws of Physics are incapable of giving a damn about the human race.

So when is an engineering school going to build a physical model that can be completely destroyed by the fall of its top 15% or less?

psik


----------



## Ravi (Jan 29, 2011)

I see Terral hasn't posted a thread about 9/11 in months...he's on to silver or something....I do believe he has thrown in the towel.


----------



## grim0187 (Jan 31, 2011)

So, OP, I take it you dont believe in ANY conspiracy theories? You thought the JFK assassination was legit? 

In other words you believe everything our government tells you as truth? Without even questioning it? Without even WANTING an unbiased impartial investigation? 

If so, then you need to seriously get a new hobby besides messing around in politics...


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 31, 2011)

grim0187 said:


> So, OP, I take it you dont believe in ANY conspiracy theories? You thought the JFK assassination was legit?
> 
> In other words you believe everything our government tells you as truth? Without even questioning it? Without even WANTING an unbiased impartial investigation?
> 
> If so, then you need to seriously get a new hobby besides messing around in politics...



Gulf of tonkin - It doesn't bother them
Able Danger - It doesnt matter
Operation Northwoods - Insignificant to them
9/11 Commission and NIST fraud - They just ignore it.

It's depressing.  Military Officers for 9/11 Truth


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Jan 31, 2011)

grim0187 said:


> So, OP, I take it you dont believe in ANY conspiracy theories? You thought the JFK assassination was legit?
> 
> In other words you believe everything our government tells you as truth? Without even questioning it? Without even WANTING an unbiased impartial investigation?
> 
> If so, then you need to seriously get a new hobby besides messing around in politics...



What agency or agencies, that both sides would agree on, can perform a new investigation?

Would you accept their findings if they confirm the original investigation's findings?


----------



## candycorn (Jan 31, 2011)

grim0187 said:


> So, OP, I take it you dont believe in ANY conspiracy theories? You thought the JFK assassination was legit?
> 
> In other words you believe everything our government tells you as truth? Without even questioning it? Without even WANTING an unbiased impartial investigation?
> 
> If so, then you need to seriously get a new hobby besides messing around in politics...



You know nothing; actually less than nothing about what I think because you make incorrect assumptions.

But when the twoofers spend 9 years and are unable to establish a sense of credibility even in place of legitimate credibility; we have to ask ourselves if it isn't time for new strategies.  

I believe the 9/11 Commission Report on the major points.  It makes perfect sense, you can't quote a single inaccuracy in the report, and you cannot supplant the report with a version of the events that makes as much sense or any sense for that matter.  If I'm wrong, please point out what doesn't make sense, quote an inaccuracy in the report, or furnish a companion piece that passes the smell test.

You can't.

You won't.

The challenge is made; be a man and take me up on it or shut the fuck up.


----------



## eots (Feb 1, 2011)

candycorn said:


> grim0187 said:
> 
> 
> > So, OP, I take it you dont believe in ANY conspiracy theories? You thought the JFK assassination was legit?
> ...



since when did the 911 commission determine the cause of the collapse ?


----------



## eots (Feb 1, 2011)

Rat in the Hat said:


> grim0187 said:
> 
> 
> > So, OP, I take it you dont believe in ANY conspiracy theories? You thought the JFK assassination was legit?
> ...



the family steering commitee would be acceptable as those that approved the board designated to investigate


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 3, 2011)

Ravi said:


> I see Terral hasn't posted a thread about 9/11 in months...he's on to silver or something....I do believe he has thrown in the towel.



No he has just gotten smart like myself and realised this site has been penetrated by agent trolls like candycorn ect and that so many people here only want to listen to those agents cause he knows they are in denial so he doesnt bother with you Bush dupes anymore just like I dont.


----------



## Ravi (Feb 3, 2011)

Awesome, thank you for that consideration.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 3, 2011)

Jos said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > the agent troll is at it again.since you spend your life on the computer going to dozens of message boards everywhere,wonder how many others you have gone to today and posted the same thing.
> ...



great video,

thanks for posting it.too bad the bush dupes wont watch it so they can get educated.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 3, 2011)

grim0187 said:


> So, OP, I take it you dont believe in ANY conspiracy theories? You thought the JFK assassination was legit?
> 
> In other words you believe everything our government tells you as truth? Without even questioning it? Without even WANTING an unbiased impartial investigation?
> 
> If so, then you need to seriously get a new hobby besides messing around in politics...



this is a disinformation agent troll you are talking with.he defends ANY version of the governments no matter how absurd it is such as the jfk assassination as you just pointed out.thats what he is paid to do.thats why he goes to dozens of message boards everywhere posting his lies and propaganda and evades facts and evidence by changing the subject all the time.


----------



## candycorn (Mar 9, 2011)

candycorn said:


> And I use the term in the title loosely...very loosely.
> 
> Well kids it's been 9 years and you've gotten nowhere.  Less than nowhere actually because you morons can't even agree on a central set of "facts" (I'm using the quotes because what you idiots call facts are usually nothing more than opinions from people with an agenda).
> 
> ...



I just like bumping my own stuff.  Now a message about something I take seriously; gun control.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vHD1uxujnFQ&tracker=False"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vHD1uxujnFQ&tracker=False[/ame]


----------



## Obamerican (Mar 9, 2011)

9/11 inside job said:


> Jos said:
> 
> 
> > 9/11 inside job said:
> ...


88, you little Nazi wannabe piece of shit.


----------



## candycorn (Apr 1, 2011)

candycorn said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > And I use the term in the title loosely...very loosely.
> ...



...


----------



## Gamolon (Apr 1, 2011)

psikeyhackr said:


> This is funny:
> 
> Let's Roll Forums - View Single Post - 911 and Child Psychology
> 
> ...



The fact that you don't actually understand structural design isn't anyone's fault but your own.


----------



## Gamolon (Apr 1, 2011)

psikeyhackr said:


> This is funny:
> 
> Let's Roll Forums - View Single Post - 911 and Child Psychology
> 
> ...



I noticed you posted this video before. Here is a screen capture.






Can you explain something to me? Why are the column supports BENEATH the floors in that model shown above? Neither the perimeter columns nor the core columns were DIRECTLY beneath the floors. The floor were held by trusses which were attached to the INSIDE of the columns with angles shown in this next photo, circled in red.





So in reality, the load of the upper block comes down on the ANGLES supporting the floor trusses, NOT the vertical columns themselves. That is why we see the perimeter columns peeling away like banana peels and falling to the side as the upper mass sheared the truss connections on the INSIDE of the perimeter columns.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Apr 1, 2011)

someones life is so pathetic that like clockwork,he has to resurrect and old dead thread of his for the attention he seeks around here which many truthers ignorantly give him.


----------



## Patriot911 (Apr 1, 2011)

9/11 inside job said:


> someones life is so pathetic that like clockwork,he has to resurrect and old dead thread of his for the attention he seeks around here which many truthers ignorantly give him.



And like clockwork, truthtard trolls come out from under their pathetic bridges to try and seem intelligent, but fail miserably.  I don't think I've ever seen you make an actual claim that makes sense.  No small wonder when you have your head up all the other truthtards' asses trying to suck up to them!


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Apr 1, 2011)

You agent trolls  are so pathetic in your ramblings Parrot that you  you constantly come on here and show what dumbfucks you are ignoring that all protocals were violated that day and evidence destroyed and confiscated and removed, yet nobody got fired and lost their jobs but instead got promoted for their incomptence.gee I wish I could have a job like that getting PROMOTED for making a serious mistake.

You agent dumbfucks obviously get paid well by your handlers coming on here for your ass beatings you constantly get here with your pathetic ramblings you make up to avoid these evidence and facts.

you trolls can only sling shit in defeat over this everytime.


----------



## JiggsCasey (Apr 2, 2011)

inside, despite your considerable work and ambition with MIHOP theory, you really need to embrace LIHOP instead. Focus your energies. 

it's the far-more court-admissible case, and the coincidence theorists have absolutely no honest response for why the money trail was never actually followed into the greatest crime in U.S. history.

when you're done playing ping-pong with them, and their perpetual witness vs. witness stall game, we'll be over here waiting for ya!  ...     They can't counter LIHOP. Never could.

Think of it this way: Everyone knows Capone murdered lots of people. but they could never get him on it. Instead, they got him on tax evasion, which he also committed. And really, what's the difference? He still rotted in prison.


----------



## candycorn (Apr 2, 2011)

JiggsCasey said:


> inside, despite your considerable work and ambition with MIHOP theory, you really need to embrace LIHOP instead. ...
> 
> it's the far-more court-admissible case, and the coincitards have absolutely no honest response for why the money trail was never actually followed into the greatest crime in U.S. history.
> 
> when you're done playing ping-pong with them, and their perpetual witness vs. witness stall job, we'll be over here waiting for ya!  ...     They can't counter LIHOP. Never could.



At least you're a consistent retard; Rimjob embraces whatever the theory du jour is.


----------



## JiggsCasey (Apr 2, 2011)

candycorn said:


> At least you're a consistent retard; Rimjob embraces whatever the theory du jour is.



I'll bet you right now you could not manage to debate LIHOP without resorting to infantile behavior like this above. Wanna try?


----------



## candycorn (Apr 2, 2011)

JiggsCasey said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > At least you're a consistent retard; Rimjob embraces whatever the theory du jour is.
> ...



Sure.  Your move.


----------



## JiggsCasey (Apr 2, 2011)

candycorn said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



Excellent. 

I'd like to establish a few easy-to-satisfy conditions first for both of us. Nothing that should hinder your ability to present your argument, nor counter mine,  ... but instead for the benefit of basic civil discourse and intellectual honesty.


*no personal attacks whatsoever*.  ... not even vague allusions to personal insinuation. Not that we both aren't quite talented at insulting the other, but just to cut through the endless loop of "you're gay/nazi/retarded" nonsense and stay focused. 
*no straw man creation*. ... along those lines, agree to read each other's prose very carefully, and only remark on what's been presented, not what one of us THINKS or extrapolates what the other must therefore believe.
*no partisan, small-time, private blogs can be used to buoy position*. ... Metro daily news sites are preferred, but columns from reputable news sites, even if ideological, are acceptable. For example, I'll accept Fox and Weekly Standard links from you, and you accept Slate or Nation from me.
*we both agree to at least speed read each other's presented link*, and get the basics down... if not read it entirely, on good faith.
*we both agree that evidence is not necessarily proof*, and can tell the distinction.
*that the burden for me is to show that a new enquiry is ethically warranted*. ... not necessarily to provide a conviction.

Just as I've asked of you, I'll listen to any conditions you may have as well.

If we've agreed, I'll create a thread on the topic in the coming days. Fair?


----------



## candycorn (Apr 2, 2011)

JiggsCasey said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > JiggsCasey said:
> ...



See objections in quoted areas above.  Where the text is not in red, I agree to your bullet point.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Apr 2, 2011)

JiggsCasey said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > JiggsCasey said:
> ...



your making a mistake.everybody that debates with him finds out that when he cant refute evidence and facts,he breaks down and gets angry and starts calling you names.Plus he is just a troll seeking attention.he goes to several message boards and posts his disinformation and changes the subject to evade the evidence.thats why so many people here are ignorant to reply to him cause they are just giving him the attention he seeks.This troll goes to SEVERAL message boards posting his lies and propaganda.the point is all mute.its the evidence is ovewhelming that it was an inside job as I proved,they know it and can only sling shit in defeat. after all have YOU ever had a job where you got PROMOTED for a major incompetence screwup and ever tried to destroy evidence at a crime scene without going to jail? the trolls here can only sling shit in defeat like the monkeys they are,they cant get around that.


----------



## JiggsCasey (Apr 2, 2011)

candycorn said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



No then. We need further negotiation.

Your rejection of the final condition means you're already trying to define the debate parameter for me, leaving it possible for you to just continue to say "that doesn't prove Cheney did it!! i'm not convinced!!" over and over again. 

I am not a prosecutor with access to classified documents, and you're not a defense attorney. There is no judge and no jury here to declare a victor anyway. My only claim in this whole thing is that an investigation was never really conducted, relevant questions were never asked, and a new independent inquiry is fully warranted. Only THEN, with witness testimony, under oath, could we get to the meat of the case against Cheney. LIHOP "theory" insists they knew it was coming, and did nothing to stop it, and in fact greased the skids for the attacks to finish. No claims of controlled demolition, or missiles.

If you're unwilling to accept that very specific challenge, then I suppose we'll just agree to disagree, and we can all wonder why you wouldn't agree to such a challenge. Besides, according the coincidence theory, that burden should be hard enough for me to attain. You guys don't believe the case should even be allowed to be looked into further.


----------



## candycorn (Apr 2, 2011)

JiggsCasey said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > JiggsCasey said:
> ...


Pot meet kettle.

You, in fact, were doing the same thing with your "ethically warranted" plank.  Its a pathetically low standard to achieve. 



JiggsCasey said:


> I am not a prosecutor with access to classified documents, and you're not a defense attorney. There is no judge and no jury here to declare a victor anyway. My only claim in this whole thing is that an investigation was never really conducted, relevant questions were never asked, and a new independent inquiry is fully warranted.


The FBI had an investigation.
Congress had hearings.
Then a Commission was set up to investigate further.

To date, not one inaccuracy has been brought to light on the major points of their findings.  Not one.  



JiggsCasey said:


> Only THEN, with witness testimony, under oath, could we get to the meat of the case against Cheney.


Okay...I'll go on without you...please tell us what witness is going to flip when they are placed under oath?  Whose story will change?  Be specific.



JiggsCasey said:


> LIHOP "theory" insists they knew it was coming, and did nothing to stop it, and in fact greased the skids for the attacks to finish. No claims of controlled demolition, or missiles.


Gee, you should try to convince the other retards before you take me on then because for them, its all about CD and missiles.  



JiggsCasey said:


> If you're unwilling to accept that very specific challenge, then I suppose we'll just agree to disagree, and we can all wonder why you wouldn't agree to such a challenge.


I'm not bringing a knife to a gunfight by accepting your "If I hit the ground after falling off a log" standard for victory.  You've had 9 years to make your case for LIHOP, MIHOP, LOLLY POP, FLIP FLOP, or SUCK MY COCK.  If you can't make your case after 9 years, perhaps you should come to the obvious conclusion that you ain't got a case.



JiggsCasey said:


> Besides, according the coincidence theory, that burden should be hard enough for me to attain. You guys don't believe the case should even be allowed to be looked into further.



Look into it; nobody is stopping you.  I invited you to a forum where you can prove it agreeing to most of your terms except for your "ethically warranted".  I also think that the standards for source material were a bit open to interpretation.  I clarified them suggesting that we simply use the MLA Guidelines--you DO know what those are do you not?  

The record shows that you backed away; not I.  

Good luck.


----------



## candycorn (Apr 2, 2011)

9/11 inside job said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



Thanks for the compliment; by the way it's "you're", not "your" dipshit.


----------



## eots (Apr 2, 2011)

*YOUR A FAG...*



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEbsgEsjy9s]YouTube - The Fag Bomb[/ame]


----------



## candycorn (Apr 2, 2011)

eots=garbage


----------



## JiggsCasey (Apr 2, 2011)

candycorn said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



Actually, I challenged you, not the other way around. And, I didn't back away at all, I put it up for further negotiation when you weren't willing to accept the burden level.

Regardless, as I predicted, you were completely unable to debate the topic without resorting to insecure personal vitriol, calling me a "retard" once again.

I win the bet, not that there was any doubt. You are completely unable to debate without personal attack. That, right there, is a starting point that puts you perpetually behind.

To recap:



jiggscasey said:


> I'll bet you right now you could not manage to debate LIHOP without resorting to infantile behavior like this above. Wanna try?





candycorn said:


> Sure.  Your move.


...



candycorn said:


> Gee, you should try to convince the other retards before you take me on then because for them, its all about CD and missiles.
> ...
> You've had 9 years to make your case for LIHOP, MIHOP, LOLLY POP, FLIP FLOP, or SUCK MY COCK.



Easiest bet ever.


----------



## candycorn (Apr 2, 2011)

JiggsCasey said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > JiggsCasey said:
> ...



The record clearly shows that you said you'd start a thread where the stipulations would be in effect.  Since the thread never started, the stipulations do not exist--sort of like any evidence of LIHOP.  Also; you yourself said, "further negotiation", not 'debate started'.  

I made the last proposal; your turn to counter; I'm guessing you're now going to  claim some victory (laughs).  Whatever gets you through the night.  

I'm guessing you'll also ignore the challenge:  

Okay...I'll go on without you...please tell us what witness is going to flip when they are placed under oath?  Whose story will change?  Be specific.

Don't worry, everybody I debate on 9/11 gets their ass handed to them; why do you think rimjob won't debate anybody ever again?


----------



## JiggsCasey (Apr 2, 2011)

candycorn said:


> The record clearly shows that you said you'd start a thread where the stipulations would be in effect.  Since the thread never started, the stipulations do not exist--sort of like any evidence of LIHOP.  Also; you yourself said, "further negotiation", not 'debate started'.
> 
> I made the last proposal; your turn to counter; I'm guessing you're now going to  claim some victory (laughs).  Whatever gets you through the night.
> 
> ...



For some reason, you appear to be a very excitable individual.

When you're ready to calm down, debate with some semblance of respect, and lose the condescension, we can get started.

The bet, from the start, was for you to debate without resorting to insult. You lost. I can play that game also, but it gets no one anywhere. But I'm willing to see if you can make it 1-1.

The challenge was for me to show how a new investigation is entirely warranted. For you to claim no inconsistency was ever found in the first "investigation" shows this is going to be an easy game.

I'm ready to proceed when you're ready to calm down. If you'd prefer to wait until you're more relaxed after your vacation, that is also fine.


----------



## BrianH (Apr 3, 2011)

The problem with a new investigation is that truthers will not be satisfied with the "investigation" unless it is done by truthers themselves.  If done by anyone else, truthers will claim that they are government puppets.


----------



## eots (Apr 3, 2011)

BrianH said:


> The problem with a new investigation is that truthers will not be satisfied with the "investigation" unless it is done by truthers themselves.  If done by anyone else, truthers will claim that they are government puppets.



nonsense...

"On Behalf of the People of the United States of America, the undersigned Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and affiliates  hereby petition for, and demand, a truly independent investigation with subpoena power in order to uncover the full truth surrounding the events of 9/11/01 - specifically the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers and Building 7.  We believe that there is sufficient doubt about the official story and therefore that the 9/11 investigation must be re-opened and must include a full inquiry into the possible use of explosives that may have been the actual cause behind the destruction of the World Trade Center Towers and WTC Building 7." Sign the Petition


----------



## Synthaholic (Apr 3, 2011)

candycorn said:


> Well kids it's been 9 years and you've gotten nowhere.



It's been nearly 50 years, and the truth about Kennedy's assassination still hasn't come out.

So what's your point?


----------



## BrianH (Apr 3, 2011)

eots said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > The problem with a new investigation is that truthers will not be satisfied with the "investigation" unless it is done by truthers themselves.  If done by anyone else, truthers will claim that they are government puppets.
> ...




This says nothing about who will do the investigating; only that they want an investigation.  And like I said, truthers will not be satisfied unless it's them who get to do the 'investigating'
Re-read my post, and then re-read your post.  Nonsense to you...


----------



## PhysicsExist (Apr 3, 2011)

BrianH said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > BrianH said:
> ...



****Senator Gravel read the &#8220;Pentagon Papers&#8221; into the Senate record in 1971, and thus helped bring an end to the Vietnam war.*


*The plan for the NEW 2012 California Initiative *​

_-Focus attention of the Global 9/11 Truth Movement on an actionable goal 

-Necessitate the raising of substantial funds to finance the initiative campaign

-Have a website to facilitate citizen participation, fundraising, and financial transparency

-Seek out and vet distinguished, qualified persons, to serve on the commission

-File identical initiative measures in several states to make the 9/11 Initiative a national issue

-Circumvent the government and the media by going directly to the people

-Result in a commission with subpoena powers and the necessary public funding

-Create an official body untainted by political interests able to pursue the facts surrounding 9/11 regardless of where they lead_​
*LISTEN TO HIM INTRODUCE THE BILL HERE:*
*Sen Mike Gravel in Berkeley presents draft for the California 911 Truth Initiative to be on the ballot in Nov. 2012 on Vimeo*
_Sen Mike Gravel in Berkeley presents draft for the California 911 Truth Initiative to be on the ballot in Nov. 2012 on Vimeo_

Investigate Building 7 | A Call to Reexamine the Most Important Event of Our Time - Home

Sir, 9/11 was an inside job.


----------



## candycorn (Apr 3, 2011)

JiggsCasey said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > The record clearly shows that you said you'd start a thread where the stipulations would be in effect.  Since the thread never started, the stipulations do not exist--sort of like any evidence of LIHOP.  Also; you yourself said, "further negotiation", not 'debate started'.
> ...




Actually far from it.



JiggsCasey said:


> When you're ready to calm down, debate with some semblance of respect, and lose the condescension, we can get started.


No, we still have to agree on rules.  You need to modify the insanely easy rules you tried to make for yourself.  I understand that the only hurdles you can clear are low hurdles but we're not going to do that.


JiggsCasey said:


> The bet, from the start, was for you to debate without resorting to insult.


We never got started.


JiggsCasey said:


> You lost. I can play that game also, but it gets no one anywhere. \


In your mind so of course it is invalid.


JiggsCasey said:


> The challenge was for me to show how a new investigation is entirely warranted.


No, thats the bullshit standard you tried to suggest. I called you on it and now you don't know what to do.  The standard is for you to prove LIHOP as you swear happened. Good to see you've already abandoned your boisterous claims and we haven't even gotten started [laughs]


JiggsCasey said:


> For you to claim no inconsistency was ever found in the first "investigation" shows this is going to be an easy game.


See, this is what twoofers do.  *I never said that*; I said the word "inaccuracy" on the major points of the 9/11 Commission Report.  It would, in fact, be an "easy game" if you're going to mis-quote me 3 times in one sentence.  


JiggsCasey said:


> I'm ready to proceed when you're ready to calm down. If you'd prefer to wait until you're more relaxed after your vacation, that is also fine.


I've already stated:


> I made the last proposal; your turn to counter;


I expected to see something this morning but you went with the personal attack  No surprise.


----------



## candycorn (Apr 3, 2011)

Synthaholic said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Well kids it's been 9 years and you've gotten nowhere.
> ...



If you're going to claim you can prove X, you have to prove X.  Not simply broadcast a lot of conjecture and pass it off as proof.

To Jiggs credit; he's all but come out and said that the controlled demolition and missile crowds are full of shit.  He says he can prove LIHOP.  I simply set that as the standard; he can't and wants to prove a 4th investigation is needed or, I'm sorry, 'ethically warranted' using the most nebulous of criteria.


----------



## Synthaholic (Apr 3, 2011)

candycorn said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



I do not need to prove X in order to call into question the government's official findings.  Maybe you believe in magic bullets, but I do not.



> To Jiggs credit; *he's all but come out and said that the controlled demolition and missile crowds are full of shit.*



No he hasn't.  He has only stated that he is willing to argue LIHOP.



> *He says he can prove LIHOP*.  I simply set that as the standard; he can't and wants to prove a 4th investigation is needed or, I'm sorry, 'ethically warranted' using the most nebulous of criteria.



Wrong again.

How do expect anyone to take your posts seriously when you can barely read comprehensively?


----------



## JiggsCasey (Apr 3, 2011)

candycorn said:


> No, we still have to agree on rules.  You need to modify the insanely easy rules you tried to make for yourself.  I understand that the only hurdles you can clear are low hurdles but we're not going to do that.



What you've done above is admit that a new investigation IS fully warranted, considering you've called my challenge along those lines "insanely easy" to accomplish.

Ironically, you appear to be desperate to RAISE the hurdle so high as to be impossible to clear. That sounds like a person who's not very confident in the official story in the first place. I mean, if this were such an easy game for you, and the Team Bush story so rock solid, we would guess you'd be like "whatever then, game on... you got nothing anyway."

To your crowd, if we don't provide every detail, including Cheney's breakfast order and tie color that morning, then that somehow means nothing has been shown to be nefarious whatsoever. Such a notion is truly laughable, and further evidence of profound hubris by a fading number of Americans who can't stand the idea that their leaders might have facilitated unethical behavior -- despite a long, LONG history of them doing just that.

Essentially, and this is common for coincidence theorists, your defense strategy is like telling the judge: "your honor, unless we can see the entire case, review all witness testimony beforehand, and hear assurance that you might actually rule against us, we insist that you throw the case out. In fact, we're going to leave the court unless you satisfy our every whim before litigation even commences."



candycorn said:


> We never got started.



In terms of the challenge put to you to actually attempt to debate civilly? We "got started" the moment you said "sure, your move."

You lost the bet. Just deal with it.

The debate can continue, and you can attempt to redeem yourself. It's not too difficult to avoid acting childish. And it will certainly help your position in the view of onlookers. Suggesting I'm "retarded" over and over again will hinder your position, make no mistake.



candycorn said:


> No, thats the bullshit standard you tried to suggest. I called you on it and now you don't know what to do.  The standard is for you to prove LIHOP as you swear happened. Good to see you've already abandoned your boisterous claims and we haven't even gotten started [laughs]



I can assure you, candy, when it comes to 9/11 and the most ruthless administration in U.S. history, I've never not "known what to do" nor "abandoned" any claim. You'll learn that as we go along. It will be you who will be left scrambling for explanation, to the point of amusing extrapolation and coincidence buttressing.



candycorn said:


> See, this is what twoofers do.  *I never said that*; I said the word "inaccuracy" on the major points of the 9/11 Commission Report.  It would, in fact, be an "easy game" if you're going to mis-quote me 3 times in one sentence.



This isn't going to go well for you if you're mired in semantics arguments over the difference between "inaccuracy" and "inconsistency."



candycorn said:


> I expected to see something this morning but you went with the personal attack  No surprise.



There was no personal attack anywhere in my post, even by the most victim-addled rationale. Calling someone an "other retard?" Now that is a personal attack.

Anyhow, despite your objection to the burden of proof level, I'll get to it then. In the next 48 hrs or so, I'm going to create the ultimate "Let it happen on purpose" thread for you and I to dance through.  I do hope you have at least read the 9/11 Commission Report, as a crucial frame of reference.


----------



## candycorn (Apr 3, 2011)

Synthaholic said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...


Few care what you believe.  Fewer are going to do anything about it.  


Synthaholic said:


> > To Jiggs credit; *he's all but come out and said that the controlled demolition and missile crowds are full of shit.*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Don't care; you're responding to me.


----------



## candycorn (Apr 3, 2011)

JiggsCasey said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > No, we still have to agree on rules.  You need to modify the insanely easy rules you tried to make for yourself.  I understand that the only hurdles you can clear are low hurdles but we're not going to do that.
> ...


Yeah when you use your bullshit "ethically warranted" standard.  



JiggsCasey said:


> Ironically, you appear to be desperate to RAISE the hurdle so high as to be impossible to clear. That sounds like a person who's not very confident in the official story in the first place.


Sorry you're having trouble proving your bullshit theory.



JiggsCasey said:


> I mean, if this were such an easy game for you, and the Team Bush story so rock solid, we would guess you'd be like "whatever then, game on... you got nothing anyway."


I'll play your game but only on an even playing field.  



JiggsCasey said:


> To your crowd, if we don't provide every detail, including Cheney's breakfast order and tie color that morning, then that somehow means nothing has been shown to be nefarious whatsoever.


Total shit.  Now you're just being funny.



JiggsCasey said:


> Such a notion is truly laughable, and further evidence of profound hubris by a fading number of Americans who can't stand the idea that their leaders might have facilitated unethical behavior -- despite a long, LONG history of them doing just that.


Prove LIHOP and you won't have to worry about any of it.  



JiggsCasey said:


> Essentially, and this is common for coincidence theorists, your defense strategy is like telling the judge: "your honor, unless we can see the entire case, review all witness testimony beforehand, and hear assurance that you might actually rule against us, we insist that you throw the case out. In fact, we're going to leave the court unless you satisfy our every whim before litigation even commences."


Not sure what that means...provide a roadmap to explain your retarded view of the world.

I do know that 

Nobody is stopping you from going to any court in the land and presenting your evidence.  Yet you're too scared to do so.

Nobody is stopping you from addressing the evidence with every elected official in the land.
Yet you're too scared to do so.  



JiggsCasey said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > We never got started.
> ...


No dickless, you said you were going to start a thread; you never did.  If thats the case, you've had 9 years.  I say you've had long enough.  I'm pronouncing the movement dead.  Go home.  Is that going to work?  No dickless...



JiggsCasey said:


> The debate can continue, and you can attempt to redeem yourself. It's not too difficult to avoid acting childish. And it will certainly help your position in the view of onlookers. Suggesting I'm "retarded" over and over again will hinder your position, make no mistake.


Your retarded posts make you look retarded.  If you can prove something, prove it.  If not, well, the "onlookers" can make their own mind up.  Rimjob will still be here to give you a Lewinsky whenever you want it.



JiggsCasey said:


> I can assure you, candy, when it comes to 9/11 and the most ruthless administration in U.S. history, I've never not "known what to do" nor "abandoned" any claim. You'll learn that as we go along. It will be you who will be left scrambling for explanation, to the point of amusing extrapolation and coincidence buttressing.


{laughs}



JiggsCasey said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > See, this is what twoofers do.  *I never said that*; I said the word "inaccuracy" on the major points of the 9/11 Commission Report.  It would, in fact, be an "easy game" if you're going to mis-quote me 3 times in one sentence.
> ...



Life hasn't gone well for you since you can't quote people and lie about the importance of doing it.  Typical twoofer tactics; seen them over and over.  Someone calls you on it and you downplay your dishonesty.  Creative Dreams has been sent packing time and again.



JiggsCasey said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > I expected to see something this morning but you went with the personal attack  No surprise.
> ...



Only after we agree to the rules; 3 posts per side, MLA quoting style, no videos, etc... refer to the earlier posts if you're not too retarded to read them.


----------



## JiggsCasey (Apr 3, 2011)

LOL.... You just farm-raped the rules. How can we agree to them if you can't even get past rules No. 1 and 2?

You appear very uncomfortable with this challenge. So much so that you've punted to your default persona. Rage isn't going to win the debate for you. Sorry. Doesn't work that way.


----------



## candycorn (Apr 3, 2011)

JiggsCasey said:


> LOL.... You just farm-raped the rules. How can we agree to them if you can't even get past rules No. 1 and 2?
> 
> You appear very uncomfortable with this challenge. So much so that you've punted to your default persona. Rage isn't going to win the debate for you. Sorry. Doesn't work that way.



What-ever.  Sorry I smothered your "ethically warranted" plank in the crib.  Awww...and you were counting on that weren't you?  (laughs).


----------



## JiggsCasey (Apr 3, 2011)

Hiding behind such unsolicited and insecure behavior proves you can't do this. It's clear you lack the intellectual capacity to have this discussion. I'll find someone else from your team who can do what you clearly can't. No problem.

Thanks for trying.


----------



## candycorn (Apr 3, 2011)

JiggsCasey said:


> Thanks for trying.



Wow, you ran and hid quicker than I thought.  Eventually all you retards do.  You're not the first; you won't be the last.


----------



## JiggsCasey (Apr 3, 2011)

candycorn said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks for trying.
> ...



No, i didn't run nor hide. I merely prefer to choose a more talented and challenging opponent. Huge difference.


----------



## candycorn (Apr 3, 2011)

JiggsCasey said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > JiggsCasey said:
> ...



I'm not going to debate that there are smarter people out there than either of us; but your cowardice is obvious, pronounced, and undeniable. I'll be watching you get decapitated by others.  No difference.  (laughs).


----------



## JiggsCasey (Apr 3, 2011)

candycorn said:


> I'm not going to debate that there are smarter people out there than either of us; but your cowardice is obvious, pronounced, and undeniable. I'll be watching you get decapitated by others.  No difference.  (laughs).



It your world, it's "cowardly" to refuse to engage in rage-addled, sophomoric banter? I'm just trying to focus on a topic with someone not intensely insecure, that's all. Helps the discussion advance, not remain mired in mud-slinging and Turrets.

It's a shame you couldn't meet the challenge put to you. It would have been enjoyable watching you pretend the 9/11 money trail didn't need to be followed in order for justice to be done.


----------



## candycorn (Apr 3, 2011)

JiggsCasey said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not going to debate that there are smarter people out there than either of us; but your cowardice is obvious, pronounced, and undeniable. I'll be watching you get decapitated by others.  No difference.  (laughs).
> ...



I thought you were going to find someone else to bother?  I know, it's all about whoever is paying you the attention you so desperately desire...How sad.  

No, what is cowardly is to set your threshold of victory so pathetically low then run like a little bitch when someone doesn't let you play by such rules in lieu of an authentic debate.  

It was fun watching you deny, deny, back down, and now squeal like a little girl.  I was surprised it happened so quickly though.


----------



## JiggsCasey (Apr 3, 2011)

LOL... The irony is priceless. Take care, candy.

Too bad you couldn't grow up and debate without hiding behind perpetual homophobia.


----------



## candycorn (Apr 3, 2011)

JiggsCasey said:


> LOL... The irony is priceless. Take care, candy.
> 
> Too bad you couldn't grow up and debate without hiding behind perpetual homophobia.



Project much?  

Just to review these are the stipulations you're running from:

Your List:


no personal attacks whatsoever. ... not even vague allusions to personal insinuation. Not that we both aren't quite talented at insulting the other, but just to cut through the endless loop of "you're gay/nazi/retarded" nonsense and stay focused.
no straw man creation. ... along those lines, agree to read each other's prose very carefully, and only remark on what's been presented, not what one of us THINKS or extrapolates what the other must therefore believe.
we both agree to at least speed read each other's presented link, and get the basics down... if not read it entirely, on good faith.
we both agree that evidence is not necessarily proof, and can tell the distinction.

My list:

Links are to be to specific webpages; i.e. I can't point you to cnn.com as my source.
I move we do not link anything; just cite the source with a website address if applicable but it must include the aurthor's name in your citation (no he said, she said) and when they said it at the very least. I'm envisioning a bibliography; just like you did in European Literature your Freshman year.
No videos of any kind, all arguments must be made in either your or my words only
3 Post limit; You present, I respond, You counter, I counter; summations from us both. Just like most testimony in courts of law are handled (testimony, cross, re-direct, re-cross, closing arguments)
3 Day Time Limit. So if you start on Sunday, I have the rest of Sunday, Monday, and most of the day on Tuesday to cross. If I don't respond by Wednesday, I concede. When I respond on Tuesday, you get the balance of Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday for Re-Direct. Then I have until Saturday for re-cross. I'm flexible on this one.
If the thread you create is corrupted by ANY other poster, absolutely no comment is made by either of us pro/con, favor/unfavor, good/bad about the post. It doesn't exist in that thread. Now you can quote it in another thread...like this one for example...but for the debate purposes, you get 3 posts, I get 3 posts; no more, no less.

And in dispute your lame:



that the burden for me is to show that a new enquiry is ethically warranted. ... not necessarily to provide a conviction.

and my:


9 years have passed; you need to start *proving something* not just making a "jilted lover's" case. Make your case, I do promise to read every word but the bar is going to be set much higher than "ethically warranted" whatever the hell that means.

All it took was for me to require you prove something and that sent you packing. 9 years; you can't prove anything.  Freakin' hilarious!

Well, now run off and find someone else to bother.  

To Quote Creative Schemes; it's interesting that when you're asked to prove something you start making homophobia references.  
(Laughs).


----------



## PhysicsExist (Apr 3, 2011)

Fire Fighters For 9-11 Truth » FF 911 Truth


----------



## JiggsCasey (Apr 4, 2011)

candycorn said:


> ((some muddled, self absorbed gibberish))



Again, I'm "running" from nothing. You're simply not in my class, you lost the initial bet, and you're unworthy of my time. You're insecure, immature, and very uncomfortable with a topic you obviously don't know very much about. 

Squawking "tell it to a grand jury" over and over changes nothing about the fact that we know who the money man was, and he was never questioned. But considering you haven't even read the 9/11 Commission Report, it's hardly surprising you're learning about this subject as you go along.


----------



## PhysicsExist (Apr 4, 2011)

JiggsCasey said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > ((some muddled, self absorbed gibberish))
> ...


----------



## candycorn (Apr 4, 2011)

JiggsCasey said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > ((some muddled, self absorbed gibberish))
> ...



Oh I see, you're not running but you're also afraid to debate. Gotcha!  
Obviously I'm several grades ahead of you so you're right I'm not in your class but then again the paste eaters and I have nothing in common.

The judicial system is where people go when they have been wronged.  Its been that way for 236 years.  Somehow we're supposed to believe that twoofers like you are operating on a different level than other persons who've brought landmark issues to the court.  If you had proof, you'd be there.  You don't so you're here trying to convince your fellow losers that you're somehow intellectually sound.  Good luck with that.  

The facts show you ran.  Live it. Love it.  Know it.


----------



## eots (Apr 4, 2011)

candycorn said:


> jiggscasey said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



I have never considered this before  but how does one put someone on ignore ? This worthless clot candyfuckincorn is just too much with its drag queen routine i am just so bored of it ,its like even duller than divecon just before his mental breakdown and I am becoming concerned,its time to move on cornyhole there has to be something more fulfilling for you than this for gods sakes..


----------



## candycorn (Apr 4, 2011)

eots=garbage


----------



## JiggsCasey (Apr 4, 2011)

candycorn said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



The facts show you couldn't get past yoru Turrets problem. That's all.

As for bringing a case to court, it costs a shit ton of money to investigate, especially overseas. You know this, but in your intentional ploy to be obtuse, you're feigning ignorance.


----------



## Patriot911 (Apr 4, 2011)

JiggsCasey said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > JiggsCasey said:
> ...



Who needs to investigate?  You said you had vast amounts of evidence that was court-admissible.  The fact you can't actually PRODUCE any of this evidence is glaringly obvious, but why should that stop you from bringing your evidence to a DA for prosecution?  Oh right.  Because they all stand there and laugh at you.


----------



## candycorn (Apr 4, 2011)

Patriot911 said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



Yeah, thats what I thought too...if you have the evidence you don't need to investigate.  I think their problem is that they are simply missing some intelligence genes; likely from repeated bong hits.


----------



## candycorn (Apr 4, 2011)

JiggsCasey said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > JiggsCasey said:
> ...



Huh?  

tur·ret (tûrt, tr-)
n.
1. A small tower or tower-shaped projection on a building.
2. 
a. A low, heavily armored structure, usually rotating horizontally, containing mounted guns and their gunners or crew, as on a warship or tank.
b. A domelike gunner's enclosure projecting from the fuselage of a combat aircraft.
3. A tall wooden structure mounted on wheels and used in ancient warfare by besiegers to scale the walls of an enemy fortress.
4. An attachment for a lathe consisting of a rotating cylindrical block holding various cutting tools.
5. A rotating device holding various lenses, as for a microscope, allowing easy switching from one lens to another.

My condo doesn't have any of those although our security guard may; she carries a pretty big flashlight.  I'm guessing youre limited intelligence prevented you from spelling your insult correctly.  That is soooo funny.  Not only are you a chickenshit little bitch who runs when confronted; you can't even spell your insult correctly.  You're approaching the triple-crown of being a zero balance human being.  You have stupidity and cowardice down....  

Oh wait.



JiggsCasey said:


> As for bringing a case to court, it costs a shit ton of money to investigate, especially overseas. You know this, but in your intentional ploy to be obtuse, you're feigning ignorance.


Not only have you demonstrated your lack of intelligence (not to mention your sheer insensitivity toward those who suffer from the disorder).

Not only have you (repeatedly) demonstrated your abject cowardice at being afraid to debate me--trust me you should stick with me; P911 will field dress you in any debate...

But now you've achieve the triple crown by admitting that you're quite simply, destitute.  Put another way Juggs, you're poor.  My advice is to save your food stamps for a while and maybe you'll find some law student willing to take your case pro-bono or for a Lewinsky you can provide.  Maybe lay off the obvious bong hits for a time and find a legal eagle who can go after the Vice President you obviously hate.

Coward, poor, and stupid; yup--you have the Triple Crown there loser.


----------



## JiggsCasey (Apr 4, 2011)

LOL. You can always tell when a Bushie Loyalist is out of bullets. He punts to grammar nazi deflection.

Once again, I never ran. You just couldn't focus. I'm happy to take on your forum hero in the other thread. It's telling that you'd idolize him so. He's no more mature than you are, so this should be an easy game.

Run along now little TOURETTES sufferer. And make sure never to make any grammatical errors. It will help shield your perpetually flawed 9/11 argument. Good little Bushie that you are.


----------



## Patriot911 (Apr 4, 2011)

JiggsCasey said:


> LOL. You can always tell when a Bushie Loyalist is out of bullets. He punts to grammar nazi deflection.
> 
> Once again, I never ran. You just couldn't focus. I'm happy to take on your forum hero in the other thread. It's telling that you'd idolize him so. He's no more mature than you are, so this should be an easy game.
> 
> Run along now little TOURETTES sufferer. And make sure never to make any grammatical errors. It will help shield your perpetually flawed 9/11 argument. Good little Bushie that you are.



And once again JC avoids presenting us with even a single piece of the vast amount of court-admissible evidence.    Run little twoofer!  RUN!!!


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Apr 4, 2011)

Patriot911 said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> > LOL. You can always tell when a Bushie Loyalist is out of bullets. He punts to grammar nazi deflection.
> ...



and once again Parrot runs away from my evidence that an inside job occured with my "THIRD" post I made on page two like he always does in every thread when i make that post.lol

http://www.usmessageboard.com/conspiracy-theories/152940-twoofer-strategy-2.html
Your brain is so fucked up that you dont even remember him saying he wont debate with someone who acts so sad and childish like your pathetic Candyfag lover does when he refuses to follow the rules he outlined for them both  to follow and like the arrogant fuck he is,would not apologize for it when he had the chance dumbfuck..The only one running  from a debate is you two cowards. You keep running away in EVERY thread everytime I make that "THIRD" post on page two in that link above I posted. such hypocricy.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Apr 4, 2011)

eots said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > jiggscasey said:
> ...



 you hit the nail right on the head.
Yeah you never even considered putting the resident troll of the USM boards Divecunt on ignore in all these years you been here before he had his mental breakdown and left which is a MAJOR feat to accomplish. Even Divecunts drivel wasnt as pathetic as his fellow troll Candyfags.


----------



## candycorn (Apr 4, 2011)

JiggsCasey said:


> LOL. You can always tell when a Bushie Loyalist is out of bullets. He punts to grammar nazi deflection.



I'm sorry you can't spell; too many bong hits I'm guessing.  Boo hoo.  

And you can always tell when a twoofer is beaten; he runs from debates just like you have now, twice my little bitch. 

To the other twoofers; is this the best you can do--having this guy do your agruing for you is like having Mr. Magoo do your driving.


----------



## candycorn (Apr 4, 2011)

9/11 inside job said:


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



Eots is gettting a Lewinsky now!


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Apr 4, 2011)

No need to come back and advertise that you got your a$$ handed to you on a platter again candytroll,we all know that.I know you being the attention seeking troll you are,that your quoting me and talking to yourself since your life is so pathetic and sad.too bad you dont have that dumbfuck idiot sword around here to play your game and take your bait like he ignoranty did.that truther was every bit a moron as you are for playing your game and taking your bait like he did.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Apr 4, 2011)

JiggsCasey said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > ((some muddled, self absorbed gibberish))
> ...



this deserves a MAJOR clapping.best accurate statement ever.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Apr 4, 2011)

JiggsCasey said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not going to debate that there are smarter people out there than either of us; but your cowardice is obvious, pronounced, and undeniable. I'll be watching you get decapitated by others.  No difference.  (laughs).
> ...



Yep.I tried to tell you that he was too cowardly to meet the challenge,that he only can go for so long before he starts acting childish and immature with personal attacks and name calling.Everybody that tries to debate him always finds out that he'll post irrelevent drivel and evade evidence when they try and have a discussion with him about it.Oh well guess you had to find out for yourself.


----------



## candycorn (Apr 4, 2011)

9/11 inside job said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



She took your advice Monica.  By the way, Juggs thinks you're full of shit--that nobody fired missiles at the Pentagon or planted bombs. Just ask her.  She'll tell you.


----------



## BrianH (Apr 4, 2011)

There were witnesses on the freeway that SAW the plane hit the pentagon.

How come witnesses are everything when you truthers want to claim that WTC was demolished because people heard the explosions (Even though they're not heard in the videos).  But then when witnesses actually see a plane hitting the pentagon, suddenly these witnesses are not credible.  ????  You truthers cherry-pick your information.  Why are the people that witnessed the plane hitting the pentagon less credible than the witnesses that supposedly heard demolition explosives???


----------



## BrianH (Apr 4, 2011)

BrianH said:


> There were witnesses on the freeway that SAW the plane hit the pentagon.
> 
> How come witnesses are everything when you truthers want to claim that WTC was demolished because people heard the explosions (Even though they're not heard in the videos).  But then when witnesses actually see a plane hitting the pentagon, suddenly these witnesses are not credible.  ????  You truthers cherry-pick your information.  Why are the people that witnessed the plane hitting the pentagon less credible than the witnesses that supposedly heard demolition explosives???



-The bodies of people on the airplane were recovered at the Pentagon.  (DNA from the remains were matched to the passengers on the plane.)  
-Passenegers aboard the plane made phone calls that the plane had been hijacked before the plane hit the pentagon.
-Photographs SHOW debris from the plane scattered at the crash site

To suggest that anything else has happened would be infantile and naive. (Or blind) (Or stupid) (Or retarded).


----------



## candycorn (Apr 4, 2011)

BrianH said:


> There were witnesses on the freeway that SAW the plane hit the pentagon.
> 
> How come witnesses are everything when you truthers want to claim that WTC was demolished because people heard the explosions (Even though they're not heard in the videos).  But then when witnesses actually see a plane hitting the pentagon, suddenly these witnesses are not credible.  ????  You truthers cherry-pick your information.  Why are the people that witnessed the plane hitting the pentagon less credible than the witnesses that supposedly heard demolition explosives???



You've hit the nail on the head; However the better way to put it, I think, they cherry pick what  THEY WANT the information to be; not the presented information.  For example, NOBODY saw a plane fly over the Pentagon.  Even the "cops" (notice how they have disappeared after the CIT team interviewed these "cops") never said flyover.  Yet amazingly it became a "flyover".  

To Juggs credit he discounts these wild assed theories and thinks it was, I'll admit, the MUCH more plausible IHOP.  Of course in the universe of twooferdom, think of the Sun as the 9/11 Commission Report.  flyover is Pluto, Thermite is Nepute and LIHOP is Triton (a moon of neptune) and all are lightyears away from the truth and are in danger of being demoted.


----------



## JiggsCasey (Apr 5, 2011)

candycorn said:


> To Juggs credit he discounts these wild assed theories and thinks it was, I'll admit, the MUCH more plausible IHOP.  Of course in the universe of twooferdom,* think of the Sun as the 9/11 Commission Report.  flyover is Pluto, Thermite is Nepute and LIHOP is Triton (a moon of neptune) and all are lightyears away from the truth* and are in danger of being demoted.



Dude. What the fuck are you even talking about?

Don't drink and post.


----------



## candycorn (Apr 5, 2011)

JiggsCasey said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > To Juggs credit he discounts these wild assed theories and thinks it was, I'll admit, the MUCH more plausible IHOP.  Of course in the universe of twooferdom,* think of the Sun as the 9/11 Commission Report.  flyover is Pluto, Thermite is Nepute and LIHOP is Triton (a moon of neptune) and all are lightyears away from the truth* and are in danger of being demoted.
> ...



It demonstrates how far away from the truth you are there Pluto.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Apr 5, 2011)

JiggsCasey said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > To Juggs credit he discounts these wild assed theories and thinks it was, I'll admit, the MUCH more plausible IHOP.  Of course in the universe of twooferdom,* think of the Sun as the 9/11 Commission Report.  flyover is Pluto, Thermite is Nepute and LIHOP is Triton (a moon of neptune) and all are lightyears away from the truth* and are in danger of being demoted.
> ...



thats candyfag for you.the drunk druggie.


----------



## BrianH (Apr 8, 2011)

JiggsCasey said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > To Juggs credit he discounts these wild assed theories and thinks it was, I'll admit, the MUCH more plausible IHOP.  Of course in the universe of twooferdom,* think of the Sun as the 9/11 Commission Report.  flyover is Pluto, Thermite is Nepute and LIHOP is Triton (a moon of neptune) and all are lightyears away from the truth* and are in danger of being demoted.
> ...



He was demonstrating that what you say is nonsense...I'm not attacking you, but merely pointing out what he posted.


----------



## candycorn (Apr 8, 2011)

BrianH said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



He knows what I posted and the meaning of it.  He's intellectually dishonest.  He wants to prove LIHOP...instead the only thing he has proven is that he is that dishonest.


----------



## JiggsCasey (Apr 9, 2011)

candycorn said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > JiggsCasey said:
> ...



Wrong, toolshed. I seriously have no idea what you were trying to convey. That's why I asked the question. Fact is, you're not a very good writer to begin with... but when you throw in some retarded allegory alluding to our solar system? It becomes truly tedious.

"Intellectually dishonest?" That was my term for you. Don't project, and worse, don't use my material.

There is nothing here that I've been remotely dishonest about.  Your reply to the ISI money trail question, however, has been the embodiment of intellectual dishonesty. No mistake about it. That, and your lame punt to linking the FBI's report in response to the "independent investigation" assertion... You're incapable of debate honesty. Or you can't read. Dishonest or stupid, i'm not sure which is worse. But as is the case for your hero, W., you exhibit both. So I guess that's the fitting double dose.


----------



## BrianH (Apr 9, 2011)

JiggsCasey said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > BrianH said:
> ...



Look, nothing is wrong with another investigation.  However, I've said before that even if there was another investigation, 9/11 truthers would not be satisfied unless it was done by people of their choosing.  They would not believe anything coming from anyone else.  Therefore, anyone they would choose to do it would already bring some biased to the table.  Our lovely climatologists are living and breathing proof that people with biased views towards an issue are not the ones to conduct the experiments and make the models.

Here are some facts that, so far, have not warranted a new investigation IMO.


Pentagon
1.  Bodies of passengers were found at the crashsite at the Pentagon.  (I doubt the miltary loaded them all aboard a cruise missle.)
2.  DNA has linked these remains to the people on the plane that hit the Pentagon.
3.  There are literally hundreds of eyewitnesses that saw the plane hit the Pentagon.  Not only from the freeway, but some from the actual lawn and parking areas of the Pentagon.
4.  The fact there has been no substantial evidence of a conspiracy regarding the Pentagon attack, this (by the law of probability) makes it more likely that the WTC attacks were not some kind of a conspiracy also.

WTC Towers

1.  Actual video and audio of the towers falling do not support he initiation of a controlled demolition.  (Truthers say that the building fell "like" a building being demolished; however, there were not demolition explosions, no evidence AT ALL that there was any kind of demolition explosives.)  Truthers claim that maybe Thermite was used to "cut" the beams.  They try to prove this theory by showing beams behind firefighters that are "neatly" cut in a downward angle, suggesting that thermite was used.  This is easily disproven because metal workers at ground-zero have been photographed actually cutting these beams at the same angle so that the steel beams would fall a certain way without endangering anyone.
2.  Truthers also claim that "explosions" were heard before the building collapsed.  There are NUMEROUS things that can cause explosions or the sound of such.  Electrical swithgears, transformers, and large electrical fuses shorting out, expanding and contracting steel, and let's not forget the giant burning planes atop the towers.  It has been proven that a plane burning alone in a field will explode and continue to explode for a long time while it is burning. You can look the video up on youtube. Aside from that, the sheer weight of the building snapping linkages in the steel beams are would be enough to cause significant popping and smalle "explosion" sounds upon the buildings initial descent.  

3.  The existenece of molten metal and the "melting steel" theory was also disproven.  The planes entire exterior is made of aluminum.  Also, there were THOUSANDS of desks, file cabinets, and other metals (not made of pure steel) within the building that would have easily melted and become molten in nature.  

4.  Suggesting that a building falling similar to a controlled demolition is not something that signifies that a building was demolished professionally.  For some reason, truthers seem to think that gravity doesn't exist and that the building should have tipped over like a domino.  Or at least withered away from left to right like a sand mummy in a Hollywood movie.

WTC 7

1.  Also, statements from individuals used by truthers to "prove" their point have routinely been proven false by these exact individuals.  Example: Larry Silverstein has said that by "pull" he did not mean to demolish the building.  Truthers use a video clip of firefighters to say that there were explosive devices that were found at the WTC.  However, the clip they use to "prove" their point is incomplete.  When one does further research, the clip continues to show firefighters saying that explosives devices were reported at the high school....not WTC 7.  It has also been proven that "pull" is not only used by firefighters to mean to "pull" people from a building, but also to be used in civil engineering terms of actually attaching cables to a building and shimming it one direction or another to make sure it does not fall in a certain direction.  FURTHERMORE:  It would not matter if WTC 7 was actually demolished.  Aside from a crazy notion (and no proof) that the government wanted to get rid of evidence of the conspiracy, there is no reason to believe that the government would want to demolsh the building.  If the building WERE demolished, it would most likely have been due to safety factors.  Would any of YOU go to work in that building after this event?  NOPE.  Buildings are labeled inefficient and unstable all of the time and then brought down.  So even if there were sufficient evidence that the building was demolished (which there isn't) it wouldn't bother me any.  

In conclusion I'll say, once again, that many truthers claim that this VAST number of engineers and architects have come foreward with this petititon to start a new investigation.  

1.  "VAST" is slightly incorrect.   There are approximately 10 million people in the U.S. that have architecture and engineering degrees....  A mere 2500 worldwide have signed this petition that the truthers are so proud of.  2500 out of 10 million does not numerically warrant anything.  Let's not also forget that ALOT of these 2500 "so-called" engineers are not even structural engineers.  If the 9/11 demolition theory were absolutely and irrevutable true, then you would most certainly have more engineers and architects coming forward.  And 9/11 Truth and 9/11 Inside Job, don't post me a list of 200 engineers to prove your point, or a list of firefighters, or a list of military men.  And don't post me the list of 2500 petition signers, because I've already stated that these numbers are a pin-drop in the ocean.

2.  Steven E Jones' theory was rejected by all of his collegues and eventually releived from his duties at Brigham Young.  His collegues reviewed his "theory" and "evidence" and eventually said he was nuts.  

3.  Truthers also claim that the hi-jackers were hired by the government to carry out these attacks.  This is an upsurd notion.  The vast majority of the hijackers were fro Suadi Arabia.  Why would the government hire people from an allied nation?  Surely a government with the capability to carry out these precise attacks would be smart enough to hire people from a country that hates us....  It just doesn't add up.  

Truthers have found no "smoking-gun" in regards to the 9/11 attacks.  Everything they've posted as "proof" are simply speculations.  You can usually tell that by debating with one.  You show them actual evidence refuting their theory, and they say..."Well maybe they did it because of this"  or "What if the government wanted that to happen?" 

Are there things the government doesn't want us to know?  Sure.  There always has and there always will be.  Does this mean that everythign that happens is caused and orchestrated by the government (or associates--for the truthers)?  NO .  9/11 has not been proven to be an inside job...period.


----------



## candycorn (Apr 9, 2011)

BrianH said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



KSM will be found guilty of being the mastermind of 9/11.  It will be proven. Watch, the day after, you'll have retards posting that Bush/Cheney was behind it.  

They love attention almost as much as they hate this country.


----------



## BrianH (Apr 9, 2011)

candycorn said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > JiggsCasey said:
> ...



You're right.  There's a reason why they call it a "conspiracy."  

The problem with the entire theory is that it doesn't hold up without a reasonable doubt.  Even the smalles pieces of their puzzle have not been proven to be true, therefore, how could the whole concept of 9/11 being government initiated by true?  

I think the biggest government "misleading" in relation to 9/11 is blowback.  I believe 9/11 were our unintended consequences of foreign military operations that we don't know about.  These terrorists attack us based on things our government does overseas that we are kept in the dark about.  So when these things happen, we try to figure out why they hate us rather than try to figure out what we did to make them hate us.  I think this is the real issue behind these terrorist attacks.  Could things our government has done in the middle-east contributed to the atmosphere that breeds these types of attacks?  sure....  Did our government carry out these attacks on it's own people?  No.  It's counter-productive....


----------



## candycorn (Apr 9, 2011)

BrianH said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > BrianH said:
> ...



I take a different view;

If you're radicalized, you're not rational.  No amount of reasoning will work on a Mohammed Atta or Hani Hanjour or the other 18 hijackers.  I don't wonder why they hate us; I don't care.  Those who benefit from the radicalization will always find something to hate about us so why wonder about it?  

We'll be hated whether or not we're there or not militarily.  If we were to pull out all of our troops tomorrow, they'd hate our industries that "raper their land."  If those pulled out as well, they'd hate our businesses that "obscure their culture".  If those pulled out; they'd hate our ideals that "corrupt their youth."  

Not all Islam, radicalized Islam.  Of the radicals, the hate mongers will be able to find a few that will take the next step to operational deployment.  Hence Atta, terror cells, and 9/11, 3/11, 7/11.  The same thing happened with Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nicholls.  They were not Muslim obviously but they were no less radical?  The difference--the only difference is that they couldn't be turned (and likely were not tried to be turned) to hurting the general public; hence the Federal Building in OKC which did hurt the gen pop but as collateral damage. 

In my view; the resounding echo of 9/11 is how quickly the country went back to sleep after this wake-up call.  Picked up a recent Atlantic Monthly magazine while getting my Jag serviced the other morning and read an article about General Aviation:  I'll cut and paste it here and embolden the salient portions: Private Plane, Public Menace - Magazine - The Atlantic




> Fifteen minutes after leaving Manhattan, we arrived at the airport gate. A private security guard asked my friend for the tail number of our plane. He provided the numberor he provided a few digits of the numberand we were waved through, without an identification check. The plane, I should point out, didnt belong to my friend; it belonged to a company with which my friends business does business. We drove to the terminaloperated by Signature Flight Support, a leading provider of general-aviation serviceswhere we met our co-pilot, who escorted us to the plane.
> 
> Youre Mr. Goldba? the co-pilot said to me.
> 
> ...



This is the real governmental crime.  No accounting for private planes?  From November 2010, a cbsnews.com web article was titled:

*Only 1/5 of All Air Cargo Screened for Bombs

Read more: Only 1/5 of All Air Cargo Screened for Bombs - CBS News*

During my salad days; I "bricked out" many an aircraft with freight.  To expand a little, the FAA relies on a bullshit "known agent"  plan whereby they will pre-screen you and everything you submit after that is pre-cleared.  Uh huh...so if a freight forwarder hires a guy the guy can put anything he wants on skids or in the igloos (the internal carriers on the planes)  and since Forward Air or whatever is a "known agent", maybe 1 in 5 of packages submitted will be screened.  Maybe.  

This is a total sham and its governmental malpractice that such a condition still exists.

The crying-ass shame is that it is quite easy (comparatively) to raise money for more inspectors.  Landing fees, air fuel service charges, airport occupancy taxes for the FBO...would pay for more inspectors.  

We know you can't inspect every box on every plane.  But 1 in 5?  No screening of General (private) aircraft at all?  Truly an American tragedy waiting to happen. 

We rolled over and hit the snooze button after the 9/11 wake up call.  How sad.
I'm hoping that a skilled prosecutor will use the upcoming trial and conviction of KSM to sound the alarm again.


----------



## BrianH (Apr 9, 2011)

candycorn said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



I wasn't really intended to get that in-depth with you on the subject.  I'm not disagreeing with you that a radical, in his/her *present *state-of-mind, is someone who cannot be reasoned with.  My point is that, would there be this large number of radicalized terrorist bent on destroying the United States had the United States kept it's nose out of middle-east affairs starting early on in our nation's history?  Why are these terrorist radicalized? They didn't wake up one day and say, "You know what?  I think I'll hate the United States." They weren't born that way.  It's not in their DNA.  Whoever taught them their "message" was also NOT born being radical.  Someone who got really put-out by the U.S. or western world took it upon themselves to be radicalized and started this mess.  Back during WWI and WWII other countries loved the U.S.  We kept our nose out of everyone's business, but then wrecked shop when the time was right. You didn't have these recurrent terrorists attacks before then.  With our current foreign policy, a Saudi Arabian can take a dump in the desert and it's somehow relevant to our national interests.  Have you ever researched how these radical clerics recruit young kids?  They start by convincing them that the western world (in particular the U.S.) is killing muslims world-wide and are against the muslim way of life.  They also take in kids whose parents were killed by U.S. bombings, battle casualties, etc...  They use their own propoganda to recruit these kids, and then mix it with misinterpretations of the Qoran.  

We have radicalized Christians and radicalized anti-government loons who grew up learning that the government is out to get them.  Or the radicalized Chrisitians who teach their youth misinterpretations of the Bible and use it as justification to blow up office buildings.  Terrorism against the U.S. is a direct effect to us being involved in the Middle East.  Had we kept our nose out of their part of the world, we'd have a different situation today.  You can quote me on that.


----------



## candycorn (Apr 9, 2011)

BrianH said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > BrianH said:
> ...



Oh, I didn't take exception at what you were saying and I don't disagree with you either.


In my view...right or wrong...
The only thing we need to know about radical Islam is this; how to destroy it before it tries to destroy us.  Worrying about why they hate us is an interesting intellectual exercise but I submit that the hatred is a product of ignorance.  You'll note that the social media is credited with toppling regimes in the Middle East.  When all of the facts are out there--the facts that come from being able to access a variety of sources--Democracy is favored by the people.


----------



## BrianH (Apr 9, 2011)

candycorn said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



Agree with that... Good Post


----------



## JiggsCasey (Apr 10, 2011)

BrianH said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > BrianH said:
> ...



No, it's not. It's fundamentalist pablum, drenched in irony. It's also our own assured, mutual destruction. How is this different from religious fascist ideology? Seriously? 

Chris Hedges wrote [ame="http://www.amazon.com/American-Fascists-Christian-Right-America/dp/0743284437"]an absolutely great book[/ame] about these kinds of people.

It's a completely global economy. You guys understand this by now, yes? I mean, you usually (to a man) advocate the global free market at every turn, so it's baffling how you so often fail to consider the ramifications of wider warfare with sovereign Muslim nations. You can't just wipe out a billion people because you can't overcome your irrational fears of them and the funny way they pray. Get over yourselves.

This above is the embodiment of the mentality that has us in this mess in the first place. For hundreds of years, actually. And guess what? The most radical among them wonder the same crap about you. "They hate us, and I don't care. Gotta destroy them first."

This isn't 1936, guys. Oceans can't buffer us anymore. Not from cyber/trade war. It is an international corporate food conveyor belt that relies on immense quantities of petrol for its "just in time" delivery service. A lot of people will starve if your team is allowed to go all Cowboy again. Gawd, if you hawks had your wish, and decided to keep playing the pre-emption card, and struck Iran, or "took over" Saudi, or some stupid such?. ...  WTF do you think would happen to the global economy already teetering on the brink? Be honest with yourself.  ... 

Give it a rest with the Crusade talk. We can't afford it anyway, never could, even in 2002-2003. So you're gonna haveta face your irrational fears. They don't all hate us. Just the most crazy hard-liners among them. We most certainly have our own crazies to mirror them.

Proportionality matters. I think they've gotten the message at this point, and the response has been more than sufficient, at least at this point.


----------



## BrianH (Apr 10, 2011)

JiggsCasey said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



You are nuttier than a squirrel turd.

You're assuming that I'm scared of all muslims...which is completely ignorant on your part.  If you had read my earlier post, then you would have understood this point.  I pointed out the reasons why muslim extremists are the way that they are.  I pointed out that had we not gotten involved in the middle-east from the very beginning, then it's highly likely that we wouldn't have this problem today.  I agreed with candycorn in his description of, and dealing with, radicals in their present state of mind. However, I did point out they were not born radical.  They were brain-washed to hate everything western and assured by misinterpretion from their Holy book.  It's the same way gang members recruit young kids here in the U.S.

Go back and read some of my posts before you post a knee-jerk reaction...


----------



## candycorn (Apr 10, 2011)

JiggsCasey said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...










I made the same point above.  Just was able to do it without the snide and juvenile arrogance you show on every post.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Apr 10, 2011)

JiggsCasey said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



You'll find out Jiggs if you hang out here long enough,these trolls wont read books you refer to them that exposes the governments fairy tale of 9/11.they only see what they want to see so they wont read books you refer to them or watch videos or read links you provide them with  since it doesnt go along with their version of events.


----------



## eots (Apr 10, 2011)

BrianH said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> > BrianH said:
> ...



and murdering there woman and children, imprisoning them without due process and occupying there country is not going to further "radicalize" them ..you are a fearful,hate filled racist tub o shit just admit it


----------



## BrianH (Apr 10, 2011)

9/11 inside job said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> > BrianH said:
> ...



Yeah, let me read this book real quick....


----------



## BrianH (Apr 10, 2011)

eots said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > JiggsCasey said:
> ...



You're an idiot.  Read my posts again... All you do is post stupid shit like this.  Where did I say that we should be in their country?  No where dip-shit.  That's why no one takes you seriously.  I didn't say we should be over their fighting now did I?  But what DOES happen, is little Muhammed Pharamou sees mommy and daddy killed killed by a bomb.  He doesn't know if it was a u.s. bomb or an insurgent RPG.  But terrorist joe over there is going to convince him that the Americans killed mommy and daddy so he must kill the Americans....  Even someone as dense as you should be able to figure out how it works...


----------



## BrianH (Apr 10, 2011)

9/11 inside job said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> > BrianH said:
> ...



As for you, why don't you quit trying to talk people out of debating us just because you haven't done a good enough job proving your point?  All you do on here is try to convince other posters that we're trolls without proving a damn thing YOU say.  You sit here and try to gain little "allies" to start a debating match; attempting to prove something that you can't...  Anytime someone proves you wrong you call them a troll.  Anytime you try to prove something but can't, you call everyone else a liar.  You need to grow up and learn the difference between a conspiracy and actual evidence.


----------



## BrianH (Apr 10, 2011)

As for the 9/11 conspiracy.  1000's of people were there when it happened.  There was destruction EVERYWHERE.  People were amongst the destruction and around it.  People were cleaning it up.  You mean to tell me that NO ONE, out of all the months it took to clean that place up, found any shred of physical evidence to prove a government conspiracy?  We can find 1000 year old bones and figure out where they came from, how long they've been in the ground, and what kind of diet the person had...and you mean to tell me that not one shred of physical evidence...NOT PICTURES...were found by anyone from "the outside" of the government....????


----------



## JiggsCasey (Apr 10, 2011)

BrianH said:


> As for the 9/11 conspiracy.  1000's of people were there when it happened.  There was destruction EVERYWHERE.  People were amongst the destruction and around it.  People were cleaning it up.  You mean to tell me that NO ONE, out of all the months it took to clean that place up, found any shred of physical evidence to prove a government conspiracy?  We can find 1000 year old bones and figure out where they came from, how long they've been in the ground, and what kind of diet the person had...and you mean to tell me that not one shred of physical evidence...NOT PICTURES...were found by anyone from "the outside" of the government....????



How is it that you can spew off a post about "knee-jerk" reaction, when you apparently can't even differentiate between MIHOP and LIHOP?

Most of us don't believe Team Cheney DID it. Just that they allowed it.


----------



## eots (Apr 10, 2011)

BrianH said:


> As for the 9/11 conspiracy.  1000's of people were there when it happened.  There was destruction EVERYWHERE.  People were amongst the destruction and around it.  People were cleaning it up.  You mean to tell me that NO ONE, out of all the months it took to clean that place up, found any shred of physical evidence to prove a government conspiracy?  We can find 1000 year old bones and figure out where they came from, how long they've been in the ground, and what kind of diet the person had...and you mean to tell me that not one shred of physical evidence...NOT PICTURES...were found by anyone from "the outside" of the government....????



so where are the black boxes nipple head


----------



## BrianH (Apr 12, 2011)

JiggsCasey said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > As for the 9/11 conspiracy.  1000's of people were there when it happened.  There was destruction EVERYWHERE.  People were amongst the destruction and around it.  People were cleaning it up.  You mean to tell me that NO ONE, out of all the months it took to clean that place up, found any shred of physical evidence to prove a government conspiracy?  We can find 1000 year old bones and figure out where they came from, how long they've been in the ground, and what kind of diet the person had...and you mean to tell me that not one shred of physical evidence...NOT PICTURES...were found by anyone from "the outside" of the government....????
> ...



You're arrogant attitude shows through...this is why no one takes you seriously.  I do know the difference between letting something happen and actually doing something.  And so what...they allowed it? PROVE IT!   Is this any different than the attack on Pearl Harbor by the Japanese?  WE SAW THEIR PLANES ON RADAR!  It was dismissed.  Can we now say that it was a government conpsiracy to propel us into war?  Yes, the government knew we were going to be attacked around the date of 9/11, but do you honestly think they new exactly when and where it was going to take place?  Do you think that they allowed our civilians to die?  Up until 9/11 NO ONE would have believed that these third world terrorists could pull of something like that.  We were operating on the premise of previous attacks and our own experience of what we "thought" they were capable of.  Who would have guessed these guys could hi-jack planes and actually fly them?  You guys throw around all of these accuasations without proving them one bit.  You post little tiny bits of information that don't prove a thing.  Basic Fact: NO ONE HAS PROVED THIS CONSPIRACY; LIHOP or MIHOP


----------



## BrianH (Apr 12, 2011)

eots said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > As for the 9/11 conspiracy.  1000's of people were there when it happened.  There was destruction EVERYWHERE.  People were amongst the destruction and around it.  People were cleaning it up.  You mean to tell me that NO ONE, out of all the months it took to clean that place up, found any shred of physical evidence to prove a government conspiracy?  We can find 1000 year old bones and figure out where they came from, how long they've been in the ground, and what kind of diet the person had...and you mean to tell me that not one shred of physical evidence...NOT PICTURES...were found by anyone from "the outside" of the government....????
> ...



It's been proven that "black boxes" have been destroyed before in plane and helicopter crashes by impact and by fire....  The "questions" revolving around them "missing" are just speculation...Here are some real life examples of black boxes being destroyed, never found, or deemed unusable...  The guy that gave rise to the FBI finding black boxes (which are actually orange) gave this accound of them finding one.  He eventually wrote a book and toured the country.  He was later arrested for impersonating a firefighter and possessing stoken firefighter property from ground zero.  He has been labled a fraud by fire marshals, in particular Fire Marshal Conrad Tinney...

As far as the report about NTSB having the boxes.  They were "supposedly" quoted in saying that they "had the boxes" but didn't know where they are now.  If this was intended to be a cover up, why would NTSB have had the boxes in the first place...them having the boxes show an attempt to investigate them, not a cover up.  If this was a cover up, the NTSB would have never had the boxes.

"April 28, 1999

HEADLINE: KAL MD-11 crew complained of control problems: CVR
SOURCE: Air Transport Intelligence
BYLINE: Nicholas Ionides
DATELINE: Singapore



The crew of the Korean Air (KAL) Boeing MD-11 freighter which crashed near Shanghai on 15 April complained to each other of control problems soon after take-off, according to an initial decoding of the aircraft's cockpit voice recorder (CVR)... 

The CAAC, which is being assisted in its investigation by the NTSB and the Korean Civil Aviation Bureau, says the aircraft's* flight data recorder was destroyed *by the impact, "and only fragments of the tape have been recovered"."

"June 6, 1999, Sunday, AM cycle

HEADLINE: One year later, crash of rescue helicopter still a mystery
DATELINE: HARLINGEN, Texas



Three emergency team members died June 5, 1998, when their a Eurocopter A350BA crashed six miles southeast of Cuevitas at about 5:40 a.m. on the way to a major accident. 

The victims were Carlos De La Fuente Sr., a 34-year-old flight nurse; paramedic Brenda Leinweber, 46, of South Padre Island; and pilot Anthony Martinez, 46, of McAllen. 

The helicopter was not found until the next day at 9:45 a.m., thirty hours later. Searchers were hampered by thick brush because very little of the helicopter remained. Even the *flight data recorder had been destroyed*."

"Barrie Examiner (Ontario)

October 20, 2004 Wednesday
Final Edition



HALIFAX (CP) -- Investigators searching for the cause of the crash last week of a Boeing 747 cargo jet won't get to hear from the two people who may have known exactly what happened. 

After days of searching swampy, scorched terrain outside Halifax, officials recovered the aircraft's cockpit voice recorder from a kilometre-long trail of mangled debris. 

"But that's the good news," Bill Fowler, lead investigator for the Transportation Safety Board of Canada, said during a news conference Tuesday. 

"*The not-so-good news is the recorder was damaged such that there is no retrievable information*." 

*The so-called black box, which records the cockpit conversations of the pilot and co-pilot, was destroyed by fire *after the MK Airlines Ltd. jumbo jet crashed on takeoff last Thursday at Halifax International Airport. 

Fowler said the recorder was found Monday and shipped to the board's lab in Ottawa. 

It was quickly determined that *no recording survived the fire *that resulted when the jet, carrying a full load of fuel, hit the ground and broke up. 

"It certainly would have helped, but we were operating under the assumption we wouldn't have it," said Fowler, referring to the severity of the impact. 

A second black box -- the plane's flight data recorder -- was recovered Sunday. That instrument, which monitors aircraft function and performance, was also damaged, but investigators are hopeful it will offer fresh clues."

Flight International

January 30, 2007



An investigation into the loss of two Royal Netherlands Air Force (RNLF) Boeing CH-47D Chinook transport helicopters in Afghanistan in 2005 has identified pilot error and a lack of experience in operating in difficult terrain as the main causes in both non-fatal accidents.On 27 July 2005, the crew of Chinook D-105 were flying a night mission as part of a two-ship formation to resupply Special Forces personnel, but were forced to abandon their initial landing attempt when the lead aircraft created brown-out conditions. During their second attempt, the pilots failed to notice a left-hand drift, which caused the aircraft to roll over when it touched down. Although the crew evacuated safely, the aircraft and its *flight data recorder were destroyed in the resulting fire*


The Black Boxes - 911myths


----------



## eots (Apr 12, 2011)

so what you are saying is they always find the black boxes but sometimes they are damaged


----------



## eots (Apr 12, 2011)

BrianH said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > BrianH said:
> ...



your debwunkiing site is not credible they like to pretend "destroyed" means.. not found..when in fact it means they were found but damaged the also like to pretend helicopters are commercial air liners


----------



## BrianH (Apr 12, 2011)

eots said:


> so what you are saying is they always find the black boxes but sometimes they are damaged



I'm saying that sometimes they find them and they're damaged and sometimes they DON'T find them at all because they were destroyed on impact or destroyed by a resulting fire.


----------



## eots (Apr 12, 2011)

BrianH said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > so what you are saying is they always find the black boxes but sometimes they are damaged
> ...



nonsense thats just the way your deceptive site spins it...replace the word damaged with destroyed to make it sound as if they were not found


----------



## BrianH (Apr 12, 2011)

eots said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



why is it not credible?  Why is it any different than 9/11truth.org, or any other twoofer site?  How come truther sites are credible and others not?  How come truther "witnesses" are credible, but thousands of others not?  I'm seeing a pattern here


----------



## eots (Apr 13, 2011)

because they try to pretend helicopters are commercial air liners damaged means not found thats why


----------



## Ringel05 (Apr 13, 2011)

I wonder if the grassy knoll can hold any more bodies?  I think it's pretty full, they need to hang up a no vacancy sign.


----------



## BrianH (Apr 13, 2011)

eots said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Why would they be missing or destroyed from other airplanes that have no significant value?  Some planes crash with people on them and their black boxes are destroyed...does that mean all of them were a conspiracy?  The fact that it has been proven that black boxes have been destroyed before in an aircraft makes it more than possible that the black boxes at 9/11 could have been destroyed...much like the fact that airplanes have been proven to explode long after they've crashed...if they've done it before, then that explains explosions on 9/11..

And if that's the case...all of the truther sites you use are discredited because they use countless edited videos to "prove" a point and leave off parts of the video that disprove their point...


----------



## BrianH (Apr 13, 2011)

eots said:


> because they try to pretend helicopters are commercial air liners damaged means not found thats why



What does it matter what vehicle it's in?  If a black box from a slower moving helicopter can be damaged or destroyed, is it not possible for one on a commercial airliner to be destroyed...this site ALSO provides PROOF of commercial airliners having their boxes destroyed...


----------



## eots (Apr 13, 2011)

_destroyed_...or found but damaged ...


----------



## candycorn (Apr 13, 2011)

BrianH said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > because they try to pretend helicopters are commercial air liners damaged means not found thats why
> ...



When it comes to splitting hairs and bringing up distinctions that make no difference; EOTS is a Samurai.  He's also garbage.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Apr 13, 2011)

> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > JiggsCasey said:
> ...


----------



## Mr. Jones (Apr 13, 2011)

BrianH said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > so what you are saying is they always find the black boxes but sometimes they are damaged
> ...


Ah but hijackers IDs and such miraculously escape from being destroyed? Smarten up man, it is obvious they lied and had so much motive to blame the "terrorists".
Like I said too coincidental to be mere coincidence.



Rigorous Intuition: The Coincidence Theorist's Guide to 9/11


----------



## Mr. Jones (Apr 13, 2011)

BrianH said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > BrianH said:
> ...


About 9-11myths.com-
911myths:About - 911myths

9-11myhs general disclaimer-
911myths:General disclaimer - 911myths

help contents page-
Help:Contents - 911myths

Just "Email me at mike@911myths.com if you need help!"
Mike is soooo such a credible source 

You want a credible source filled with credible people? here you go-

Petition plus Name list

AE911Truth.org

Fire Fighters For 9-11 Truth » Evidence

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

Patriots Question 9/11 - Engineers and Architects Question the 9/11 Commission Report

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LO5V2CJpzI&feature=related]YouTube - Barry Jennings - 9/11 Early Afternoon ABC7 Interview[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=daNr_TrBw6E]YouTube - General of all American Intelligence: 911 was a fraud![/ame]

Lawyers for 9/11 Truth

Gorden Duff
The 9/11 Commission Rejects own Report as Based on Government Lies - Salem-News.Com

GORDON DUFF: SABROSKY INTERVIEW TIES ISRAEL TO 9/11 : Veterans Today

Veterans Today

Among many others that are backed up by many good credible people and sources, including military, engineers, politicians and CIA,FBI and civil workers in FDNY.
You seem to not look closely at the evidence these brave people bring forth, and you do all you can to push the criminals cover ups and story's as true and without a doubt, and always diminish and ridicule the ones that bravely expose the lies and cover ups.


----------



## Patriot911 (Apr 13, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Notice how everything in the truthtard bible is based on opinion?  "This looks too much like controlled demolition to be anything other than controlled demolition!  This is too coincidental to be coincidence!  I don't think that hole looks like it was made by a plane!  That hole in the pentagon doesn't look big enough!"

Do they have evidence to back up their bullshit?  Oh, they CLAIM they have evidence.  Some even claim it is court-admissible.  Yet not one of them can come forward and actually PRODUCE any of this evidence.

Why?  Because they are all retarded piece of shit traitors trying to get people to rise up against the government (Jews, NWO, <insert favorite bad guys here>).  Trying to get people riled up against the government, especially when based on lies, is called sedition.  One of these days you shits are going to go a step too far and end up on the wrong end of the law.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Apr 13, 2011)

BrianH said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > so what you are saying is they always find the black boxes but sometimes they are damaged
> ...


Regarding the black boxes

_All jetliners are equipped with flight data recorders (FDRs) and cockpit voice recorders (CVRs) contained in "black boxes" designed to survive the most severe crashes. To date, none of the contents of any of the black boxes have been released to the public, With the exception of a partial transcript of Flight 93's CVR, the contents of any of the black boxes remained unknown to the public until August of 2006, when the National Security Archive published long-hidden NTSB Reports including flight path and other studies of the commandeered flights. The studies include FDR data from Flight 77 and Flight 93. Authorities had previously claimed that all but the voice recorder on Flight 93 were either not recovered or too damaged to yield data. The black boxes of Flight 77 were allegedly found on September 14th._

_According to the federal authorities controlling Ground Zero, the black boxes from the two crashed 767s, Flight 11 and Flight 175, failed to turn up in the rubble taken from the site. 4   The 9/11 Commission Report backs the FBI's story, flatly stating: "The CVRs and FDRs from American 11 and United 175 were not found." _
_
There are accounts contradicting the official account of the black boxes. Two men who worked in the cleanup operation at Ground Zero claim that they helped authorities find three of the four black boxes in October of 2001. One of the workers, New York City firefighter Nicholas DeMasi, has self-published a book with other Ground Zero workers in which he describes the recovery of the devices. 5   The book, Behind the Scenes: GROUND ZERO, A Collection of Personal Accounts, can be ordered through SummerOfTruth.org. _

_In December 2005, CounterPunch reported that an NTSB source contradicted the official account:
"Off the record, we had the boxes," the source says. "You'd have to get the official word from the FBI as to where they are, but we worked on them here."_

*But the FBI states, and also reported to the 9-11 Commission, that none of the recording devices from the two planes that hit the World Trade Center were ever recovered.

There has always been some skepticism about this assertion, particularly as two N.Y. City firefighters, Mike Bellone and Nicholas De Masi, claimed in 2004 that they had found three of the four boxes, and that Federal agents took them and told the two men not to mention having found them. (The FBI denies the whole story.) Moreover, these devices are almost always located after crashes, even if not in useable condition (and the cleanup of the World Trade Center was meticulous, with even tiny bone fragments and bits of human tissue being discovered so that almost all the victims were ultimately identified). *
Dave Lindorff: Missing Black Boxes in WTC Attacks Found

_Survivability Requirements

Events that would damage the recorders sufficiently to make them unreadable are extremely rare. NTSB spokesperson Ted Lopatkiewicz said that he couldn't recall a domestic case before 9/11/01 in which the recorders were not recovered. 7   The recorders are designed to survive the kinds of impacts that happened at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
The FAA has placed durability requirements on the recorders and their casings to survive severe impact and fire

The storage medium of each recorder is located in a protective capsule, which must be able to withstand an impact of 3,400 Gs (3,400 times the force of gravity). Additionally, each must also survive flames at 2,000 F for up to 30 minutes, and submersion in 20,000 feet of saltwater for 30 days. Typically, to increase their chances of survival, the recorders are located in the tail section of the aircraft, which usually sustains the least impact in a crash. 8   _
9-11 Research: Black Boxes

Pentagon aircraft data recorder-

*
Now there is overwhelming evidence which suggests the data that is being provided to the public through the FOIA, is not from an aircraft which has been operated by American Airlines.*

Overwhelming Evidence Pentagon Aircraft Data Is Not From American Airlines Jet


----------



## candycorn (Apr 13, 2011)

Patriot911 said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > BrianH said:
> ...



I personally can't wait til they all are put into very small cells for a very long time.

"Mr. Jones" is so fat she'll fill up the entire cell to the point where she'll look like a talapia with grill marks on it's skin.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Apr 13, 2011)

candycorn said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



Your personal attacks are a weak attempt to argue facts, and have no merit of credibility like the rest of your idiotic posts, but do a good job of showing off your demented, stuck in an abused childhood trauma state of mind.
I am praying for the day when traitors such as yourself feel the pain of your deeds, but the sissy that you expose yourself to really be, will probably be offering sexual favors in exchange for the punishment that's warranted.


----------



## Patriot911 (Apr 13, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> Your personal attacks are a weak attempt to argue facts, and have no merit of credibility like the rest of your idiotic posts, but do a good job of showing off your demented, stuck in an abused childhood trauma state of mind.
> I am praying for the day when traitors such as yourself feel the pain of your deeds, but the sissy that you expose yourself to really be, will probably be offering sexual favors in exchange for the punishment that's warranted.



The sheer irony and massive hypocricy of your post is, I am sure, lost on someone as ignorant and infantile as you.  Thanks for the laughs, Jones!


----------



## BrianH (Apr 13, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> > BrianH said:
> >
> >
> > > JiggsCasey said:
> > ...


----------



## BrianH (Apr 13, 2011)

eots said:


> _destroyed_...or found but damaged ...



Does it matter?  If it's damaged and unusable then the data on it is destroyed.  It wouldn't matter to twoofers if the FBI came right out and said they found the black boxes but the data had been destroyed.  That's the problem with conspiracy nuts; not matter what the story is, they'll find some way to say that the government is hiding something.


----------



## BrianH (Apr 13, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> > BrianH said:
> >
> >
> > > JiggsCasey said:
> > ...


----------



## BrianH (Apr 13, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Oh my.....

Let me ask you this numb-skull.  What does a passport have to do with anything.  Why would it be necessary to "plant" a passport for someone whose name was on the manifest of the flight?  Surely you can figure this one out.  

1.  The evidence of him being on the plane was NOT finding his passport.  One of the othe hijackers could have had it.  What IS proof he was on the plane was the manifest with HIS NAME ON IT.  
2.  The FEMA report show NUMEROUS other personal effects from the plane passing completely through the building....like life vests, seats from the plane...These types of items were found on top of the Bankers Trust Building.  Landing gear was found five blocks away from the towers.  

Here's a New York Times article of a guy finding a flight itinerary on the ground after the impact.
Michael Sheehan, a broker working on the 55th floor of 2 World Trade Center, moved to the stairwell when he realized a plane had crashed into 1 World Trade Center. By the time he reached the 25th floor, he could smell the fumes of fuel that had begun to filter through the ventilation systems of the two buildings. 
On the street, standing in a shower of office paper and the siding from the building, he found a piece of paper. It was an airliner's itinerary, listing information about a flight from Boston to Los Angeles. 

"I realized then that it was a commercial flight. Then the second plane hit. I realized then it was terror."
The Voices - Personal Accounts of a Morning Rush That Became the Unthinkable - Summary - NYTimes.com


----------



## BrianH (Apr 13, 2011)

The problem with the truthers it that they attempt to make accusations beyond common sense. 

They try to claime that things were done to "hide" evidence of a conspiracy when the actual existence of said "evidence" (supposedly planted and provided by the government) would be counter-productive to the conpsiracy in the first place.

1.  If the terrorists passports were planted by the government...why?  Why throw it out there?  Surely they could have said who it was without doing so.  

You twoofers lack so much common sense that it's unreal.  It's like lying when the truth is better.  Why would the government produce have of the crap they supposedly "produced" (according to twoofers) when they could have just not produced and no one would have questioned anything????


----------



## eots (Apr 13, 2011)

passports found a both shanks-ville and the wtc...what are the odds


----------



## BrianH (Apr 13, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Once again to address the stupid black box issue.....  Black boxes have been destroyed in PREVIOUS commercial airline crashes that didn't involve some nut-jub government conspiracy.  Because they have been proven to be destroyed before, is it not possible they could have been destroyed in this case????  Let's not forget to mention that some of the commercial airliners with destroyed black boxes crashed into the ground, and not buildings....

Black boxes not indestructible
Let's keep in mind that black boxes have been destroyed by impact or fire before. 

April 28, 1999

HEADLINE: KAL MD-11 crew complained of control problems: CVR
SOURCE: Air Transport Intelligence
BYLINE: Nicholas Ionides
DATELINE: Singapore



The crew of the Korean Air (KAL) Boeing MD-11 freighter which crashed near Shanghai on 15 April complained to each other of control problems soon after take-off, according to an initial decoding of the aircraft's cockpit voice recorder (CVR)... 

The CAAC, which is being assisted in its investigation by the NTSB and the Korean Civil Aviation Bureau, says the aircraft's flight data recorder was destroyed by the impact, "and only fragments of the tape have been recovered".



June 6, 1999, Sunday, AM cycle

HEADLINE: One year later, crash of rescue helicopter still a mystery
DATELINE: HARLINGEN, Texas



Three emergency team members died June 5, 1998, when their a Eurocopter A350BA crashed six miles southeast of Cuevitas at about 5:40 a.m. on the way to a major accident. 

The victims were Carlos De La Fuente Sr., a 34-year-old flight nurse; paramedic Brenda Leinweber, 46, of South Padre Island; and pilot Anthony Martinez, 46, of McAllen. 

The helicopter was not found until the next day at 9:45 a.m., thirty hours later. Searchers were hampered by thick brush because very little of the helicopter remained. Even the flight data recorder had been destroyed.



Barrie Examiner (Ontario)

October 20, 2004 Wednesday
Final Edition



HALIFAX (CP) -- Investigators searching for the cause of the crash last week of a Boeing 747 cargo jet won't get to hear from the two people who may have known exactly what happened. 

After days of searching swampy, scorched terrain outside Halifax, officials recovered the aircraft's cockpit voice recorder from a kilometre-long trail of mangled debris. 

"But that's the good news," Bill Fowler, lead investigator for the Transportation Safety Board of Canada, said during a news conference Tuesday. 

"The not-so-good news is the recorder was damaged such that there is no retrievable information." 

The so-called black box, which records the cockpit conversations of the pilot and co-pilot, was destroyed by fire after the MK Airlines Ltd. jumbo jet crashed on takeoff last Thursday at Halifax International Airport. 

Fowler said the recorder was found Monday and shipped to the board's lab in Ottawa. 

It was quickly determined that no recording survived the fire that resulted when the jet, carrying a full load of fuel, hit the ground and broke up. 

"It certainly would have helped, but we were operating under the assumption we wouldn't have it," said Fowler, referring to the severity of the impact. 

A second black box -- the plane's flight data recorder -- was recovered Sunday. That instrument, which monitors aircraft function and performance, was also damaged, but investigators are hopeful it will offer fresh clues.



Flight International

January 30, 2007



An investigation into the loss of two Royal Netherlands Air Force (RNLF) Boeing CH-47D Chinook transport helicopters in Afghanistan in 2005 has identified pilot error and a lack of experience in operating in difficult terrain as the main causes in both non-fatal accidents.On 27 July 2005, the crew of Chinook D-105 were flying a night mission as part of a two-ship formation to resupply Special Forces personnel, but were forced to abandon their initial landing attempt when the lead aircraft created brown-out conditions. During their second attempt, the pilots failed to notice a left-hand drift, which caused the aircraft to roll over when it touched down. Although the crew evacuated safely, the aircraft and its flight data recorder were destroyed in the resulting fire.
The Black Boxes - 911myths


----------



## eots (Apr 13, 2011)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5a7aKaDS7CE]YouTube - 9/11 - 7/7 : Modus Operandi - The Anatomy of Attack Part 1[/ame]


----------



## BrianH (Apr 13, 2011)

eots said:


> passports found a both shanks-ville and the wtc...what are the odds



The odds are VERY FAVORABLE considering personal effects have been found from OTHER commercial airliners that have crashed before september 11th.  Is it really so hard to fathom?  Especially because there is not strategic reason for the government to have provided a passport when the names of the hijackers were on the manifest.  Flammable seats of the plane as well as flammable paper were found blocks away from the towers that came from the plane.   Just because the odds of something are low doesn't mean that it doesn't happen.  I've shot a bullet through the same hole at 200 yards with a deer rifle.(Twice in my life)  The odds of it going straight through the hole without enlarging the hole is VERY SMALL, but it happened.


----------



## eots (Apr 13, 2011)

BrianH said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > passports found a both shanks-ville and the wtc...what are the odds
> ...



The theory of probability: an ... - Google Books


----------



## BrianH (Apr 13, 2011)

eots said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



I know what the law of probability is...I'm not spending my entire night reading the entire thing...as I'm sure you didn't as well.  

Some ID's of passengers were also found at Ground zero.  What's the purpose of that?
And why only produce two passports of the hijackers? Why not all of them.

As far as the black boxes, here's a hypothetical for you.

Suppose the black boxes were found and the data intact.  Suppose that data clearly showed that the planes were hijacked and that it was the work of Al Qaeda.  The twoofers would then claim that the data on the black boxes were pre-recorded by the government to make it look like it was  Al Qaeda and that the "real" data from the boxes was erased....  Arguing with a truther is a lose-lose even if the truther is wrong.  They will ALWAYS come up with some crazy alternative even though they can't prove it....the nature of a conpsiracy...


----------



## eots (Apr 13, 2011)

brianh said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > brianh said:
> ...



it is not just black boxes it is a virtual orgy of unbelievably improbable events piled one on top of each other...


----------



## Mr. Jones (Apr 13, 2011)

BrianH said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > > BrianH said:
> ...


----------



## Mr. Jones (Apr 13, 2011)

BrianH said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > BrianH said:
> ...



con·spir·a·cy  (kn-spîr-s)
n. pl. con·spir·a·cies
1. An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act.
The gov has a conspiracy theory that is far more outlandish then the ones you ridicule. It amazes me how truly fucked in the head and gullible you ass kissing loyalists are.
*BTW-The Most Shocking Conspiracy Theories That Turned Out to be True *
Before It's News
Fuck it, what's the sense in posting anything for you anymore you don't read anything, and aren't smart enough to anyway.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Apr 13, 2011)

BrianH said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > > BrianH said:
> ...


----------



## BrianH (Apr 13, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...


----------



## BrianH (Apr 13, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



What an imbecile... I'd put you on ignore but it's too funny reading your posts.  You're just an anarchist troll, simple as that.  You haven't proven what I've said to be false in one post this thread.  Instead you've just called me a liar, loyalist, and gullible...  I'll start listening when you can post ACTUAL EVIDENCE that I can find no counter to.  Don't post some dumb-ass speculation from a fire-fighter, or a dumb-ass video of some guy stacking washers around a dowel rod.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Apr 13, 2011)

eots said:


> brianh said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



This stupid fuck now is "supposing" this and that without having the slightest bit of of a clue as to what he speaks of, all while putting under his limited microscope shit like the black boxes, and totally bypassing the big and very real picture of the events of 9-11 and how many good credible people have spoke out and blown holes in the entire governments explanation, hell they can't even bring themselves to realize that even the 9-11 commission, the report they worshiped and constantly pointed to as 'proof" is openly and publicly rejected, by its own writers no less.
Foolish trolls.


----------



## BrianH (Apr 13, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...


----------



## Mr. Jones (Apr 13, 2011)

BrianH said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > BrianH said:
> ...



you are in no position to talk shit about anything, since you readily admit to not reading or objectively look into what is presented to, and you have never once offered any credible counter evidence to anything I said and linked, how can you when you don't read any of it?
And as for the "dumbass" speculation of FDNY that has experience from which to speak, they have way more credibility then some stupid troll that can't read.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Apr 13, 2011)

BrianH said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > BrianH said:
> ...


----------



## Mr. Jones (Apr 13, 2011)

BrianH said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > BrianH said:
> ...


----------



## Mr. Jones (Apr 13, 2011)

BrianH said:


> .  I'll start listening when you can post ACTUAL EVIDENCE that I can find no counter to.


 Try this one on for size then. According to the government that you are so convinced is telling you the truth, and that in your opinion would never ever harm its own people-they thought this would work-
Operation Northwoods: Justification for U.S. Military Intervention in Cuba, 3/13/62
with remote guidance..back in the '60s no less.
But they would never hurt their own peoples huh?
Wise up dude, you really should know better.


----------



## candycorn (Apr 13, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Patriot911 said:
> ...



You can fantasize all you want about sexual favors--it's the only sex you'll ever have and we all know that.  

Did you know Bush won Ohio; twice?  He he he.

Anyway, your movement sucks, you suck, and have you ever explained what took down the light poles if it wasn't AA77?  No ?  Oh well, I'm sure you'll come up with an answer some day you worthless bitch. 

Start losing some weight; I hear they like them nimble in the hole.  LOL


----------



## BrianH (Apr 13, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > .  I'll start listening when you can post ACTUAL EVIDENCE that I can find no counter to.
> ...



Operation Northwoods - US Government - Myths and Conspiracies, Debunked - Conspiracy Science - Conspiracies and Myths Refuted, Debunked, and Explained

Here you go sack-face.  Of course you'll say that my site isn't credible...
And for the record, I didn't say the government wasn't willing to either do things, and or make it appear that things have been done to us to justify an attack.  I said the government is not going to kill over 3,000 innocent Americans to do so...  Notice how some of the lines in your declassified document say "unmanned" or "appear" or "real or not".  Most, if not all, of these scenarios in this document involve NOT killing Americans but making it APPEAR as though the Cubans had done something.  It even lined one of the plans out so that they would load people on a plane, then load them on a duplicate, then make the actual plane a drone and then shoot it down so it would give the appearance that the plane was shot down with people on it....  Damn your dense


----------



## eots (Apr 13, 2011)

BrianH said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > BrianH said:
> ...



so it confirms northwoods and the gives an editorial opinion on how its not exactly like 9/11...lol
you didnt even read this did you


----------



## BrianH (Apr 13, 2011)

eots said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



Yeah I read it and it's true.  You read it.  Almost all of it says to make things "appear" a certain way, or "unmanned" vehicles, or "real or not" scenarios.  Why don't you read the actual document and quit acting like you know what's going on...  I read the document, then found something that explains it, and then compared it to the document...just because you don't have the time to connect the dots, doesn't mean that everyone else is an idiot..


----------



## BrianH (Apr 13, 2011)

There is a big difference between saying you want to make something appear a certain way, and actually doing something.

For instance: Saying "Let's load a bunch of people on a plane, fly it over cuba and blow it out of the sky, killing everyone on board."  WAY DIFFERENT THAN. "Let's make it appear as though Cuba has shot down an unmanned airliner made to look like an airliner with people on it."

Did I say our government doesn't conjure up false-flag indicidents to propel us into military action...no.  

This document demonstrates that the U.S. is willing to make things appear a certain way to justify an attack.  It does not demonstrate the U.S. willingness to kill thousands of Americans....


----------



## BrianH (Apr 13, 2011)

"We could blow up a drone *(unmannded)* vessel anywhere
   in the Cuban waters. We could arrange to cause such incident
   in the vicinity of Havana or Santiago as a spectacular result
   of Cuban attack from the air or sea, or both.  The presense
   of Cuban planes or ships merely investigating the intent of
   the vessel could be fairly compelling evidence that the ship
   was taken under attack.  The nearness to Havana or Santiago
   would add credibility especially to those people that might
   have heard the blast or have seen the fire.  The US could
   follow with an air/sea rescue operation covered by US
   fighters to *"evacuate" remaining members of the non-existant
   crew.*"

"6. Use of MIG type aircraft *by US pilots *could provide
additional provocation.  *Harassment* of civil air, attacks on
surface shipping and destruction of US military *drone* aircraft
by MIG type planes would be useful as complementary actions.  An F-86 *properly painted *would *convince air passengers that they
saw a Cuban MIG*, especially if the pilot of the transport were
to announce such fact.
(Harrassment, not shooting down.  And the fact that passengers could report the indicent says that they wouldn't have lost their lives in the incident.)

" 7. Hijacking attempts against civil air and surface craft
should *appear* to continue as harassing measures condoned by the
government of Cuba."

"8. It is possible to *create an incident *which will demonstrate
convincingly that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down
a chartered civil airliner enroute from the United States to
Jamaica, Guatemala, Panama or Venezuela.  The destination would
be chosen only to cause the flight plan   route to cross Cuba.
The passengers could be a group of college students off on a
holiday or any grouping of persons with a common interest to
support *chartering a non-scheduled flight*.

      a.* An aircraft at Eglin AFB would be painted and
   numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered
   aircraft belonging to a CIA proprietary organization in the
   Miami area.* *At a designated time the duplicate would be
   subsituted for the actual civil aircraft and would be
   loaded with the selected passengers, all boarded under
   carefully prepared aliases.  The actual registered
   aircraft would be converted to a drone.[/B] 

      b. Take off times of the drone aircraft and the actual
   aircraft will be scheduled to allow a rendezvous south of
   Florida.  From the rendezvous point the passenger-carrying
   aircraft will descend to minimum altitude and go directly
   into an auxiliary field at Eglin AFB where arrangements will
   have been made to evacuate the passengers and return the
   aircraft to its original status. The drone aircraft
   meanwhile will continue to fly the filed flight plan.  When
   over Cuba the drone will being transmitting on the inter-
   national distress frequency a "MAY DAY" message stating he
   is under attack by Cuban MIG aircraft.  The transmission
   will be interrupted by the destruction of aircraft which will
   be triggered by radio signal. This will allow IACO radio
Appendix to 
Enclosure A 
10 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Page 14 


   stations in the Western Hemisphere to tell the US what
   has happened to the aircraft instead of the US trying to
   "sell" the incident.

(This particular one shows the extreme measure that they were going to go through to ensure that none of the people involved would be hurt.)

"9. It is possible to create an incident which will make it
appear that Communist Cuban MIGs have destroyed a USAF aircraft
over international waters in an unprovoked attack.

      a. Approximately 4 of 5 F-101 aircraft will be dispatched
   in trail from Homestead AFB, Florida, to the vicinity of Cuba.
   Their mission will be to reverse course and simulate fakir
   aircraft for an air defense exercise in southern Florida.
   These aircraft would conduct variations of these flights at
   frequent intervals. Crews would be briefed to remain at 
   least 12 miles off the Cuban coast; however, they would be
   required to carry live ammunition in the event that hostile
   actions were taken by the Cuban MIGs.

      b. On one such flight, a pre-briefed pilot would fly
   tail-end Charley at considerable interval between aircraft.
   While near the Cuban Island this pilot would broadcast that
   he had been jumped by MIGs and was going down. No other 
   calls would be made.  The pilot would then fly directly
   west at extremely low altitude and land at a secure base, an
   Eglin auxiliary.  The aircraft would be met by the proper
   people, quickly stored and given a new tail number. The
   pilot who had performed the mission under an alias, would
   resume his proper identity and return to his normal place
   of business.  The pilot and aircraft would then have
   disappeared. "

You guys are too easy.... I got this from the Document on the site YOU SENT ME.  STRAIGHT FROM THE DOCUMENT ITSELF
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/Northwoods.html*


----------



## Mr. Jones (Apr 13, 2011)

candycorn said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



Lol dream on candyfaggot, you pretend to know what people you've never seen look like now? 
Looks like your self projection tendencies are showing again, wow you're so easy to read. Pathetic little loser.
You still know damned well that you have been lied to, and that you are nothing more then a scared little pussy that can't face reality.
Here is you to a T-

Psychological projection or projection bias is a psychological defense mechanism where a person unconsciously denies his or her own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, such as to other people. Thus, projection involves imagining or projecting the belief that others have those feelings.[1]

Projection reduces anxiety by allowing the expression of the unwanted unconscious impulses or desires without letting the conscious mind recognize them.

An example of this behavior might be blaming another for self failure. The mind may avoid the discomfort of consciously admitting personal faults by keeping those feelings unconscious, and by redirecting libidinal satisfaction by attaching, or "projecting," those same faults onto another person or object.

Psychological projection - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 BTW I'm 6'0 195, now off you go to masturbate again LOL.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Apr 13, 2011)

BrianH said:


> "We could blow up a drone *(unmannded)* vessel anywhere
> in the Cuban waters. We could arrange to cause such incident
> in the vicinity of Havana or Santiago as a spectacular result
> of Cuban attack from the air or sea, or both.  The presense
> ...


*

Yeah pretty amazing that our government actually conceived this plan, and to know the mindset of the bastards you so loyally adhere to. 
Here's a copy of the actual document per FOIA. The link to it was on the site.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/doc1.pdf*


----------



## BrianH (Apr 13, 2011)

Common Jonesy boy.  What do you think of your precious top secret document now.  If anything, that document proves the extreme length that the U.S. was willing to go to ensure no American lives were lost in the false-flag operations....even to the extent of painting aircraft and droning commercial planes....lol.  Maybe try reading documents before you post them.


----------



## candycorn (Apr 13, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...


Well, from every post you make; two things are obvious; you're incredibly ignorant and incredibly angry.  We can pretty much assume you're grotesquely obese since you wouldn't have any friends.  We can pretty much assume you're a loner since you're so angry all of the time.  And we can pretty much assume it stems from nobody taking you seriously.  Your fantasizing about sex is the closest you'll ever come.  We know it and you know it as well.

You're just...garbage.  

Anyway, have you ever come up with what took down the light poles if it wasn't AA77 dingus?  No? Well, carry on with the outlet for your rage and hostility.  I'll need something to laugh at tomorrow and I can ALWAYS count on you.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Apr 13, 2011)

BrianH said:


> Common Jonesy boy.  What do you think of your precious top secret document now.  If anything, that document proves the extreme length that the U.S. was willing to go to ensure no American lives were lost in the false-flag operations....even to the extent of painting aircraft and droning commercial planes....lol.  Maybe try reading documents before you post them.



Holy shit you really are quite the stooge with no discernible reasoning abilities huh? Or NOT!  We both know you are full of shit, and you know this was a false flag attack plan to start a war against Cuba, not to _prevent_ a false flag attack you obfuscating government agent asshole. Anybody can see this and your feeble attempt at spin would be laughable, if not for the seriousness of the planned treason, and yours.

Operation Northwoods called for a war in which many patriotic Americans and innocent Cubans would die senseless deaths.

Among the most elaborate schemes was to "create an incident which will demonstrate convincingly that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down a chartered civil airliner en route from the United States to Jamaica, Guatemala, Panama or Venezuela. The destination would be chosen only to cause the flight plan route to cross Cuba. The passengers could be a group of college students off on a holiday or any grouping of persons with a common interest to support chartering a non-scheduled flight."

The Northwoods Document spells out the US Government's plan to *frame innocent people for the shootings and bombings that the US Government was preparing to commit.* Northwoods Document states that after the Government carried out shootings and bombings in Washington DC that "the arrest of Cuban agents and the
release of prepared documents substantiating Cuban involvement also would be helpful in projecting the idea of an irresponsible government." 

They called for hijacking jet airliners, attacking US military bases, blowing up US ships and wounding civilians in Miami, Florida and Washington, DC using paramilitary sniper teams ..

The report even suggested secretly paying someone in the Castro government to attack the United States: "The only area remaining for ration then would be to bribe one of Castro's subordinate commanders to initiate an attack on [the U.S. naval base at] Guantanamo." The act suggested--bribing a foreign nation to launch a violent attack American military installation--was treason.

OPERATION NORTHWOODS: US PLANNED FAKE TERROR ATTACKS ON CITIZENS TO CREATE SUPPORT FOR CUBAN WAR

So given this and other treasonous acts by those in government at one time or another, a real American would be concerned and doubt the benevolence of his politicians, not so you, we can see right through you for what you really are, and what you really are doing on this forum..way to expose yourself agent loyalist.


----------



## eots (Apr 13, 2011)

candycorn said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



no one likes you...go away


----------



## candycorn (Apr 13, 2011)

eots=garbage.


----------



## candycorn (Apr 13, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > Common Jonesy boy.  What do you think of your precious top secret document now.  If anything, that document proves the extreme length that the U.S. was willing to go to ensure no American lives were lost in the false-flag operations....even to the extent of painting aircraft and droning commercial planes....lol.  Maybe try reading documents before you post them.
> ...



Sayeth the grotesque little bitch.  Wow, you should try and do something about that? I know it hurts to stand up...poor baby.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Apr 13, 2011)

candycorn said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...


Done so soon?
All you have in your life is your sick assumptions you sorry sack of worthless shit, you are a miserable fail at any attempt to debate any of the topics, as evidenced by your constant need to post your inner self projections. 

_You have no talent for critical thinking; and are wholly incapable of discerning facts, presenting a coherent viewpoint incorporating salient facts, or mastering even the barest rudiments of logical argument.
In your world, crass name-calling, snide caricatures, and poorly crafted personal put-downs and cheap shots are recognized as legitimate tactics in making points and winning arguments, because, lacking intellectual acumen, depth, sophistication, and discernment, these clumsy skills are all we've got._
The government loyalist manifesto-is truly the shoe that fits you.

 P.S-You are truly a pathetic sorry ass little bitch.


----------



## eots (Apr 13, 2011)

candycorn said:


> eots=garbage.



go see your boy friend divecunt before visiting hours are over


----------



## Mr. Jones (Apr 13, 2011)

BrianH said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > BrianH said:
> ...



Hey idiot, what prevents you from using your mind? Seriously do you not think that the results of such false flag attacks would not kill, and thereby constitute murder against innocent people, collateral damage perhaps? Or the killing, (murder) of soldiers duped into enlisting, and other personnel like first responders and such? 
You are one dead in the head motherfucker, of all the things you lowlifes stoop to, REAl evidence that is in your fucking face as to the extent of evil around us, running our nation, and you have the sick audacity to excuse it, and even go so far as to say that the Northwoods plan was devised_ to save people from a false flag attack?_
Man get the fuck outta here,.. and now you backtrack and say exactly what the author of your link says..how much BS is left inside you troll? Fuck you and your treasonous government loyalist BS and sites.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Apr 13, 2011)

candycorn said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > BrianH said:
> ...



Holy shit you really are quite the stooge with no discernible reasoning abilities huh? Or NOT!  We both know you are full of shit, and you know this was a false flag attack plan to start a war against Cuba, not to _prevent_ a false flag attack you obfuscating government agent asshole. Anybody can see this and your feeble attempt at spin would be laughable, if not for the seriousness of the planned treason, and yours.

Operation Northwoods called for a war in which many patriotic Americans and innocent Cubans would die senseless deaths.

Among the most elaborate schemes was to "create an incident which will demonstrate convincingly that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down a chartered civil airliner en route from the United States to Jamaica, Guatemala, Panama or Venezuela. The destination would be chosen only to cause the flight plan route to cross Cuba. The passengers could be a group of college students off on a holiday or any grouping of persons with a common interest to support chartering a non-scheduled flight."

The Northwoods Document spells out the US Government's plan to *frame innocent people for the shootings and bombings that the US Government was preparing to commit.* Northwoods Document states that after the Government carried out shootings and bombings in Washington DC that "the arrest of Cuban agents and the
release of prepared documents substantiating Cuban involvement also would be helpful in projecting the idea of an irresponsible government." 

They called for hijacking jet airliners, attacking US military bases, blowing up US ships and wounding civilians in Miami, Florida and Washington, DC using paramilitary sniper teams ..

The report even suggested secretly paying someone in the Castro government to attack the United States: "The only area remaining for ration then would be to bribe one of Castro's subordinate commanders to initiate an attack on [the U.S. naval base at] Guantanamo." The act suggested--bribing a foreign nation to launch a violent attack American military installation--was treason.

OPERATION NORTHWOODS: US PLANNED FAKE TERROR ATTACKS ON CITIZENS TO CREATE SUPPORT FOR CUBAN WAR

So given this and other treasonous acts by those in government at one time or another, a real American would be concerned and doubt the benevolence of his politicians, not so you, we can see right through you for what you really are, and what you really are doing on this forum..way to expose yourself agent loyalist.

Northwoods proves US government capable of false flag attacks to lie its citizens into war, and you didn't think so? Too bad for you, your BS arguments are all a fail  And your still a pathetic little bitch.


----------



## BrianH (Apr 14, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > Common Jonesy boy.  What do you think of your precious top secret document now.  If anything, that document proves the extreme length that the U.S. was willing to go to ensure no American lives were lost in the false-flag operations....even to the extent of painting aircraft and droning commercial planes....lol.  Maybe try reading documents before you post them.
> ...



The embolded statement of yours highlights your inability to comprehend what you read.  I didn't say it was to prevent a false-flag attack dip-shit.  Your said that this document PROVED that our government is willing to kill american citizens to justify a war.  THIS IS COMPLETELY FALSE as that document clearly shows the government's willingness to NOT CAUSE AMERICAN CASUALITES in their false-flag incidents.   This is proven by the description of the false-flag scenarios proposed in the document.  YOU ARE A DUMBASS.  

The argument here was not whether or not the government would creat events to justify a war, but whether or not the government would be willing to murder thousands of it's civilians to so.  YOU posted this link in order to prove that they would.  I PROVED YOU WRONG by showing you sentences INSIDE THE DOCUMENT itself that shows that the "casualties" in these incidents would be fake, and not real.  READ THE DOCUMENT AND SEE FOR YOUR SELF MR. JACKASS


----------



## BrianH (Apr 14, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



Now you're strawmanning dick licker.  We're not talking about soldiers dying in war.  That's not murder and you know it.  We're talking about the willingness of the U.S. government to murder over 3,000 U.S. civilians in the September 11th attacks.  You claimed that they would and posted this document to prove your point.  I took that document, rolled it up and shoved it back up your ass citing parts of that document that clearly show that the U.S. government is not willing to sacrifice it's own citizens to justify a war;  Even to the extent of painting a plane, making it into a drone, and then shooting it down so that the people on the plane would not die.  There's another scenario in which a pilot would be "fired on" by a mig plane.  But the pilot would actually land at a secure base while a droned f-16 would go down...Once again READ THE DOCUMENT instead of posting blindly.


----------



## BrianH (Apr 14, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



Once again, you're filthly lies show.   The you left out the key part of the plan where the "college students" would NOT get blown up on the plane.  Here , I'll post it for you since you can't read.  Here's the number 8 scenario you're talking about...  Look at Number 8, Section A and B...this is from the document itself you lying artard.

"8. It is possible to create an incident which will demonstrate
convincingly that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down
a chartered civil airliner enroute from the United States to
Jamaica, Guatemala, Panama or Venezuela. The destination would
be chosen only to cause the flight plan route to cross Cuba.
*The passengers could be a group of college students off on a
holiday or any grouping of persons with a common interest to
support chartering a non-scheduled flight*.

*a. An aircraft at Eglin AFB would be painted and
numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered
aircraft belonging to a CIA proprietary organization in the
Miami area. At a designated time the duplicate would be
subsituted for the actual civil aircraft and would be
loaded with the selected passengers, all boarded under
carefully prepared aliases. The actual registered
aircraft would be converted to a drone.*

*b. Take off times of the drone aircraft and the actual
aircraft will be scheduled to allow a rendezvous south of
Florida. From the rendezvous point the passenger-carrying
aircraft will descend to minimum altitude and go directly
into an auxiliary field at Eglin AFB where arrangements will
have been made to evacuate the passengers and return the
aircraft to its original status. The drone aircraft
meanwhile will continue to fly the filed flight plan. When
over Cuba the drone will being transmitting on the inter-
national distress frequency a "MAY DAY" message stating he
is under attack by Cuban MIG aircraft. The transmission
will be interrupted by the destruction of aircraft which will
be triggered by radio signal. This will allow IACO radio*

OH MY WHAT DOES THIS SAY?  iT SAYS THE PASSENGER AIRCRAFT WILL LAND AT EGLIN AIR FORCE BASE AND BE EVACUATED WHILE THE DRONE AIRCRAFT WOULD CONTINUE ON TO ALERT A "MAY DAY" MESSAGE.  THIS SAYS THAT THE PEOPLE ON THE AIRCRAFT WOULD NOT BE HARMED DIPSHIT.  LET'S NOT ALSO FORGET THAT THE OTHER SCENARIO SUGGESTING AN ATTACK ON THE GUANTANAMO BASE WOULD BE BY "FRIENDLY" CUBANS AND NOT HOSTILE ONES, SUGGESTING THAT THE PERSONELL OF THE BASE WOULD NOT BE HARMED... HOW CAN YOU HONESTLY SAY YOU'RE FOR THE TRUTH WHEN YOU SO BLANTANTLY POST LIES ON THIS BOARD.


----------



## candycorn (Apr 14, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



Project much?  

I have to say that as with every morning, it was very joyous to see your rambling.  I haven't laughed this hard since you came up with the FEMA camps we're all supposed to be herded into.  You provided no basis for such a stupid assed argument but with you, we don't really expect it; you're the new Christophera; a waste of time to expect anything coherent.  

You complain about insults then proceed to now on 3 posts, do nothing BUT insult.  I guess the pot smoking has caught up with you.  It hasn't made you any less grotesque but whatever works for you and your pusher I suppose.

Again, is there any news on what took down the light poles outside of the Pentagon if it wasn't AA77?  Answer the question.  I've asked you it about 45 times on this board and going back to AWE where you couldn't answer it there either.  I know it's Aces over treys in my case.  It's checkmate.  It's unbeatable.  I just like pointing it out for new people who have arrived so they can see who has the facts firmly on their side, who is just an angry little bitch, and who can really debate he topic.  If form holds true, you'll come back with a question instead of an answer.  

As it was
As it is.
As it always will be.

Hence your 9 years of frustrating zero movement which was likely the last time you could fit through your bedroom door.

Cheers!


----------



## Patriot911 (Apr 14, 2011)

I see the stupid fucker Jones is still in the middle of a mental meltdown!  Does posting everything in really big letters somehow make a lie seem more like a truth to them?


----------



## Mr. Jones (Apr 14, 2011)

candycorn said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



Never participate at "AWE" I heard you got your ass handed to you there also, What I wrote to you about you still holds true, you bore me and you are really bad at debating and try to draw interest to yourself by these ridiculous postings.
 The movement to awaken Americans to the reality of the situation in their government and country, and expose fucks like you is working, that's why you spend so much time here and other forums, cause you know it eats you up inside 
Anyways you have become a bore, everyone knows your psych problems by now, and your self projection issues are still evident, see what you say about others is your subconscious way of expressing anger about _yourself_, hence when you make these bizarre accusations, and presume to know something about a strangers appearance without ever meeting them etc.. 
it reveals what_ you _look like, and how miserably unhappy you are  You really don't have to share your misery with us here,
That's what psychiatrists are for, now run along and keep your appointment with your therapist, and maybe you will make some progress on all the childhood molestation issues you deal with.
Bye now bitch.


----------



## Patriot911 (Apr 14, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...


More senseless ramblings from Jones while trying to build up his overinflated ego.  One of these days he is going to realize he was a piece a shit, he is a piece of shit, and he will always be a piece of shit.  Some things in life just don't change.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Apr 14, 2011)

BrianH said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > BrianH said:
> ...


----------



## Patriot911 (Apr 14, 2011)

It always surprises me the depths this dishonest fuck will sink to in order to continue his treasonous ways.



Mr. Jones said:


> *One idea seriously considered involved the launch of John Glenn, the first American to orbit the earth. On February 20,1962, Glenn was to lift off from Cape Canaveral, Florida, on his historic journey. The flight was to carry the banner of America's virtues of truth, freedom, and democracy into orbit high over the planet. But Lemnitzer and his Chiefs had a different idea. They proposed to Lansdale that, should the rocket explode and kill Glenn, "the objective is to provide irrevocable proof that . . . the fault lies with the Communists et al Cuba [sic.]"*
> * So they were willing to kill this innocent American hero too...*



An outright blatant lie as proven by the quote he posted.  "Should the rocket explode and kill Glenn", they would have blamed Cuba.  There was never any plan to blow the rocket up.  There was never any plan to kill Glenn.  Yet fucktard Jones expects everyone to just believe his bullshit regardless of what the truth is.

*Code named Operation Northwoods, the plan, which had the written approval of the Chairman and every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called for innocent people to be shot on American streets; for boats carrying refugees fleeing Cuba to be sunk on the high seas; for a wave of violent terrorism to be launched in Washington, D.C., Miami, and elsewhere. *



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> This could not have gone forward without the shedding of innocent blood you stupid sick fuck.
> 
> OPERATION NORTHWOODS: US PLANNED FAKE TERROR ATTACKS ON CITIZENS TO CREATE SUPPORT FOR CUBAN WAR


Wrong yet again you stupid fuck.  FAKE TERROR ATTACKS don't kill citizens.  MOST of the plans of Northwoods did not involve killing anyone.

And the fact the plan was turned down seems to have escaped you altogether.  You bring this up as proof the government carried out 9/11, yet we, as a nation, didn't carry out Operation Northwoods either.  So now your evidence of the government's collusion in 9/11 is the fact we THOUGHT about a crime earlier?    You would make the WORST prosecutor / investigator in world history!  Stupid fuck!


----------



## Mr. Jones (Apr 14, 2011)

> Unread Today, 10:13 AM
> Remove user from ignore list
> Patriot911
> This message is hidden because Patriot911 is on your ignore list.


 I knew I smelled shit coming from my monitor 

 Still no one able to address this document? Hard to deal with the reality
that fucking murderers run your nation isn't it?


----------



## Patriot911 (Apr 14, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> > Unread Today, 10:13 AM
> > Remove user from ignore list
> > Patriot911
> > This message is hidden because Patriot911 is on your ignore list.
> ...



 News flash fuckface!  The people who wrote the plans for Operation Northwoods haven't been part of the government for probably decades now!    I've heard of sins of the father, but sins of everyone who ever held the job before you?    You are such a fucking loser.  So if you got to install your own government, how would they be any different than the murderers you claim are there now?  Are you going to pretend you're omnicient and can tell who has what in their heart?  

BTW, the shit you smell coming from your monitor is your own shit.  About time you recognized it!


----------



## Mr. Jones (Apr 14, 2011)

Anyone?? C'mon someone has to have a rational response for why the US would try to frame innocent people and shed innocent blood!


False flag terror attacks used by governments-
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20100219211117311

    "This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector."
    - Plato

    "If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."
    - U.S. President James Madison

    "Terrorism is the best political weapon for nothing drives people harder than a fear of sudden death".
    - Adolph Hitler

    "Why of course the people don't want war ... But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship ... Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
    - Hermann Goering, Nazi leader.

    "The easiest way to gain control of a population is to carry out acts of terror. [The public] will clamor for such laws if their personal security is threatened".
    - Josef Stalin


----------



## Patriot911 (Apr 14, 2011)

You mean besides the fact you're lying your ass off about it?    That's good enough for me.  Probably everyone else too.  Still trying to pretend you're not reading this?  Still think anyone is fooled?    Even funnier!


----------



## candycorn (Apr 14, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> Anyone?? C'mon someone has to have a rational response for why the US would try to frame innocent people and shed innocent blood!
> 
> 
> False flag terror attacks used by governments-
> ...



"If bullshit were gold, you'd be Fort Knox"- Candy R. Corn; member of the Ruling Elite since 1977.


----------



## eots (Apr 14, 2011)

ruling elite...lol...you don't even have any friends or life


----------



## BrianH (Apr 14, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...


----------



## BrianH (Apr 14, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> Anyone?? C'mon someone has to have a rational response for why the US would try to frame innocent people and shed innocent blood!
> 
> 
> False flag terror attacks used by governments-
> ...



Now you're changing your argument you deusch.  Now it's all about blaming innocent people instead of the U.S. murdering it's own civilians.  If you weren't such an idiot I might get riled up over all of this.   

Fact:  You failed to prove the that the Northwoods document is proof that the U.S. was willing to kill 3,000 (or any)of it's own citizens to justify a war...

Instead you've only stated the obvious for anyone who paid attention in 11th grade history class.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Apr 14, 2011)

BrianH said:


> > Now you're changing your argument you deusch.  Now it's all about blaming innocent people instead of the U.S. murdering it's own civilians.
> 
> 
> First off this exchange was about whether the government could/would be capable of killing innocent people by means of a false flag attack. It seems I have to remind you  of that.
> ...


----------



## Mr. Jones (Apr 14, 2011)

BrianH said:


> Common Jonesy boy.  What do you think of your precious top secret document now.  If anything, that document proves the extreme length that the U.S. was willing to go to ensure no American lives were lost in the false-flag operations....


 Ok, so you implied that the US was sparing/saving people from being killed by using an unmanned plane, but get real man, innocent people and military personnel would be killed as a result of the plan either way.
So do you know of a false flag attack involving the US, that did not eventually cause the deaths of Americans or innocent people? 
I'd love to know about it.
Your attempt to portray the US officials who planned this, as somehow being so caring and thoughtful!  How nice of them.
It really is a pathetic attempt, I mean really you are as low as low could go.
Operation Northwoods called for a war in which many patriotic Americans and innocent Cubans would die senseless deaths, all to satisfy the egos of twisted generals back in Washington, safe in their taxpayer financed homes and limousines. But in your twisted and diseased view of the world this is exceptable because you somehow think using a drone makes it a benevolent act that wouldn't hurt anybody!
OPERATION NORTHWOODS: US PLANNED FAKE TERROR ATTACKS ON CITIZENS TO CREATE SUPPORT FOR CUBAN WAR


----------



## BrianH (Apr 14, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > > Now you're changing your argument you deusch.  Now it's all about blaming innocent people instead of the U.S. murdering it's own civilians.
> ...


----------



## BrianH (Apr 14, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > .  I'll start listening when you can post ACTUAL EVIDENCE that I can find no counter to.
> ...



Your post was above.  Notice how you put OWN people.  You're implying that the Northwoods document proves that the U.S. government is willing to kill over 3,000 (as on 9/11) of it's people in a false-flag attack.  You post a document from 1962 and claim it's proof when the document actually shows that the government is not willing to kill even one of it's own citizens IN A FALSE-FLAG ATTACK.  THEREFORE, September 11th could not be a false-flag attack based on your document.  How can you claim that is proof that 9/11 was a false-flag attack when the Northwoods report goes out of its way to minimize American casualties IN the false-flag "incidents" (Real or Not)

Second, You said nothing about ensuing wars, or blaming innocent people in the above post.... 
Once I proved you wrong, then you resort to running in circles and claiming that the ensuing wars would kill people, and that the government is obviously capable of it, and that citizens would join the army and thus be killed.  Everyone of these things are complely obvious outcomes of something that DID NOT HAPPEN.  AND EVEN IF THEY DID CARRY OUT ANY OF THESE SCENARIOS, American citzens would not be armed in the carrying out of the false-flag attack....

That's why you twoofers are as shitty as you are.  You post vague and obvious statements.  When you get proven wrong, then that gives you about 30 strawmans to branch on to and change your argument.  You're wrong and you know it.  I think I'm going to print this whole thread, take it work and show everyone what kind of morons exist in this world.


----------



## BrianH (Apr 14, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > Common Jonesy boy.  What do you think of your precious top secret document now.  If anything, that document proves the extreme length that the U.S. was willing to go to ensure no American lives were lost in the false-flag operations....
> ...



I bolded the part that you DIDN'T say when you posted your little document as proof of 9/11 being a false-flag attack.

And your question about me knowing of any false-flag attack is a trick question numb-nuts.  If it didn't happen then it wouldn't be a false-flag attack dip-shit.  On top of that, you're assuming that you know which incidents are false-flag attacks and which one's aren't.  According to you're dumb-ass they are all false-flag attacks.  In that case, I guess every war in the history of earth was caused by a false-falg attack...


----------



## BrianH (Apr 14, 2011)

I'll ask you some simple questions.  All you have to do is say "yes" or "no"

Does the Northwoods Document, in any way, shape or form, indiciate that the United States government was behind the September 11th attacks?

Does the Northwoods Document, in any way, shape or form, indicate that the United States government planned and initiatied the 9/11 attacks as false-flag attack? (Keep in mind that LIHOP is not a false-flag attack--considering the attack itself was not false.)

Does the Northwoods Document, in any way, shape or form, indicate that the United States Government  is willing to murder any of it's own civilians upon the initiation and actual duration of a false-flag "incident?"

If you're answer to these three questions is anything other than "NO."  Then you've officially awarded yourself the "Dumbest Poster Award" on these boards.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Apr 14, 2011)

BrianH said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > BrianH said:
> ...


----------



## Mr. Jones (Apr 14, 2011)

BrianH said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > BrianH said:
> ...


----------



## Mr. Jones (Apr 14, 2011)

BrianH said:


> I'll ask you some simple questions.  All you have to do is say "yes" or "no"
> 
> Does the Northwoods Document, in any way, shape or form, indiciate that the United States government was behind the September 11th attacks?
> 
> ...



Look man..look up these sort of instances, and you'll see they are real and have happened and are documented, but the revelation of the NWDs doc alone should make most people very leery of the fucks running our country.
As for the 9-11 attacks there are similarities to the NWD plan, but my intention was not to somehow prove the existence of it proves 9-11 was one for certain, that is not possible, but of course if you ask me if 9-11 was a false flag attack I would say given all the secrecy and all the lies and cover up attempts, and all that I know about the sick fucks who run the nation/world, it should be no surprise, I truly think it was.


----------



## BrianH (Apr 14, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...


----------



## BrianH (Apr 14, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...


----------



## BrianH (Apr 15, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...


----------



## eots (Apr 15, 2011)

False flag - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"False colors" redirects here. For the imaging technique, see False-color.
False flag (aka Black Flag) operations are covert operations designed to deceive the public in such a way that the operations appear as though they are being carried out by other entities. The name is derived from the military concept of flying false colors; that is flying the flag of a country other than one's own. False flag operations are not limited to war and counter-insurgency operations, and can be used in peace-time.


----------



## BrianH (Apr 15, 2011)

eots said:


> False flag - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> "False colors" redirects here. For the imaging technique, see False-color.
> False flag (aka Black Flag) operations are covert operations designed to deceive the public in such a way that the operations appear as though they are being carried out by other entities. The name is derived from the military concept of flying false colors; that is flying the flag of a country other than one's own. False flag operations are not limited to war and counter-insurgency operations, and can be used in peace-time.



No one is debating the definition of "false-flag."   I have never said that the U.S. has not participated in false-flag incidents with intentions of leading us to war.  The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution and the U.S.S. Maine were used for these purposes; even though the U.S.S. Maine actually blew up by accident...but was used as a false-flag event.  

I'm really getting tired of repeating myself.

Once again...Mr. Jones is trying to prove that 9/11 was false-flag attack carried out or allowed by the U.S. government to propel us into war in the Middle East.  He posted  the Operation Northwoods Document claiming that it was proof that the U.S. was willing to kill it's own people in a false-flag incident. (Implying that the approx. 3,000 U.S. citizens killed on September 11th were victims of a false-flag attack)  He continues to post edited passages from the document and claims that they are proof without posting the rest of the subsections below each false-flag scenario.  

I read further on the document where, in each subsection, it laid out the plans for removing American citizens or personnel from harms way during each false-flag incident.  

For example: The "college student" plan clearly showed that CIA and Government agents would board a pane and fly towards Cuba.  An identical (droned) plane would also fly in the same direction.  At some point, the plane with the passengers would land at Elgin AFB and be evacuated while the identical drone plane would send out a May Day message.  (This does not illustrate the U.S. willingness to sacrifice American lives in a false-flag attack-thus doing nothing for Mr. Jones' argument that Sept. 11 was  false flag attack.)

Another example would be the scenario in which a U.S. fighter jet would be shot down by the Cubans.  This scenario is virtually identical to the previous scenario in that the pilot would report being fired at by an enemy jet.  The pilot would then land securely at a safe location and a droned F-16 would be shot down...simulating that one of our pilots was shot down by the Cubans.  (Once again we have a scenario in which an American citizen's life was night being sacrificed in a false-flag attack).  

Another example is the suggestion of MIG planes harrassing civil airliners.  In this scenario, our own planes would be painted like MIGs and then harrass commercial airliners so that the passengers could get home and say that they identified the jet as a MIG.  (Once again, no mention of blowing planes out of the sky and killing innocent Americans).

There is one scenario that suggests shooting a Cuban refugee flotilla...HOWEVER THIS ALSO SUGGESTS THAT THE INCIDENT COULD BE FAKED RATHER THAN ACTUALLY DONE. And furthermore, it still does not illustrate the U.S. Government's willingness to murder it's own civiliians in a false-flag attack.  It does illustrate the U.S. Government's willingness to kill people from another country in a false-flag attack.

Eots...I know you and I disagree on a lot in this regard, BUT, you have to admit that by reading this document, it does not suggest the U.S. is willing to lose it's own citizens in these false-flag attacks.  Whether they actually do or not is not the question, but rather tha this document proves it.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Apr 15, 2011)

BrianH said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > False flag - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> ...



You still don't get it? I rest my case anyway on the basis of my last response to you, if you think they are so benevolent, and care so much about innocent lives, you are sorely mistaken.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Apr 15, 2011)

BrianH said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > BrianH said:
> ...


----------



## Patriot911 (Apr 15, 2011)

All this bullshit Jones is pulling out of his ass is a classic red herring.  It does NOTHING to prove their point.

Did plans for Operation Northwoods get drawn up?  Absolutely.  By a government no longer in power and hasn't been for decades.  

Did Gulf of Tonkin get lied about?  At the time, dubious information was stated as fact and never corrected, so yes.  This was also done by a government no longer in power and hasn't been for decades.

So all of this is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.  Pretending that other people in other times have done bad things or planned bad things is proof that our government is doing those things now is ludicrous.  

Any person is capable of horrendous deeds.  A group of people with a common goal is also capable of horrendous deeds.  We have seen this throughout the history of mankind.  Nobody, myself included, is saying our government isn't CAPABLE of executing a plan like 9/11.  They are.  What the government is incapable of is keeping something as large as 9/11 and the coverup after 9/11 a secret.  

This is proven in the paradox truthtards like to pretend is truth.  Simply stated, the truthtard theory would have us believe two diametrically opposed facts as true.  They want us to believe our government is capable of perfectly carrying out a crime as massive as 9/11 and the coverup of that crime afterwards despite the number of people that would have to be in on the conspiracy.  OK.  Fine.  But THEN they want us to believe the government made mistake after mistake after mistake after really stupid idea after really stupid idea because they are basically retarded.  For instance, why blow up the buildings when it dramatically increases the risks of discovery beforehand, dramatically increases the complexity of the attack, and dramatically increases the risk of discovery after the attack?  It doesn't buy you ANYTHING, yet truthtards would have us believe the people behind the conspiracy went through the massive undertakings to blow up the buildings as well as fly planes into them.  

Two concepts completely diametrically opposed.  Perfect and stupid at the same time.  The above example is just one of MANY in the truthtard playbook.  No plane at Shanksville?  Why not?  Why not just crash the plane at a random place like Shanksville?  Why go through the extra risk of landing the plane somewhere else, and crashing something else at Shanksville?

Or the missile into the Pentagon?

The list goes on and on and on.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Apr 15, 2011)

*Moreover, recently declassified documents show that in the 1960's, the American Joint Chiefs of Staff signed off on a plan to blow up AMERICAN airplanes (using an elaborate plan involving the switching of airplanes), and also to commit terrorist acts on American soil, and then to blame it on the Cubans in order to justify an invasion of Cuba. If you view no other links in this article, please read the following ABC news report; 
U.S. Military Wanted to Provoke War With Cuba - ABC News

the official documents; 
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/northwoods.pdf
and watch this interview with the former Washington Investigative Producer for ABC's World News Tonight with Peter Jennings. *

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IygchZRJVXM]YouTube - Operation Northwoods[/ame]

*You might say "But Al-Qaeda is different -- powerful, organized, and out to get us", right? Maybe, but take a look at this Los Angeles Times Article, 
Is Al Qaeda Just a Bush Boogeyman?

reviewing a BBC documentary entitled "The Power of Nightmares", 
The Power of Nightmares

which shows that the threat from Al Qaeda has been vastly overblown (and see this article on who is behind the hype).
'The Power of Nightmares': Hyping Terror For Fun, Profit - And Power

 And a former National Security Adviser told the Senate that the war on terror is "a mythical historical narrative". *
"People All Over The World Who Want Freedom, Somehow Or The Other Feel Connected To Other People Who Are Struggling For Freedom." &#8594; Washington's Blog

How Jimmy Carter and I Started the Mujahideen-*Who went on to become Al-Qaeda*
No Regrets: Carter, Brzezinski and the Muj

No lies , no spin or BS just real facts that freedom loving REAL Americans should know.


----------



## Patriot911 (Apr 15, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> *Moreover, recently declassified documents show that in the 1960's, the American Joint Chiefs of Staff signed off on a plan to blow up AMERICAN airplanes (using an elaborate plan involving the switching of airplanes), and also to commit terrorist acts on American soil, and then to blame it on the Cubans in order to justify an invasion of Cuba. If you view no other links in this article, please read the following ABC news report;
> U.S. Military Wanted to Provoke War With Cuba - ABC News
> 
> the official documents;
> ...



  Shitforbrains Jones posts opinion articles and tries to pretend there is no lies, spin or BS.    Anyone else wondering just what the hell he is smoking that makes him think anyone is going to believe his bullshit is no lies, no spin and no BS?


----------



## eots (Apr 15, 2011)

patriot911 said:


> mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > *moreover, recently declassified documents show that in the 1960's, the american joint chiefs of staff signed off on a plan to blow up american airplanes (using an elaborate plan involving the switching of airplanes), and also to commit terrorist acts on american soil, and then to blame it on the cubans in order to justify an invasion of cuba. If you view no other links in this article, please read the following abc news report;
> ...



actually I was wondering if you really believe your own bullshit


----------



## candycorn (Apr 15, 2011)

candycorn said:


> And I use the term in the title loosely...very loosely.
> 
> Well kids it's been 9 years and you've gotten nowhere.  Less than nowhere actually because you morons can't even agree on a central set of "facts" (I'm using the quotes because what you idiots call facts are usually nothing more than opinions from people with an agenda).
> 
> ...



Seriously dumbasses....what are you going to do to try and pass yourselves off as legitimate?


----------



## Ringel05 (Apr 16, 2011)

candycorn said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > And I use the term in the title loosely...very loosely.
> ...


----------



## Patriot911 (Apr 16, 2011)

eots said:


> patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> > mr. Jones said:
> ...



I absolutely believe what I write.  It is backed up by the evidence and it is by FAR the most logical explanation.  You shitheads post all kinds of wild theories you can't back up, have no evidence for, and try to pretend opinions are somehow fact.  How could ANYONE not mentally retarded believe a word out of a truthtards mouth?


----------



## BrianH (Apr 16, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



I did not say they cared about innocent lives dip shit.  You posted the Northwoods Document as evidence they would kill their own people in a false-flag attack.  I took the very same document and proved you wrong; that the U.S. (according to the text in the Northwoods Document) is not willing to kill it's own people in a false-flag attack.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Apr 17, 2011)

BrianH said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > BrianH said:
> ...


----------



## candycorn (Apr 17, 2011)

BrianH said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > BrianH said:
> ...



As with all twoofers; they cite a document as long as it benefits them; the moment that source directly contradicts their fantasies about what happened on 9/11, it becomes irrelevant.  

The world doesn't work that way.  Sorry.


----------



## eots (Apr 17, 2011)

candycorn said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



no one likes you... true story


----------



## BrianH (Apr 17, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...


----------



## BrianH (Apr 17, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Apr 17, 2011)

"I don't know what I have to do to make you understand the nonsense that your posting."

Find the error in this statement, and you will find all of your questions answers.


----------



## BrianH (Apr 18, 2011)

TakeAStepBack said:


> "I don't know what I have to do to make you understand the nonsense that your posting."
> 
> Find the error in this statement, and you will find all of your questions answers.



No error.  My point is that HE doesn't even know what he's posting.So I said I don't know what I have to do to make him see HIS errors in his own posts.  I'll spare you the examples as I've posted them over and over again on this thread.


----------



## Gamolon (Apr 18, 2011)

BrianH said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > "I don't know what I have to do to make you understand the nonsense that your posting."
> ...



These are the same idiots who:

1. Compared the twin towers design to a muffler.
2. Compared WTC7's design to a human skull.
3. Say that structural engineers have ALWAYS designed steel structures to compensate for thermal expansion due to office fires.

These are just a few of their wondrous claims. We can post all the evidence that we want, yet they keep repeating stupidity.


----------



## BrianH (Apr 18, 2011)

Gamolon said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > TakeAStepBack said:
> ...



I know.  It's like a train wreck though.  I can't wait to see what kind of bull shit they'll post next.  There must be some kind of magical formula they use to get from their "evidence" to their conclusion.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Apr 18, 2011)

How someone can try to explain away an act that would lead to innocent deaths including Americans, is beyond explanation.

False flags attack are designed to provoke a response, and a war. This leads to casualties and deaths. Short of a deliberate suicide plan, any military attack planned would try to minimize casualties, everyone knows this, however they always know that does not work out as planned, as they are aware of "collateral" damage and there are always Americans deaths involved.
What make you think the NWs plan would be any different?
Because they would use a drone, and try to minimize the deaths of the black op agents involved?

There are many instance in the DOC that would put Americans in a position to be killed, read the doc again.

There would have been many many Americans and Cubans involved that would not know the plan was being staged, would use their training to defend themselves, and you would surely have deaths as a result. To think otherwise is really either naive, or you are being disingenuous.
It is an attempt to ignore the bigger picture, and the overall intent and outcome of such a plan, which is a response and a war.
The NWDs doc. proves that American military leaders have the capabilities to plan a conspiracy, that resembles what many people think 9-11 was.
Bottom line is that a false flag attack leads to the deaths of innocent people including Americans, based on lies period, and they were willing to to do it.


----------



## Patriot911 (Apr 18, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> How someone can try to explain away an act that would lead to innocent deaths including Americans, is beyond explanation.
> 
> False flags attack are designed to provoke a response, and a war. This leads to casualties and deaths. Short of a deliberate suicide plan, any military attack planned would try to minimize casualties, everyone knows this, however they always know that does not work out as planned, as they are aware of "collateral" damage and there are always Americans deaths involved.
> What make you think the NWs plan would be any different?
> ...



Once again fucktard Jones pretends the people who laid out the plans for Operation Northwoods are still in power and that their plans are in any way, shape or form relevant to 9/11.  It is a red herring Jones is throwing out there in a very weak attempt to try and prove the government was behind 9/11 because at one point decades ago they drew up plans NOBODY CARRIED OUT.  

  Am I the only one looking at how desperate fucktard Jones has become and laughing his ass off?  He can't produce any REAL evidence so now he is trying to convince everyone that because the government planned something "similar" (if you squint real hard) but never carried out the plans, that this is proof that THIS time they actually carried out an attack!    What a fucking loser!


----------



## BrianH (Apr 18, 2011)

Patriot911 said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > How someone can try to explain away an act that would lead to innocent deaths including Americans, is beyond explanation.
> ...



Exactly.  All he's saying is "would be " this and "would eventually lead to" that.  

I hate to break it to you Jones, but 9/11 wasn't a "would be" attack.  It was an attack that killed 3,000 Americans.  You speak of capability as if it's motive.  Everyone has the capability to murder someone else....does that mean we're all murders and can't be trusted?  Nothing in the Northwood's document comes a sack hair close to 9/11 and, in fact, does not suggest that the government was willing to sacrifice American lives to *bring *the U.S. to military action against Cuba.  Keep in mind that we're not talking about an ensuing war.  We're talking about YOU posting a document to ATTEMPT to prove that the U.S. was behind 9/11.  And we're alsoing talking about YOU posting a document to ATTEMPT to prove that the U.S. is willing to kill it's own people IN a false-flag attack.  

YOU ARE WRONG. PLAIN AND SIMPLE.  You can't change the rules and content of a debate halfway through the debate and then claim you were right all along.

Good Post Patriot


----------



## candycorn (Apr 19, 2011)

Patriot911 said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > How someone can try to explain away an act that would lead to innocent deaths including Americans, is beyond explanation.
> ...



"What a fucking loser" is right...in every sense of the word.  We go back aways and usually you can find one or two things about someone that you admire or like or at least can somewhat agree with.  Jones is a total shoulda-been-aborted entity; that crap about "his" brother was pretty much the cherry on top of the shit sundae of "his" life.  

I will say this about your posts..."the government" didn't plan Operation Northwoods.  Plans drawn up by the military are not official plans until the civilian authorities sign off on them.  McNamara never signed off on it.  Different planners come up with different plans all the time.  I, myself, have drawn up plans for my entity and how it would act during a bio attack.  The plans were adopted (in part) and are now part of the official EAP (Emergency Action Plan).  Operation Northwoods, by comparison, is not part of any official EAP.  Those who keep repeating this lie are simply either ignorant fools or liars.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Apr 19, 2011)

BrianH said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



The NWDs doc shows the willingness to engage in a conspiracy to commit a false flag attack, and shows how wrong you are when you allude to the US not being willing to do anything like that against its own people, and shows that there were, and probably always have been, and still are people in position do so.
It certainly raises a lot of eyebrows, at least to people to care about such things.
Again any one of many of the scenarios in the DOC could kill Americans, the fact that it was drawn up is cause for concern enough.


----------



## Patriot911 (Apr 19, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> The NWDs doc shows the willingness to engage in a conspiracy to commit a false flag attack, and shows how wrong you are when you allude to the US not being willing to do anything like that against its own people, and shows that there were, and probably always have been, and still are people in position do so.


WRONG!!!!  The ONLY thing the doc shows is that THOSE PEOPLE, IN THAT TIME, FOR THOSE REASONS, were THINKING about doing what was in the doc.  It speaks NOTHING for the current administration or any OTHER administration.  If my great great grandfather thought about molesting a little boy, that doesn't mean I am guilty of molesting little boys if boys start showing up molested in my neighborhood.  Am I capable?  Sure.  ANYONE is capable.  Does it mean I am guilty of the crime?  Nope.  It isn't even enough of a reason to accuse me.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> It certainly raises a lot of eyebrows, at least to people to care about such things.


What raises eyebrows?  The fact you are so fucked in the head that you actually believe every government administration is guilty of the plans of former administrations?    That certainly raises my eyebrows!  How can a supposed American believe in guilt by remote association if one squints really really hard?  Isn't the cornerstone of our judicial system innocent until proven guilty?  Do you think you could get ANY judge or jury to believe Bush et al. were guilty because some jackasses decades earlier thought up some false flag attacks that were never carried out?  I sincerely doubt it.  All you're doing is proving you stand against everything this country was founded on.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Again any one of many of the scenarios in the DOC could kill Americans, the fact that it was drawn up is cause for concern enough.


And?  There is a HUGE difference between thinking up a plan and executing it.  There is a HUGE difference between one group in one decade thinking up a plan and accusing an entirely different group decades later of carrying out an attack based on the plans of a prior group.

These are all very common sense points that I am sure you will dismiss.  Even if you really do have me on ignore, remember, I am not writing to address you.  I am writing to expose your bullshit for everyone else to see.  As you can clearly see, you are still spewing bullshit at a rate that would make the BP oil spill jealous!  Now run along and play your childish games.  I will be right here making you look like a complete un-American jackass.
*
Moderator Edits in red. If you are going to use family in hypotheticals, use your own. Thx.*


----------



## Gamolon (Apr 19, 2011)

Patriot911 said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > The NWDs doc shows the willingness to engage in a conspiracy to commit a false flag attack, and shows how wrong you are when you allude to the US not being willing to do anything like that against its own people, and shows that there were, and probably always have been, and still are people in position do so.
> ...





Well said.


----------



## candycorn (Apr 19, 2011)

Patriot911 said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > The NWDs doc shows the willingness to engage in a conspiracy to commit a false flag attack, and shows how wrong you are when you allude to the US not being willing to do anything like that against its own people, and shows that there were, and probably always have been, and still are people in position do so.
> ...



There are plans to do statewide quarantines that I have heard of if NYC were hit with Smallpox, those who live in Jersey would not be able to go to NYC the next day.  Those who live in CT would be SOL ASAP.  Of course in the hands of a twoofer, this means that states that were "blue" or "red" would be targeted depending on what color POTUS was.  

I think "he" beat you to the punch in looking like an un-American jackass though.


----------



## BrianH (Apr 19, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > Patriot911 said:
> ...



LOL.  There's always "probably(s)" and "most likely(s)" in your statements.  Do you notice this also?  

NOTHING IN THE NORTHWOODS DOCUMENT SUGGESTS THE U.S. WILLINGNESS TO KILL IT'S OWN CIVILIANS *IN* A FALSE-FLAG ATTACK...THIS IS EVIDENT THROUGH THE ACTUAL EXPLANATIONS OF EACH SCENARIO.  THEREFORE, YOU CANNOT ASSOCIATE THIS TO THE SEPT. 11 ATTACKS.  LIKE I SAID, ALL PEOPLE ARE CAPABLE OF MURDER, BUT JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE CAPABLE OF IT DOESN'T MEAN THEY'RE GUILTY OF IT.  YOU'RE ATTEMPTING TO TURN LEMONS INTO A FROZEN STRAWBERRY MARGARITA.


----------



## Intense (Apr 19, 2011)

*We do not discuss Moderator Actions on the Open Boards here.*


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Apr 19, 2011)

TakeAStepBack said:


> "I don't know what I have to do to make you understand the nonsense that your posting."
> 
> Find the error in this statement, and you will find all of your questions answers.



The troll agents here never want to look at their nonsense they are posting.They are only here to post lies and b.s just like their handlers pay them to to keep wasting the time of truthers here while their handlers that pay them for their constant ass beatings they get here everyday -thats why they come back for them all the time  is for the money,they wouldnt do it for free you know?  while their handlers who pay them off are plotting a more sinister plot they have in store for us the next year or two.9/11 is just a smokescreen to keep truthers occupied wasting their time.Its the least of our problems we face from the government right now.I was guilty for taking the bait from these agents on this thread as anybody is,at least I got smart about it in the last year and have ceased discussing 9/11. when will the other truthers here  realise 9/11 is the least of our problems from the government right now?


----------



## BrianH (Apr 19, 2011)

9/11 inside job said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > "I don't know what I have to do to make you understand the nonsense that your posting."
> ...



BWHAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA.  Are you kidding?  I would love to get paid for this crap, however, no one has to pay me to realize that all of you truthers are full of donkey turds. This post made you look nuttier than Mr. Jones. You ceased to discuss 9/11 because you can't prove anything you've said.  Any right-minded individual can see that you truthers are the true trolls who lack the intellect to connect the dots.  Or on the Contrary, have an uncanny ability to create dots that aren't there...


----------



## Mr. Jones (Apr 19, 2011)

BrianH said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > TakeAStepBack said:
> ...



I originally wrote this-


> Quote: Originally Posted by Mr. Jones Try this one on for size then. According to the government that you are so convinced is telling you the truth, and that in your opinion would* never ever harm its own people*-they thought this would work-Operation Northwoods: Justification for U.S. Military Intervention in Cuba, 3/13/62
> with remote guidance..back in the '60s no less.
> But they would never *hurt their own peoples *huh?Wise up dude, you really should know better.



I showed you by linking to the Document, a willingness by the US to plan and execute a conspiracy putting innocent peoples lives including Americans at risk even if it meant their deaths. 
But you were so stupid and incompetent on the matter,
you even thought I was trying to trick you about false flag attacks, seemingly thinking since they are called false they are not real!
You wrote_


> And your question about me knowing of *any *false-flag attack is a trick question numb-nuts. *If it didn't happen *then it wouldn't be a false-flag attack dip-shit.


We were discussing a *plan* to commit a false flag attack, and how indeed the US was capable of such a plan that would result in innocent deaths.

This is why we had to correct you and post the definition. You again were told to look up some history, and the definition. You played dumb, and tried to play your ignorance off as not a big deal or that you knew. Tell me if you knew, what a false flag attack was, then why would you write such a response?

Then You wrote-


> *WHAT INNOCENT PEOPLE??? *IT talks of destroying ships, planes, and jets belonging to the United States and/or civil air....Then it talks about how it's going to destroy them...with NO PEOPLE INSIDE. (UNMANNED DRONES) What inncoent people are going to die in these false-flag incidents?


 The Joint Chiefs were planning to sink a boatload of Cuban refugees to blame it on Castros forces! How many *innocent *men, women, and children would that sinking have caused? 
*ON PAGE 6-""6. Use of MIG-type aircraft by US pilots could provide additional provocation. Harassment of civil air, attacks on surface shipping and destruction of US military drone aircraft by Mig-type planes would be useful as complementary actions reasonable copies of the MIG could be produced from US resources in about three months."*
We planned to attack surface shipping! Again, how many innocent lives would have been lost? 
Even though blowing up a drone out of the sky was planned on being fake, the attack of ships as well as the attack by so called "friendly" Cubans on Guantanamo was to be real, with real casualties. 
But-
*Northwoods recognized that the best justification for attacking Cuba was to trick Cuba into attacking U.S. forces first:*

"1. Since it would seem desirable to use legitimate [sic!] provocation as the basis for US military intervention in Cuba, a cover and deception plan, to include requisite preliminary actions such as has been developed in response to Task 33 o [this may be a 'c'] could be executed as an initial effort to provoke Cuban reactions. Harassment plus deceptive actions to convince the Cubans of imminent invasion would be emphasized. Our military posture throughout execution of the plan will allow a rapid change from exercise to intervention if Cuban response justifies." 
*
Yet more harm and innocent deaths would result from-*
"(5) Blow up ammunition inside the [Guantanamo] base; start fires. (6) Burn aircraft on air base (sabotage). (7) Lob mortar shells from outside of base onto base. Some damage to installations." 
Also-
*There were additional plans for the staging of violent incidents which are not included in the Northwoods document:*

"3. It is understood that the Department of State also is preparing suggested courses of action to develop justification for US military intervention in Cuba." 
So your question of "WHAT INNOCENT PEOPLE?" Has been answered.

You said-


> Second, You said nothing about ensuing wars, or blaming innocent people in the above post....



What part of the following from the document  Do you not fucking understand?? Did you read the fucking document?? I think not.

*"c. commence large scale military operation"*
   "(Note: The courses of action which follow are a preliminary
submission suitable only for planning purposes.  They are
arranged neither chronologically nor in ascending order.
Together with similar inputs from other agencies, they are
intended to provide a point of departure for the development
of a single, integrated, time-phased plan. * Such a plan would
permit the evaluation of individual projects within the context
of cumulative, correlated actions designed to lead inexorably
to the objective of adequate justification for US military
intervention in Cuba)."*

Again that is what the plan is for in the first place you asshole! And would kill Americans and innocent people!
I replied about the fact that such a plan would ultimately involve American military personnel in the ensuing response and war that this plan was designed to provoke. But you consider this somehow out of bounds?? Even though it is in the plan I linked?
 Because you don't want to read, understand, and connect the obvious dots like most rational thinking people, because it would destroy your argument? Fuck you asshole!

you wrote-


> ON TOP of that, *in every single false-flag scenario*, there were written descriptions of *perceived* incidents rather than actual incidents.


 A clear and blatant lie on your part- 

Yeah _perceived_ incidents by the covert black ops agents starting things off _first_, in order to provoke a Cuban response that would have killed many innocents and American lives. 
Your attempt to make this all out to be a plan that would be virtually harmless to innocent lives and Americans is sooo fucking pathetic and pitiful it is beyond sickening, and shows all USMB members what a sick twisted and uninformed asshole you are, that has to go to such great lengths and absurdity to try to gloss over such a treasonous plot.

how about these incidents?
* Attacking an American military base in Guantanamo with CIA recruits posing as Cuban mercenaries (friendlies) This involved blowing up the ammunition depot, and would obviously result in material damages and many dead American troops. 


As a last resort, the plan even mentioned bribing one of Castros commanders to initiate the Guantanamo attack.
That deserves repeating: the Pentagon considered using our tax dollars to bribe another countrys military to attack our own troops in order to instigate a full-scale war. *
*
Even more ironically, in 1975 President Ford appointed retired General Lyman Lemnitzer to the Commission on CIA Activities to investigate whether the CIA had committed acts that violated American laws.*

Anyone who would even attempt to defend such treason, is scum. As are those that came running to your defense, especially those that used personal attacks against another USMB members family.

Hard-boiled Dreams of the World » Blog Archive » U.S.-Sponsored Terrorism: Operation Northwoods

Operation Northwoods - Proof US Government Could Harm Americans


----------



## Patriot911 (Apr 19, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> I originally wrote this-
> 
> Try this one on for size then. According to the government that you are so convinced is telling you the truth, and that in your opinion would never ever harm its own people-they thought this would work-Operation Northwoods: Justification for U.S. Military Intervention in Cuba, 3/13/62 with remote guidance..back in the '60s no less.  But they would never hurt their own peoples huh?Wise up dude, you really should know better.



This is so typical of truthtards.  You put words in other peoples mouths and attribute opinions they have NEVER expressed, and base your entire point on a bullshit premise.  When are you going to grow up and join the real world?


----------



## BrianH (Apr 20, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > 9/11 inside job said:
> ...



Once again you fail to see youre own contradiction.  You say they're willing to harm our OWN people and then give an example of them harming FOREIGN PEOPLE FROM ANOTHER COUNTRY...example: boat load of Cuban refugees are NOT our citizens.  I never claimed they weren't willing to hurt someone else.  I claimed they were not willing to kill our own civilians and or military personnel in a false-flag attack...According to this document, the U.S. went out of its way (droned planes, painted planes, tricks, etc...) to make sure our people weren't hurt in the process of the "incident." On top of that, I agree with Patriot that these "scenarios" were drawn up almost 50 some-odd years ago and were never carried out.  You can't base a present opinion on some hypothetical scenario that never occured.  I guess because it was once legal to own slaves then that means the government is bad and capable of making us slaves; therefore, they are doing it right now....

Lastly, you posted this document during a debate about whether the government was willing to kill it's own people ON 9/11.  You used it to "prove" your theory that the government would have had no problem killing 3,000 people on Sept. 11.  We showed you otherwise by showing you specific text from the very same documents that shows the U.S. willingness to go out of its way to protect our civilians in the false-flag incident....even going far as to say that they would make it up instead of actually doing it.  

You tried to deflect this by then claiming that the ensuing wars and all of the "probably(s)" and "maybes" and "most-likely(s)" started rearing the ugly heads.  


This notion you keep bringing up about me thinking you're trying to trick me is ridiculous.  You asked a question earlier on in the thread that WAS a trick question regardless if you realized it.  A false-flag incident is not any kind of incident at all if it wasn't committed and/or wasn't percieved to be committed.  

""Try to put less words in my mouth and worry a little more about what's coming out of yours...."
               ---BrianH


----------



## Mr. Jones (Apr 20, 2011)

BrianH said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > BrianH said:
> ...


----------



## Patriot911 (Apr 20, 2011)

More bullshit from fucktard Jones.  He is so dead set on proving the government is evil that he totally ignores what everyone else says.    The tin foil hat must have slipped over his eyes!  It is a shame to see such un-American bullshit from an American.  Jones should join his Al Qaeda heros so he can hate America with others who feel the same.


----------



## BrianH (Apr 20, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...


----------



## Patriot911 (Apr 20, 2011)

BrianH said:


> Whatever dude.  I'd rather play with a turd than try to talk some sense into you.



You would have a much better chance of talking some sense into the turd.  Turds are far more intelligent than the average truthtard.  Fucktard Jones is an exception in that he shows no intelligence whatsoever.  You would also end up cleaner playing with a turd than debating Jones.  He is disgusting.


----------



## BrianH (Apr 20, 2011)

Patriot911 said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > Whatever dude.  I'd rather play with a turd than try to talk some sense into you.
> ...



I just can't believe there are people like him in this world.  Believing the government did it is one whole issue in itself.  I'd actually be inclined to believe it if the twoofers could come up with come concrete evidence.  Eots backed out of this debate about the document because he knows Mr. Jones is full of it.  If there were any inkling of truth to what Mr. Jones is claiming then Eots would be on it.  It's obvious that even truthers can't agree with one another.


----------



## Patriot911 (Apr 20, 2011)

BrianH said:


> I just can't believe there are people like him in this world.  Believing the government did it is one whole issue in itself.  I'd actually be inclined to believe it if the twoofers could come up with come concrete evidence.  Eots backed out of this debate about the document because he knows Mr. Jones is full of it.  If there were any inkling of truth to what Mr. Jones is claiming then Eots would be on it.  It's obvious that even truthers can't agree with one another.



Most of the time they can't even agree with themselves.  Take Jones' insistance that WTC 7 fell at freefall for 2.25 seconds because every support was simultaniously blown via controlled demolition.  Yet when confronted by the evidence of no explosions heard in numerous audio recordings of the collapse, he claims it was thermite, but thermite can't "blow" every column at the same time.  It is these kinds of paradoxes that they can't see or refuse to acknowledge that destroys their theories more than anything else.

As for me, I believe what the evidence shows.  If credible evidence surfaced of other players being involved in the events of 9/11, then I will re-evaluate the theory to fit the new evidence.  That is the way theories are suppose to work.  Truthtards take a pre-conceived notion (everything the government says is a lie) and work their way backward from there regardless of how retarded it makes them look.


----------



## Gamolon (Apr 20, 2011)

Patriot911 said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > I just can't believe there are people like him in this world.  Believing the government did it is one whole issue in itself.  I'd actually be inclined to believe it if the twoofers could come up with come concrete evidence.  Eots backed out of this debate about the document because he knows Mr. Jones is full of it.  If there were any inkling of truth to what Mr. Jones is claiming then Eots would be on it.  It's obvious that even truthers can't agree with one another.
> ...



Not to mention the fact that folks like you and I "work" for the government and earn a paycheck to come to the forums and spread disinfo.

I know the truth about what I do for a living and it makes be laugh. I show people this stuff at work and they think these people are morons.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Apr 20, 2011)

Gamolon said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> > BrianH said:
> ...


----------



## Patriot911 (Apr 20, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> Get used to it, there are probably millions around the world from different countries that believe 9-11 didn't happen the way the US says it did.


Unfortunately for you truthtards, there's probably only a couple hundred seriously retarded people who actually believe it happened the way YOU say it did.  While many people doubt it happened exactly the way the government said, they also don't believe shitheads like you who pretend the government was behind it.  Nice try though.  



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Actually I am more inclined to stick with what I have said in the past, that is that a group of powerful men secured in positions of high authority and well connected, are the primary culprits. Not everyone who works in the government is a criminal, most just follow orders.


  Yeah, like people are going to follow these orders and not put two and two together.    You're so full of shit!  What about the people who wired the buildings for demolition?  Do you REALLY expect anyone to believe that these people didn't understand that wiring three buildings for controlled demolition while fully occupied breaks numerous federal, state and local felony laws and sets them up to be personally charged with at a MINIMUM attempted murder?    Truthtard bullshit sounds great until you think about it.  Then the stench becomes overwhelming.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Why do you insist I need help in this or any debate like you do?


Because, quite frankly, you SUCK at it.  I don't mean mildly suck at it.  We're talking WORLD CLASS suckage here!



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> We all agree on the most important issues, and those being that we were lied to because the evidence is every where to prove it, and we all believe a new independent investigation is needed so the evidence that was not allowed in the first one can be heard, and to  introduce the new evidence that has since been brought to light.


Yet you can't produce a single shred of this evidence that is everywhere to prove it.  That right there shows you are full of shit.  



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Myself and others agree that something not related to fires brought down the WTC buildings, we all agree on that, and on having a real investigation that is not politically motivated is another thing we all can agree on.


You can "agree" all you want.  Doesn't change the fact you are full of shit and without evidence the FBI investigation, which was in no way politically motivated, is fundamentally flawed, you're not going to get dick.  



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> As for the manner of exactly how the resistance of the structures were removed, at least the CD theory makes more sense then the NIST miracle theory does, and I have shown links to the patents and some past history that explosive thermite cutter charges have and do exist, and that they would not be as loud as RDX and the other conventional explosives.


  The CD theory only makes sense if you're a brain dead conspiratard zombie who can't think for themselves.  You pretend thermite cutter charges (no such thing in reality) are strong enough to cut through all the steel simultaniously without making a noise.  Bullshit!  If that were true, they would be using thermite cutter charges all over the place!  



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> You have had to be reminded that it was not intended to actually look or sound like a CD.


Yet you fucktards pretend the whole reason you KNOW it is a CD is because it looks like a CD!    You fucking liar!



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> You also leave out the fact that many witnesses have said they heard explosions, and I even posted a video of them saying as much with the WTC 7 and towers videos that have audible explosions.


You have ONE shithead who claims to have heard explosions at the beginning of the collapse, yet the "massive explosion" he heard can't be heard on any of the audio tracks recorded on that day.  Quit being so dishonest and pretending that everyone who heard an explosion on 9/11 was actually hearing explosives going off.  



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Your insistence that there were no explosions have proven to be false, yet you admit as does NIST that they can't explain nor do they even try to explain the 2.25 secs. of free fall time.


WTF are you talking about?  How blatantly can you lie and still call yourself a human being?  THERE ARE NO EXPLOSIONS ON THE AUDIO TAPES.  That is a known, proven fact.  Were there explosions prior to the collapse?  Sure.  Last time I checked, you don't hear explosions hours before the collapse in a CD, do you.    And the explosions that were heard weren't strong enough to be picked up on seismographs.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Actually it is the refusal of people like you to acknowledge the alternate theories and stick to the outrageous and unreasonable conspiracy theory told by the NIST and government that destroys your  credibility.


Wrong again, fuckface.  All one has to do is look at the evidence to see which theories are credible and which are not.  Your bullshit theories don't have a single shred of real evidence to back them up.  Therefore they are NOT CREDIBLE.  Easy enough for even a complete moron to understand, yet it escapes you.  



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> You know.. the one about the 19 Arabs with box cutters, gas and GPS s who managed to sneak past security!


:roll:  Are you seriously going to re-iterate the entire cock and bull pack of lies you've already been proven to be full of shit on?  Box cutters were legal on 9/11.  Funny how you always forget that and pretend they snuck them past security.  As for gas and GPSes, lord only knows what you're smoking this time.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Fly commercial aircraft with expert precision, after being kicked out of flight training schools!


Except he didn't fly the plane with expert precision.  He flew the plane like crap as clearly evidenced in the FDR.  If he were truly an expert, why did he have to make the spiral?  He would have flown the plane straight in, not come in several thousand feet to high.  Funny how quickly a fucking retard like you forgets all this information from post to post.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> and hit all but one of their targets while somehow having the good luck of being able to bypass the most heavily funded and fortified defense apparatus in the history of the world!


Which by every account was pointed OUTWARD for attack.  We weren't expecting an attack from inside the US.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> while it was conducting the same sort of training drills as the terrorists were conducting in REAL LIFE!


Wrong again, you piece of shit liar!  The National Recognizance Office (NRO), which is IN THE FLIGHT PATH OF DULLES, had a drill scheduled for 9/11 which would have a small private plane crash into the building due to a malfunction.  And you wonder why everyone doesn't believe a fucking liar like you!



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> and demolishing 3 buildings with only 2 planes!


Really?  So now you're going to try and pretend it was Al Qaeda's goal to collapse all three buildings?    That's rich!  They didn't even expect to collapse the towers! 



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> at free fall speed to the ground within record time, with only Kerosene as the main weapon!


Really?  Kerosene only?  Nothing else in the towers or WTC 7 burned?  There was no structural damage?  All they did was throw kerosene on the building and light it?  Fuck off!  You can't even come up with plausible bullshit!



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Leaving molten metal to burn for 3 months with no mention of a viable explanation.


Really?  Molten metal was BURNING now?  Wow.  That's news to everyone!  BTW, the viable explanation for the red hot metal is the subterranian fires.  What viable explanation do you have?  Nothing you've put forth can keep metal molten for anything longer than a few minutes.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> You mean the evidence that even the 9-11 commission now admits is not accurate?


Still going with that lie too?  Wow.  You're pulling out all the stops to destroy your credibility!  The 9/11 commission had questions about the investigation WHILE IT WAS HAPPENING.  None of the comments were AFTER the report came out.  You only pretend they were because it makes your bullshit a LITTLE less foul.  But lies compounded just don't smell good no matter how hard you try to convince people of them.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Or the evidence obtained through torture, or the evidence that was proven false by many people who spoke out?


The "evidence" obtained through torture amounts to very little compared to all the hard evidence there is.  I realize your twisted little peabrain can't comprehend this, but it is true.  BTW, you fucktards pretending the evidence is false does nothing to "prove" the evidence is false.  Your credibility is shit, yet you want everyone to believe you over the hard evidence?    Not bloody likely!



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> No likely when credible evidence has already surfaced and you still refuse to believe it.


Oh, you mean the evidence you STILL haven't been able to produce?  Not one little shred of real evidence, yet you still pretend you have so much of it.    The only thing you have is a handful of shit you're trying to convince everyone is gold.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> You take the story as told to you by PROVEN liars with motive to lie as credible, while refusing to believe anything told by people that have not lied to you nor have any reason to?


"People who have not lied to us"?!?!?    Like YOU?!?  You're a proven piece of shit liar many times over and you have the balls to try and pretend you're some pristine truth teller?!?    That's RICH!  Thanks for the laughs!  BTW, I believe what the evidence says and not what either side says. 



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Even when the NIST and govs theories are found to be full of holes inconsistencies and lies, and the other side comes up with a more plausible theory, you all still do not re-evaluate anything.


  Stop!  You're killing me!!!   "More plausible theory"?!?!?!?    You mean the ones you can't even answer the simplest of questions about without making up science fiction to cover your ass?    Oh this is just too much!



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Most people did believe the official story that day, I know I did, until it started to fall apart and the many lies and inconsistencies were pointed out to me and I researched the info for myself.


You haven't done a day of research in your life you fucking liar.  All you do is cut and paste from conspiratard sites.  You're not even intelligent enough to look at the responses.  Nothing but a parrot is what you are.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> The stubbornness and refusal to see and acknowledge what others have already discovered sometimes makes the only rational explanation for this behavior as coming from actual people that have been hired and planted to spread disinfo and the official propaganda.


OR it is the sad and desperate last gasps from those who can't defend their own theories and thus are forced to pretend they are battleing the big bad gubment directly!  WOOooOOOooO!!!!  The funny thing is that if the government were really as evil as you say, your ass would have disappeared ages ago, never to be seen again.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> It is a known fact that this type of activity is real, and many of you fit the bill.


It is called a paranoid delusion.  Look it up.  Classic example.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> People who rely on the gov and its agencies to tell them what is happening are the real morons.


I agree.  Unfortunately for you, the evidence is what does the talking to most people.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Many awake, rational, and critically thinking Americans who are aware of what the PTP, are doing to the nation and weigh the 2 theories about 9-11 will quickly see that they were being lied to.


Read up on those paranoid delusions again.  You're a fucking gullible twit who wants to believe the bullshit so badly that you ignore the evidence, common sense, logic and the science to further your anti-American agenda.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> The history of past crimes, corruption and conspiracies along with the actions of the Bush and Clinton administrations, and it's a no brainer. There is a massive cover up that is still taking place about 9-11.


Uh huh.  Dream on truthtard.  Come back when you have some real evidence to back up your bullshit claims.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Apr 21, 2011)

There is ample evidence of lies and cover ups about 9-11, just because some people want to deny it, because their appeal to the lying authorities is a comfort to them does not mean the lies and cover ups that have been exposed are without merit. The fact that the US governments version and the NIST version have not been proven to be at all feasible nor reliable is all over the place for honest critically thinking people to investigate themselves, and those that want to understand the very real concerns of those that have exposed the lies and corruptions would do well by ignoring those that ignore the evidence that has been presented here and elsewhere.
It is utterly pathetic to claim that there is no proof of lies and cover ups by the US government officials that were involved in 9-11, and the laughable NIST theory, and many millions throughout the world are on board with the opinion that the explanation as told by the US and NIST are a deception.


----------



## BrianH (Apr 21, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> There is ample evidence of lies and cover ups about 9-11, just because some people want to deny it, because their appeal to the lying authorities is a comfort to them does not mean the lies and cover ups that have been exposed are without merit. The fact that the US governments version and the NIST version have not been proven to be at all feasible nor reliable is all over the place for honest critically thinking people to investigate themselves, and those that want to understand the very real concerns of those that have exposed the lies and corruptions would do well by ignoring those that ignore the evidence that has been presented here and elsewhere.
> It is utterly pathetic to claim that there is no proof of lies and cover ups by the US government officials that were involved in 9-11, and the laughable NIST theory, and many millions throughout the world are on board with the opinion that the explanation as told by the US and NIST are a deception.



No one has denied that the U.S. and NIST version are the absolute truth.  In fact, no one has even claimed that the U.S. is not keeping certain information from the public.  What everyone HERE is saying, is if there is SOOO much proof, where is it?  Why haven't you posted it?  Everything you've posted, thus far, has been proven wrong, or proven to not imply what you suggest.  You even attempted to post a document from 1962 and tried to connect it to 9/11 and that was proven wrong.  All you did was "prove" the obvious...that the government is "capable" of things.  

I'll be blunt, nothing you've posted has proven, or caused anyone here to "raise their eyebrows."


----------



## Patriot911 (Apr 21, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> There is ample evidence of lies and cover ups about 9-11, just because some people want to deny it, because their appeal to the lying authorities is a comfort to them does not mean the lies and cover ups that have been exposed are without merit.


So present the real evidence of the lies and cover ups about 9/11.  You keep making the claim and then running away from presenting the "evidence" you claim to have.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> The fact that the US governments version and the NIST version have not been proven to be at all feasible nor reliable is all over the place for honest critically thinking people to investigate themselves, and those that want to understand the very real concerns of those that have exposed the lies and corruptions would do well by ignoring those that ignore the evidence that has been presented here and elsewhere.


Wrong yet again.  Wishful thinking on your part, but the NIST studies have been gone over in GREAT detail by numerous agencies and universities.  They quibble over some of the finer points of the findings, but to date, not one reputable organization has come forward and said the NIST study is fundamentally wrong and that your claims are right.  Why is that?  A completely dishonest know nothing like you pretends to know everything about building engineering and what is and is not possible while at the same time trying to pretend the real experts are all liars and in on the cover up.  



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> It is utterly pathetic to claim that there is no proof of lies and cover ups by the US government officials that were involved in 9-11, and the laughable NIST theory, and many millions throughout the world are on board with the opinion that the explanation as told by the US and NIST are a deception.


Yet you STILL can't produce one real piece of evidence to back up your claims.  When are you going to get around to producing this evidence?  Until you actually produce this evidence, whining about everyone else lauging at your non-existant evidence is not only pathetic but rather childish.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Apr 21, 2011)

There is sufficient proof and evidence to show that their is reasonable doubt about the official version of events.
WHERE THE HELL IS YOUR PROOF?
You claim that the President and his handlers have told you the truth. You refuse to consider the information we show you that punches huge holes into the official version. You refuse to check out the information for yourself.  You tell us what we have uncovered is false.  Okay, well buy that, well concede that youre right...and that all of us are wrong.
In fact, well take it all back and admit the errors of our ways IF you do something first. Show us YOUR proof.  Tell us why we should believe the story you have swallowed, and show us what you have to back up your claims!  
Where the Hell Is YOUR 9/11 Proof?
We have posted and linked to our claims as to why we have our doubts, now it is time for you to show us the non believers, what concrete evidence the official version has that makes you believe them. In other words what makes their version so indisputably correct??

*The following is a start I copied for those interested in doing their own research.*
The simple question of who benefited from the events of 9-11 can in many cases be answered by saying the people who were supposed to prevent 9-11. Doesnt that make you just a little bit curious? It should.

So you think it ludicrous to suggest that a rogue group within our government was involved in the events of September 11th, 2001? You dont even think it is worth your time to examine the overwhelming physical evidence that is available for your viewing, which at the very least disproves the official conspiracy theory put forth by the government and their mouthpieces in the corporate media?
9/11 Facts

Let me ask you folks some questions. Help me out here. If I am to ignore all the physical evidence that indicates government complicity I need you to explain to me why I should ignore the unprecedented actions by the Bush administration preceding the events, that seem to have no other purpose other than to prevent an event like 9/11 from being stopped and to prepare to set in motion their pre-planned agenda that would only be accepted after an event like 9/11.
PNAC

1 We Could Never Imagine Planes Used to Attack Us - We have been told that the US was not only unprepared for defending our nation against planes used as weapons but we were told by our National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice that we never imagined such a thing.
Question: Why do you believe that the US was not prepared to prevent such an event when we had held drills for just such an event in the past?

USATODAY.com - NORAD had drills of jets as weapons

QUESTION: Why do you believe that we had no idea anyone would fly a plane into the WTC when an FBI agent warned of the very thing only to have his warnings dismissed?
Excite News
Agent Cited WTC Attack Ahead of 9/11
Excite News

2 There is a great deal of information indicating the fact that one of the first directives of the Bush administration upon taking office was to have the intelligence community back off of all investigations into Osama Bin Laden and his family.
Question: Why was the Bush administration protecting Bin Laden? Why do you ignore the close ties between the Bush family and the Bin Laden family?

Bin Laden Ties

3 Are you aware that Dov S. Zakheim, a former vice president of System Planning Corp., a defense contractor which makes remote control and flight termination products, was sworn in as the Under Secretary of Defense?
Question: Did you know that remote controlled flight was possible and that someone who was very involved with this technology was a member of the Bush administration?
System Planning Corporation
The Truth Seeker - Dov Zakheim and the 9/11 Conspiracy

4 During June 2001 the US was planning military action against Afghanistan.
QUESTION: Why was the US planning on military action against Afghanistan before the events of 9/11 took place? Why would Congress permit this? 9/11 was the official reason for the military action against Afghanistan.
BBC News | SOUTH ASIA | US 'planned attack on Taleban'
Question: Doesnt common sense suggest to you that it might just be possible that the administration was in search of a legal and publicly acceptable excuse to attack Afghanistan and install a US friendly government with a former UNOCAL Oil company consultant, with ties to the Bush family business, as its new leader? 
Unocal Gets Its Pipeline Through Afghanistan

5 Attorney General John Ashcroft stops flying commercial aircrafts three months before 9/11 due to threats.
Question: Why did he stop flying commercial aircrafts? What did he know?
Ashcroft Flying High - CBS News

6 All of a sudden. prior to 9/11/2001, the procedures for military response to hijacked aircrafts were changed where military response had to be approved by Donald Rumseld. Donald Rumsfled is a member of the PNAC organization that publicly professed that a New Pearl Harbor would benefit their agenda.
Donald Rumsfeld
Neocons/PNAC, Donald Rumsfeld, Iraq War | Crooks and Liars
QUESTION: Why were procedures specifically involving hijackings changed? Were the old procedures problematic? Why was a person who could benefit from an event like a hijacking given the responsibility of handling them?
http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/cjcsd/cjcsi/3610_01a.pdf

7 Osama Bin Laden undergoes medical treatment at the American Hospital in Dubai, United Arab Emirates where he is met by a local CIA chief.
QUESTION: If Bin Laden was our enemy, why was the CIA meeting with him just before the events of 9/11? Is it possible that the CIA or rogue members of the CIA were arranging the events of 9/11? Is it at least possible?
CIA agent alleged to have met Bin Laden in July | World news | The Guardian

8 A 40-year-old Federal Aviation Administration rule that allowed commercial airline pilots to be armed was inexplicably rescinded two months before the Sept. 11 attacks.
Question: Why in the world was this rule changed at this particular point in history?
Armed pilots banned<br>2 months before 9-11

9 August 25, 2001 - Raytheon and the U.S. Air Force successfully auto lands a FedEx Boeing 727, without any pilots, six times at Holloman AFB, N.M. using a military GPS landing system that will enable ground control take control a hijacked airplane and force land it.
Question: Do you still think that unskilled pilots who were supposedly flying without the assistance of air traffic control were the only possible people who could have flown jets into buildings?
Raytheon delivers ATC Simulation System to Poland

10 September 7, 2001 - Jeb Bush signs a two year Florida executive emergency order  four days before 9/11  "WHEREAS, the Florida National Guard has the statutory responsibility to provide support to law-enforcement personnel and emergency-management personnel in the event of civil disturbances or natural disasters;"
QUESTION: Why would he do this? He was governor for years, why do it days before 9/11? No other governor ever did anything like this before.
Jeb Declared Martial Law In FL On 9-7 - Dubya's Obscure 'Goat Story'

11 # September 10, 2001 - A group of top Pentagon officials cancel their travel plans for the next morning because of security concerns.
QUESTION: Do you still think they did not know anything was up?
9-11 Research: Attack Warnings
Bush: 'We're At War' - Newsweek

12 September 10, 2001 - Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld announces that the Pentagon has lost track of $2.3 TRILLION DOLLARS of military spending. - September 10, 2001 - Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld warns of Iraq's pursuit of WMD's hours before US and British planes bomb Iraqi missile sites.
QUESTION: Why is one of the people who wanted to invade Iraq and Afghanistan for years, suddenly bringing up Iraq? Do you find the timing of this the least bit suspicious? Did you ever find out what happened to the missing $2.3 TRILLION? 
The War On Waste - CBS Evening News - CBS News

13 September 10, 2001 - U.S. OKd plan to topple the Taliban and expel Osama bin Laden from Afghanistan.
QUESTION: How would they be allowed to do this without the events of 9/11? How can they prepare for a war before the reason for the war occurs?
White House planned to topple Taliban - US news - Security - msnbc.com

14 Although there are dozens, if not hundreds of questions I can add to this list I will ask only one more series of questions:
QUESTION: Do you know anything about the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) and about Operation Northwoods? Why not? PNAC runs this government. They had motives for permitting or conducting the events of 9/11. Operation Northwoods proves that our nation would indeed harm its own people and blame it on another nation in order to gain support for military operations. For those of you who think FOX News is fair and balanced do research and you will find out that the chairman of PNAC is a regular face on FOX News. He is represented as an impartial journalist when in fact he is the chairman of the group that has written and implemented our foreign policy under Bush. Ill let you do some research about this. Its about time you finally started looking for some facts on your own.
PNAC
PNAC Neo-Con Artists
OPERATION NORTHWOODS

The question of whether or not these actions took place is not up for debate. Research the issues. Nobody involved denies that they took place. What is in question is why they took place and if they indicate the anticipation of an event such as 9/11.
The bottom line is that there is a great deal of information out there and there are many questions that have not been answered and the people who support the official conspiracy theory are not able to support their beliefs.

If you can not find a reasonable explanation for these actions then you have no choice other than to reconsider the simple possibility that some people within our government and intelligence apparatus may have been anticipating an event like 9/11 and this would require you as a responsible patriotic citizen, to research the issues surrounding 9/11.
I have a few questions for you people of blind faithdid you ever think about the fact that you never seem to dispute the facts presented to you by the independent 9/11 research community; you only call the fact presenters names. I see you out there on all those forums and news groups. You lose every argument. All you are left with is your toolkit of mantras and names. You know what they are, and you also know that you never back up your position with facts.

POINT: MOTIVE HAS ALREADY BEEN ESTABLISHED: Please keep in mind that motive for Bush administration complicity in the events of 9/11 has been clearly established. If you do not yet know what the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) is it is high time you became aware of this organization. 

If you are going to deny the findings of the independent 9/11 research community then it is incumbent upon you to provide a detailed and verifiable counter argument. If you can not do this you are basically living in denial and even worse you might be supporting the very people who committed or permitted the atrocities of September 11th 2001. Dont you think you owe it to yourself, to the victims of the event and to your nation to start taking a closer look at the events of 9/11 and at the people responsible for preventing it? 

For those of you who can not imagine anything other than the official conspiracy theory, as you take into account all the recorded hijacking messages from the FAA and from the passengers on the planes, here is something to think about. On the morning of September 11th 2001, there were several NORAD, FAA & FEMA drills taking place in the north eastern United States. Some of the drills involved hijackings where live fly simulations as well as electronic, video game like drills were taking place. Perhaps the people making the calls thought they were taking part in a drill? Maybe the members of the airlines asked for volunteers to make these calls in order to test the response team. Perhaps even the hijackers thought they were taking part in drills; after all several of the listed hijackers were known to have been trained in CIA facilities and lived among the intelligence community in Florida.

Am I saying I know what took place on September 11th 2001. No. What I am saying is that virtually every aspect of the official conspiracy theory put forth by our government has been debunked. The Bush administration saw to it that the evidence was destroyed and that the only investigation that would take place was conducted by a group of people who each had a conflict of interest when it came to uncovering the truth.

Whistle blowers were not permitted to testify to the Kean Commission and the investigate body never asked for people with inside information to come forward or to testify. Many whistle blowers were denied access to the commission. The Kean Commission was in fact created in order to do document the official conspiracy theory; they were not tasked with finding out what really happened.

On the other hand, the independent research community has taken it upon themselves to explore the facts and ask the real questions. 
You know, there is a huge difference between a conspiracy theory and reasonable suspicion. The closer you look the more you will realize that it is the official story of 9/11 that adheres to the definition of a conspiracy theory, while some of the conclusions made by the independent research community are not only reasonable but they are quite plausible and very probable.

EDITORS NOTE: Deny this if you must but it is a clear fact that there are Americans, both civilian and in our government, for whom the events of 9/11/2001 were the greatest thing that ever happened. Defense industry owners and investors became wealthy with a newly guaranteed income stream flowing from the pockets of frightened Americans into their own pockets. Members of the Bush administration received virtually unlimited power to proceed with their agenda, which without the events of 9/11 would have been viewed as insane, radical and in most cases unconstitutional. The events of 9/11 were virtually the only chance the members of PNAC would have ever had to proceed with their radical and un-American agenda. The truth is that these folks (PNAC) needed 9/11 to happen (which they clearly stated in their documentation) and they were in the position to make sure that it did. That is a fact. If that does not make you suspicious Ive got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you!

9/11 - US Complicity: Implausible, or Very Probable?


----------



## Mr. Jones (Apr 21, 2011)

BrianH said:


> > No one has denied that the U.S. and NIST version are the absolute truth.  In fact, no one has even claimed that the U.S. is not keeping certain information from the public.  What everyone HERE is saying, is if there is SOOO much proof, where is it?  Why haven't you posted it?
> 
> 
> We have been posting all the reasons we doubt their version for years, where as all you have done is ignore it, and resorted to far fetched imaginary ramblings while staunchly defending their official version that has been well debunked for years.
> ...


----------



## BrianH (Apr 21, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > > No one has denied that the U.S. and NIST version are the absolute truth.  In fact, no one has even claimed that the U.S. is not keeping certain information from the public.  What everyone HERE is saying, is if there is SOOO much proof, where is it?  Why haven't you posted it?
> ...


----------



## Patriot911 (Apr 21, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> There is sufficient proof and evidence to show that their is reasonable doubt about the official version of events.
> &#8220;WHERE THE HELL IS YOUR PROOF?&#8221;
> You claim that the President and his handlers have told you the truth. You refuse to consider the information we show you that punches huge holes into the official version. You refuse to check out the information for yourself.  You tell us what we have uncovered is false.  Okay, we&#8217;ll buy that, we&#8217;ll concede that you&#8217;re right...and that all of us are wrong.
> In fact, we&#8217;ll take it all back and admit the errors of our ways IF you do something first. Show us YOUR proof.  Tell us why we should believe the story you have swallowed, and show us what you have to back up your claims!
> ...



Not one piece of real evidence in his whole bullshit post.  Maybe Mr. Jones doesn't know what constitutes real evidence.  Here's a hint, dipshit!  You're not going to find it cutting and pasting while hoping nobody notices you're doing nothing but dancing around trying to distract from the fact you have nothing.


----------



## BrianH (Apr 21, 2011)

*1 We Could Never Imagine Planes Used to Attack Us - We have been told that the US was not only unprepared for defending our nation against planes used as weapons but we were told by our National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice that we never imagined such a thing.
Question: Why do you believe that the US was not prepared to prevent such an event when we had held drills for just such an event in the past?

USATODAY.com - NORAD had drills of jets as weapons

QUESTION: Why do you believe that we had no idea anyone would fly a plane into the WTC when an FBI agent warned of the very thing only to have his warnings dismissed?
Excite News
Agent Cited WTC Attack Ahead of 9/11*


My answer using the same sites you posted.

NORAD officials have acknowledged that "scriptwriters" for the drills included the idea of hijacked aircraft being used as weapons.

"Threats of killing hostages or crashing were left to the scriptwriters to invoke creativity and broaden the required response," Maj. Gen. Craig McKinley, a NORAD official, told the 9/11 commission. No exercise matched the specific events of Sept. 11, NORAD said.

"We have planned and executed numerous scenarios over the years to include aircraft originating from foreign airports penetrating our sovereign airspace," Gen. Ralph Eberhart, NORAD commander, told USA TODAY. "*Regrettably, the tragic events of 9/11 were never anticipated or exercised."*
USATODAY.com - NORAD had drills of jets as weapons


Hill said the headquarters agent responded, "That's not going to happen. We don't know he's a terrorist. You don't have enough to show he is a terrorist

Hill said New York FBI personnel who reviewed the memo found it "speculative and not particularly significant." They said they knew some flight students were affiliated with bin Laden, she said, but believed they were intended to fly goods and personnel in Afghanistan. 

The supervisor said he had no reason to believe Moussaoui was planning such an attack, but made the remark in a frustrated attempt to convince headquarters that a special search warrant was needed to search Moussaoui's computer, investigator Eleanor Hill told a House-Senate committee investigating the Sept. 11 attacks. 

Excite News

*The FBI has admitted that it did not investigate Moussaoui hard enough.  An admission of guilt?  This looks more like incompetence than a conspiracy.  There's a little thing law enforcement are encouraged to enforce, and that's called civil rights.  The agent said that he THOUGHT they MIGHT fly planes into a building.  This does not prove a conspiracy.  1 down.*


----------



## Patriot911 (Apr 21, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> We have been posting all the reasons we doubt their version for years, where as all you have done is ignore it, and resorted to far fetched imaginary ramblings while staunchly defending their official version that has been well debunked for years.


Reasons are not evidence, ya twit!



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> A simple search titled  something like "9-11 truth" or "9-11 lies" will give you the much needed proof of reasonable doubt.


In other words you have nothing and have to try and hope someone else comes up with something via google.    What a piece of shit loser!



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Not hardly all you do is keep parroting the same old version while ignoring the very real facts that the independant investigators have uncovered, and that does not qualify as proving anything "wrong", in your dreams maybe.


Yet you STILL can't present ANYONE with one real piece of evidence any of your bullshit is true.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> It certainly wasn't obvious to your stupid ass, and I had to show you by quoting your posts and what was in the actual document and prove you absolutely wrong in your assumptions. You should re read the entire exchange again instead of denying you got your ass thoroughly kicked.


  The only one who got his ass kicked (and kicked repeatedly I might add) is you.  You lied your ass off time and time again and had to resort to putting words in people's mouths before you could even make a point.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> > I'll be blunt, nothing you've posted has proven, or caused anyone here to "raise their eyebrows."
> 
> 
> You can deny it all you want, but the truth is I had to lead you by the hand to show you what the NWDs doc was all about.


No, all you did is preach about how if they were evil enough then then they are evil enough now.  You couldn't even BEGIN to address all the issues with your theory.    Pretty pathetic!



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Anyone who takes the time to read our exchange on the NWDs doc with a level of objectivity and honesty will learn just how wrong you still are about it.


The only one wrong about them is you.  Taking the PLANS of people from the 60s and trying to pretend it is evidence of ACTIONS by completely different people fourty years later is about as retarded as one can get.  



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> There are millions of people who do not agree with you, around the world. Shall I post the polls for you so you can see that you and those like you are becoming a shrinking minority?


  You mean the polls you have to lie your ass off with in order to prove your "point"?  Like pretending anyone who has any doubts at all about 9/11 actually believes YOUR bullshit?    Yeah, right, asshole!


----------



## BrianH (Apr 21, 2011)

Posted by Mr. Jones
2 There is a great deal of information indicating the fact that one of the first directives of the Bush administration upon taking office was to have the intelligence community back off of all investigations into Osama Bin Laden and his family.
Question: Why was the Bush administration protecting Bin Laden? Why do you ignore the close ties between the Bush family and the Bin Laden family?


My Answer

Bin Laden Ties


"*Al-Qaeda's spokesman*, Sulaiman Abu Ghaith, said in a video sent to al Jazeera and broadcast in October 2001 the following:

The Americans should know that the storm of plane attacks will not abate, with God's permission. There are thousands of the Islamic nation's youths who are eager to die just as the Americans are eager to live.[55]"

"In November 2001, *US forces recovered a videotape from a bombed house in Jalalabad*, Afghanistan which showed a man purported to be Osama bin Laden talking to Khaled al-Harbi. In the tape, bin Laden talks of planning the attacks. Translations from the tape include the following lines:

...we calculated in advance the number of casualties from the enemy, who would be killed based on the position of the tower. We calculated that the floors that would be hit would be three or four floors. I was the most optimistic of them all...We had notification since the previous Thursday that the event would take place that day. We had finished our work that day and had the radio on...Muhammad (Atta) from the Egyptian family (meaning the al-Qaeda Egyptian group), was in charge of the group...The brothers, who conducted the operation, all they knew was that they have a martyrdom operation and we asked each of them to go to America but they didn't know anything about the operation, not even one letter. But they were trained and we did not reveal the operation to them until they are there and just before they boarded the planes.[68]"

"
On February 11, 2003, Al Jazeera broadcast an audio tape purportedly from bin Laden.[70]

Shortly before the US presidential election in 2004, in a taped statement, bin Laden publicly acknowledged al-Qaeda's involvement in the attacks on the US, and admitted his direct link to the attacks. He said that the attacks were carried out because "we are a free people who do not accept injustice, and we want to regain the freedom of our nation."

In an audio message that surfaced on the Internet in May 2006 the speaker, who is alleged to be Osama bin Laden, defends Zacarias Moussaoui, who was undergoing a trial for his participation in the September 11 attacks. The voice in the audio message says

"I begin by talking about the honorable brother Zacarias Moussaoui. The truth is that he has no connection whatsoever with the events of September 11th, and I am certain of what I say, because I was responsible for entrusting the 19 brothers &#8212; Allah have mercy upon them &#8212; with those raids, and I did not assign brother Zacarias to be with them on that mission."[71]

Responsibility for the September 11 attacks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

*Osama doesn't matter...the fact that OTHER Al Qaeda members have claimed responsibility says enough.  Osama originally denied involvement, but it doesn't amount to a hill of beans.  The fact that the terrorist were linked to Al Qaeda says it all...  2 Down.*


----------



## BrianH (Apr 21, 2011)

Posted by Mr. Jones
3 Are you aware that Dov S. Zakheim, a former vice president of System Planning Corp., a defense contractor which makes remote control and flight termination products, was sworn in as the Under Secretary of Defense?
Question: Did you know that remote controlled flight was possible and that someone who was very involved with this technology was a member of the Bush administration?
System Planning Corporation
The Truth Seeker - Dov Zakheim and the 9/11 Conspiracy


My Answer

*
This relates directly (I'm assuming) to the "supposed POD" that was "supposedly" visible under the right wing of one of the airliners that hit the towers.  1st off, It's evidence via the 1962 Northwoods Document that you posted, that a droned plane (Even passenger plane) was capable at the time.  There's only one problem with this theory, passengers PHONED their homes and reported the plane being hijacked by muslims with box-cutters.   Is it really so hard to believe that a man who developed drone technology was involved with the government?  When I was a kid they made planes that you could fly around your house with a remote control..........  This proves nothing.....

 Now we get down to the pod itself.*

Where's The Pod?
"CLAIM: Photographs and video footage shot just before United Airlines Flight 175 hit the South Tower of the World Trade Center (WTC) show an object underneath the fuselage at the base of the right wing. The film "911 In Plane Site" and the Web site LetsRoll911.org claim that no such object is found on a stock Boeing 767. They speculate that this "military pod" is a missile, a bomb or a piece of equipment on an air-refueling tanker. LetsRoll911.org points to this as evidence that the attacks were an "inside job" sanctioned by "President George Bush, who planned and engineered 9/11."

FACT: One of the clearest, most widely seen pictures of the doomed jet's undercarriage was taken by photographer Rob Howard and published in New York magazine and elsewhere (opening page). PM sent a digital scan of the original photo to *Ronald Greeley, director of the Space Photography Laboratory at Arizona State University*. *Greeley is an expert at analyzing images to determine the shape and features of geological formations based on shadow and light effects*. After studying the high-resolution image and comparing it to photos of a Boeing 767-200ER's undercarriage, Greeley *dismissed the notion that the Howard photo reveals a "pod." *In fact, the photo reveals only the Boeing's right fairing, *a pronounced bulge that contains the landing gear*. He concludes that sunlight glinting off the fairing gave it an exaggerated look. "Such a glint causes a blossoming (enlargement) on film," he writes in an e-mail to PM, "which tends to be amplified in digital versions of images--the pixels are saturated and tend to 'spill over' to adjacent pixels." When asked about pods attached to civilian aircraft, Fred E. Culick, professor of aeronautics at the California Institute of Technology, gave a blunter response: "That's bull. They're really stretching."

Debunking the 9/11 Conspiracy theories

*3 Down*


----------



## BrianH (Apr 21, 2011)

Posted by Mr. Jones
4 During June 2001 the US was planning military action against Afghanistan.
QUESTION: Why was the US planning on military action against Afghanistan before the events of 9/11 took place? Why would Congress permit this? 9/11 was the official reason for the military action against Afghanistan.
BBC News | SOUTH ASIA | US 'planned attack on Taleban'
Question: Doesn&#8217;t common sense suggest to you that it might just be possible that the administration was in search of a legal and publicly acceptable excuse to attack Afghanistan and install a US friendly government with a former UNOCAL Oil company consultant, with ties to the Bush family business, as it&#8217;s new leader? 
Unocal Gets Its Pipeline Through Afghanistan

My Answer

"Precursor to the 9/11 attacksSee also: Terrorism and List of terrorist incidents
In May 1996 the group World Islamic Front for Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders (WIFJAJC), sponsored by Osama bin Laden and later reformed as al-Qaeda, started forming a large base of operations in Afghanistan, where the Islamist extremist regime of the Taliban had seized power that same year.[2]

Following the bombings of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania,[3] US President Bill Clinton launched Operation Infinite Reach, a bombing campaign in Sudan and Afghanistan against targets the US asserted were associated with WIFJAJC,[4][5] although others have questioned whether a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan was used as a chemical warfare plant. The plant produced much of the region's antimalarial drugs[6] and around 50% of Sudan's pharmaceutical needs.[7] The strikes failed to kill any leaders of WIFJAJC or the Taliban.[6]

Next came the 2000 millennium attack plots which included an attempted bombing of Los Angeles International Airport. In October 2000 the USS Cole bombing occurred, followed in 2001 by the September 11 attacks.[8]"

War on Terror - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

*We were bombing Afghanistan LONG before Sept. 11 2001. (I call this an attack, or war)  So the notion that we were planning an attack before 9/11...and some how connecting it to 9/11 itself, is bogus.  We'd been bombing targets in Afghanistan and Sudan.  We had several U.S. embassy's bombed, the U.S.S. Cole, and numerous other large scale plots against us before 9/11...so is it a big suprise that we were willing to step up operations against them?  Is it believable that perhaps G.W.B was planning to be a little more tougher on the Taliban than his predecessor?  Yes.  The fact that we were planning operations before Sept. 11 does not prove a conspiracy considering we had military operations in Afghanistan WAY before 9/11 was even an inkling in their eye.   If you studied history, you would also know that we had troops on the ground in Somalia in 1993 because of the fear of a radical muslim takeover (and the fact that the warlords were killing everyone and taking our aid.) 4 Down. *


----------



## BrianH (Apr 21, 2011)

Posted by Mr. Jones
5 Attorney General John Ashcroft stops flying commercial aircrafts three months before 9/11 due to threats.
Question: Why did he stop flying commercial aircrafts? What did he know?
Ashcroft Flying High - CBS News

My Answer:

*Using the same CBS link you provided, it says clearly that he stopped because of a threat assessment.  The FBI have used threat assessments for a long time.  John Ashcroft was simply follwing the protocol for a high ranking government official under that certain threat assessment.  At the bottom of the page it says that he relys on his own personal FBI security detail.  The threat could have been against Ashcroft himself.  He explains that he doesn't ever know what the actual threat is. *

"There was a threat assessment and there are guidelines. He is acting under the guidelines," an FBI spokesman said. Neither the FBI nor the Justice Department, however, would identify what the threat was, when it was detected or who made it."

"That idea, they said, came strictly from Ashcroft's FBI security detail. The FBI had no further comment"

Ashcroft Flying High - CBS News

*All this proves was that there was "SOME" type of threat that HIS security team deamed necessary enough for him to not fly commercial.  It does not, at all, have any links to 9/11---other than a truthers wandering eye-brows.  5 Down*


----------



## Mr. Jones (Apr 22, 2011)

BrianH said:


> *1 We Could Never Imagine Planes Used to Attack Us - We have been told that the US was not only unprepared for defending our nation against planes used as weapons but we were told by our National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice that we never imagined such a thing.
> Question: Why do you believe that the US was not prepared to prevent such an event when we had held drills for just such an event in the past?
> 
> USATODAY.com - NORAD had drills of jets as weapons
> ...



"In the two years before the Sept. 11 attacks, the North American Aerospace Defense Command conducted exercises simulating what the White House says was unimaginable at the time:* hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets and cause mass casualties*."
 Defending this lie by saying they practiced for "foreign" flights and not domestic aircraft is weak, and would not stand up as a good defense in front of a jury. The scenario was planes hitting buildings, who the hell cares where they come from if ultimately the planes are in our airspace?

*"One of the imagined targets was the World Trade Center. In another exercise, jets performed a mock shootdown over the Atlantic Ocean of a jet supposedly laden with chemical poisons headed toward a target in the United States. In a third scenario, the target was the Pentagon  but that drill was not run after Defense officials said it was unrealistic, NORAD and Defense officials say.

NORAD, in a written statement, confirmed that such hijacking exercises occurred. It said the scenarios outlined were regional drills, not regularly scheduled continent-wide exercises.

"Numerous types of civilian and military aircraft were used as mock hijacked aircraft," the statement said. "These exercises tested track detection and identification; scramble and interception; hijack procedures; internal and external agency coordination and operational security and communications security procedures."* 

It proves that Rice and the others who went on national TV and made the statement that "we couldn't *ever* imagine planes being used" was a deliberate lie. designed to give "oops" type of excuse and feign incompetence, rather then at least negligence, and at worst culpability.
 The fact that there were drills with plane hitting buildings scenarios, and the pentagon, raises suspicion, and calls her/their credibility into questionable territory.
Reasonable doubt is thus placed on her and the administrations credibility and statement.
1 lie is thus added to the sum of the whole.
Keep in mind that 1 instance did not convince me of negligence or a conspiracy, as we proceed forward and add up all these things most rational people will admit that there are just too many of these 'coincidences" misstatements, and inconsistencies to be believable.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Apr 22, 2011)

BrianH said:


> Posted by Mr. Jones
> 2 There is a great deal of information indicating the fact that one of the first directives of the Bush administration upon taking office was to have the intelligence community back off of all investigations into Osama Bin Laden and his family.
> Question: Why was the Bush administration protecting Bin Laden? Why do you ignore the close ties between the Bush family and the Bin Laden family?
> 
> ...



Question: Why was the Bush administration protecting Bin Laden? Why do you ignore the close ties between the Bush family and the Bin Laden family?

OBL was the alleged mastermind and spiritual leader that Bush swore to find "dead or alive". His name was plastered all over the MSM and was constantly drilled into the psyche of the American public. The fact that most of the public has no idea just how close the Bin ladens and the Bushs are was kept secret for good reason. The flights allowing the Bin Ladens to fly out of the country when all other flights were grounded is another proof of this strange conflict of interest friendship, and calls into question whether this "loyalty" to friends was put above the loyalty to the nation.
This does not prove a conspiracy, but yet again is but one piece of the overall picture people put together, that raises a reasonable doubt about the honesty, sincerity, and veracity to "find em dead or alive".
2 reasonable doubt sustained.

Bush - bin Laden family business connections


----------



## BrianH (Apr 22, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > *1 We Could Never Imagine Planes Used to Attack Us - We have been told that the US was not only unprepared for defending our nation against planes used as weapons but we were told by our National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice that we never imagined such a thing.
> ...



BUSH was not the president TWO years before September 11th.  Rice was not in her position two years before 9/11 either.  Do you think that as soon as the new presidents and cabinets take office that they are immediately (or ever) brought up to speed about every drill, test, or scenario that was EVER run by NORAD or any other government agency?  It is CRAZY to expect government officials to know about every drill or test that has ever been done.  Rice was simply stating that she and others around her couldn't have ever imagined it happening.  You can drill for all kinds of scenarios that you never imagine happening.  The President's job is NOT to know everything the FBI, CIA, and NORAD do..  What you have posted above does not prove anything.......still 1 down on this one.


----------



## BrianH (Apr 22, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > Posted by Mr. Jones
> ...



Your link only demonstrates the eventual (and not close) link to the Bin Laden family...NOT BIN LADEN HIMSELF.  And the link is amature at best.  You cannot post links like that and expect them to pass as being credible.  The bin laden family was (AND STILL ARE) are very wealthy Saudi family.  Is it really so hard to believe that the elite in the U.S. are connected in some way (by business) to an elite wealthy family in Saudi Arabia??   It's obvious that if you were apparently able to find information on the subject, then the government wasn't making an attempt to hide it.  It's funny how you can give credit to the government for creating this entire disaster, but aren't competent enough to hide a little information......  Like I said, this just links the Bush family LOOSELY to the bin laden family--who today are still considered as well respected Saudi family...


----------



## Mr. Jones (Apr 22, 2011)

BrianH said:


> Posted by Mr. Jones
> 3 Are you aware that Dov S. Zakheim, a former vice president of System Planning Corp., a defense contractor which makes remote control and flight termination products, was sworn in as the Under Secretary of Defense?
> Question: Did you know that remote controlled flight was possible and that someone who was very involved with this technology was a member of the Bush administration?
> System Planning Corporation
> ...



Um I made no mention of a "pod" and therefore you writing a half page about something that I did not mention is a 'foul" 

One of the companies that was the leader in remote flight technology being close to the administration and having office space at the WTC is *indeed of great of interest* since it has been claimed by experts in aviation, that the flight maneuvers the hijacked planes performed could not have been done by poorly trained flight school rejects, and again calls into question the credibility of the "we never ever thought it was possible statement" by the administration.
*
In a document called "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century" published by The American Enterprise's "Project for a New American Century"(1), System Planning Corporation (SPC) International executive, Dov Zakheim, called for "some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor" being necessary to foster the frame of mind needed for the American public to support a war in the Middle East..*

As for the phone calls, there is doubt as to whether these could have been made at the time in 2001.
 A test on January 23rd 2003, places doubt on this ability.
Physics911, by Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven, 9/11/2001


*This is the article, dating from September 9, 2008. Please read the chapterhttp://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20722.htmWas Evidence of Muslim Hijackers Provided by Phone Calls from the Airliners?I am not going to reproduce the chapter here, just give a short summary.Griffin basically denies that it has been proven that any cell phone calls have been made from any of the 4airplanes, except, maybe 2 calls from flight 93 while the plane was at low altitude, shortly before the crash.Griffin states that at the given height of 30.000+ feet and a cruising speed of say 500 mph successfully using cellphones from an airplane in 2001 were technically impossible.There was, however, a big problem with these reported calls: Given the technology available in 2001, cell phone calls from airliners at altitudes of more than a few thousand feet, especially calls lasting more than a few seconds, were not possible, and yet these calls, some of which reportedly lasted a minute or more, reportedly occurred when the planes were above 30,000 or even40,000 feet.Some credible people, including scientist A.K. Dewdney,who for many years had written a column for Scientific American, explained this problem.The FBI delivered the information about said phone calls.*

The FBI HAD A HABIT OF CHANGING ITS STORY.

*This suspicion is reinforced by the FBI's change of story inrelation to United Flight 93.Although we were originally told that this flight had beenthe source of about a dozen cell phone calls, some of them when the plane was above 40,000 feet, the FBIgave a very different report at the 2006 trial of ZacariasMoussaoui, the so-called 20th hijacker.The FBI spokesman said "13 of the terrified passengersand crew members made 35 air phone calls and two cellphone calls."38 Instead of there having been about adozen cell phone calls from Flight 93, the FBI declared in2005, there were really only two.*

The phone calls can not be proven as true, and if a jury takes the past FBI "inconsistencies" mistakes, and half truths into account, and weighs their testimony against credible scientist and tech people
who would testify about the ability to "morph" voicing phone calls, and who one of the leaders of such technology is, and the connections of said company...well it creates yet another reasonable doubt to a jury.

*A 1999 Washington Post article described demonstrationsin which the voices of two generals, Colin Powell and CarlSteiner, were heard saying things they had never said.*

*But what about the sound samples necessary to fake the voices of the passengers using sound morphing technologies.*

*The article, titled http
 http//www.antiwar.com/orig/ketcham.php?articleid=13506'Trojan horse -
How Israeli Backdoor Technology Penetrated the US Government's Tele com System and Compromised National Security'...Is about large scale Israeli infiltration of computer systems of the American government.*

Further on in the article the Israeli firm Amdocs is mentioned.
Some of the key Israeli-run companies linked to Guardiumare
Amdocs, ViryaNet, Nice Systems, and CreoScitex
senior officers of Israeli militaryintelligence run all these companies.

More on this technology, the connections to 9-11 and Israel, can be found here
Chapter 8 The Fake 9/11 Phone Calls
 AND to see how it connects to the elected administration at the time all one has to do is educate themselves on the PNAC, and who was involved with the PNAC.

This creates a huge conflict of interest as some of those involved are
dual citizens of US and Israel.
Yet another tantalizing twist that has been kept out of the average Americans view as it would raise eyebrows, lots of questions and doubt.
So that's 3 I have countered and proven so far that there is reasonable doubt to question the official version, and that calls for a truly independent investigation where all of these revelations and details can be shown.

Chapter 8 The Fake 9/11 Phone Calls

* These facts about Dov Zakheim, his close alliance with the US government his company and remote aircraft, and the fact he was a contributor and signed off on the PNAC policies, along with the testimony by experts in aviation as to the hijacked flights track and maneuvers, would be very interesting to a jury in a 9-11 criminal trial, along with the cell phone technology testimony, and we have another seed of reasonable doubt planted in the minds of jurors.
This make 4 counters to your claims that none of this is worth while or that shows no possible complicity. *


----------



## Mr. Jones (Apr 22, 2011)

BrianH said:


> Posted by Mr. Jones
> 5 Attorney General John Ashcroft stops flying commercial aircrafts three months before 9/11 due to threats.
> Question: Why did he stop flying commercial aircrafts? What did he know?
> Ashcroft Flying High - CBS News
> ...


*
That's right it proves there was a threat to the nation in the form of terrorism using hijacked planes that Condi and the others pretended they had no clue about. The point is that our defenses and those in charge were very aware of this threat and that people in the administration knew about it, and all of this further proves that they lied about "never imagining" this type of attack could happen!
Reasonable doubt sustained yet again.*

TENET RECALLS WARNING RICE
*Former CIA director George Tenet told the 9/11 Commission that he had ... for the meeting was partly based on his being aware of the Phoenix memo. ... The truth is that the Bush Administration did have enough time to stop the 9/11 ...*

*Shes lost all credibility working for an administration that has lost all of its credibility.*

*Tenet's statements to the commission in January 2004 confirm the outlines of an event in a new book by Washington Post Assistant Managing Editor Bob Woodward that has been disputed by some Bush administration officials. But the testimony also is at odds with Woodward's depiction of Tenet and former CIA counterterrorism chief J. Cofer Black as being frustrated that "they were not getting through to Rice" after the July 10, 2001, meeting.*

Tenet Recalled Warning Rice - washingtonpost.com

How many lives could have been saved if Ashcroft would have went on TV to relay his own fears and concerns, enough for HIM to alter his travel planning, instead of going on TV to tell us what color the "terrorism" alerts were for the day?
Reasonable doubt raised as to the credibility of the entire Bush administration, as by now a jury would be thinking they are a bunch of bald faced liars engaged in a cover up.

*The truth is that the Bush Administration did have enough time to stop the 9/11 attacks if they had connected the dots. She was told repeatedly that al-Qaida was planning to attack the US. The Clinton team warned her in February, Richard Clark warned her repeatedly, a report was even issued entitiled Bin Laden Determined To Attack Inside The United States. Now we hear that the CIA warned her that al-Qaida on July 10, 2001, still months before the attacks occurred and Rice did nothing. All she can say in her defense is that no one could have anticipated that al-Qaida was planning to attack the US.*

Tenet Recalled Warning Rice
Number 5 easily handled with no problem.
 So far you are doing nothing to advance or solidify your stance that the American public have no cause for concern. What ever the stance
be it negligence, willful or not, or LIHOP, or MIHOP, the reasons for doubting the official version should be quite obvious to any clear thinking juror.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Apr 22, 2011)

BrianH said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > BrianH said:
> ...



The truth is that the Bush Administration did have enough time to stop the 9/11 attacks if they had connected the dots. She was told repeatedly that Al Qaeda was planning to attack the US. The Clinton team warned her in February, Richard Clark warned her repeatedly, a report was even issued entitled Bin Laden Determined To Attack Inside The United States. Now we hear that the CIA warned her that Al Qaeda on July 10, 2001, still months before the attacks occurred and Rice did nothing. All she can say in her defense is that no one could have anticipated that Al Qaeda was planning to attack the US.
Your excuse does not fly, linked proven, raises enough reasonable doubt and thoroughly debunked-you lose.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Apr 22, 2011)

BrianH said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > BrianH said:
> ...


----------



## Patriot911 (Apr 22, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > *1 We Could Never Imagine Planes Used to Attack Us - We have been told that the US was not only unprepared for defending our nation against planes used as weapons but we were told by our National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice that we never imagined such a thing.
> ...



  What a lying piece of shit Jones is.  Notice how he completely ignores Rice's clarification the next day that some parts of the government were aware of the threat of using planes as weapons.  Apparently according to dishonest truthtards, if ANYONE in the government knows about it, then the ENTIRE government should know about it.    Regardless, this is just another example of the extreme dishonesty from truthtards in only showing everyone HALF the story and making up the other half to fit their bullshit agendas.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Apr 22, 2011)

BrianH said:


> Posted by Mr. Jones
> 4 During June 2001 the US was planning military action against Afghanistan.
> QUESTION: Why was the US planning on military action against Afghanistan before the events of 9/11 took place? Why would Congress permit this? 9/11 was the official reason for the military action against Afghanistan.
> BBC News | SOUTH ASIA | US 'planned attack on Taleban'
> ...



The bombing or attacks were not a response to the Afghanistan nation it self, they were designed to cause minimal casualties to civilians, and  and still any administration would need congress approval to actually allow "boots on the ground" 9-11 was the perfect reason to launch an all out invasion and hostilities against the nation of Afghanistan. The "Pearl Harbor" the PNAC writers discussed.
 Your assertion that  .





> .we had military operations in Afghanistan WAY before 9/11..


 Is BS and a lie!
It should be noted that the Taliban/Afghans agreed to hand over OBL if the US could show them and for that matter , the world , proof of OBL complicity in 9-11. The US could not, or refused, this is a documented fact.
The Cheney energy policies and meetings, and the oil and gas pipelines that they were having trouble obtaining and securing, are motive enough to once again raise a reasonable doubt in jurors minds. Just one more piece of the very big puzzle that most people who only parrot the official version, know nothing about.

*26 June 2001: India and Iran will "facilitate" US and Russian plans for "limited military action"
against the Taliban if the contemplated tough new economic sanctions don't bend Afghanistan's fundamentalist regime...*

*Military action will be the last option though it now seems scarcely avoidable with the UN banned from Taliban controlled areas.*

In the summer of 2001, while the American media kept the people distracted with "All Condit All The Time", the US Government was informing other governments that we would be at war in Afghanistan no later than October.

*How lucky for our government that just when they are planning to invade another country, for the express purpose of removing that government, a convenient "terrorist" attack occurs to anger Americans (and congress) into support for an invasion.*

*9/11 radio broadcast: "The Director of the CIA warned that there could be an attack&#8212;an imminent attack&#8212;on the United States of this nature. So this is not entirely unexpected." *

*9/11 CBS9 broadcast: "There are contigency plans set to go, and the plans have been set to go for several weeks now on what to do if Osama bin Laden were to plan a very large attack, and they've selected targets in Afghanistan, and you can be sure that if it is Osama bin Laden that the US will probably retaliate, and retaliate massively."*

*"To be truthful about it, there was no way we could have got the public consent to have suddenly launched a campaign on Afghanistan but for what happened on September 11."
Tony Blair. July 17, 2002 *

Michael Meacher: This war on terrorism is bogus | Politics | The Guardian

9-11 made all of the planning worthwhile, and stirred up the needed sentiment, and recruits to go to war.
You have failed to prove why we should believe the official version again, and BTW you have been caught stretching the truth to fit your theories many times now, as I pointed out above with your
"we had military operations IN Afghanistan..." quote proves.

Remember that the Truth Movement wants a new investigation in order to shed light on the many things that have not been made public and brought to the attention of the American citizen. Every piece of the puzzle is not, nor could not "prove" a conspiracy on its own, therefore, ANY and ALL information about the players involved and their CONNECTIONS to others, including corporations, dual citizens and their ideology etc., have to be made no matter how tedious, or how insignificant a certain piece may seem at the time. It is the sum of the WHOLE when these dots are connected that is expected to raise the serious concerns that the events of 9-11 merits.

 Also Wikipedia is not considered the end all credible source of information. I suggest you choose better sources when trying to prove your claims.

Question 
How do I get students to realize that Wikipedia should not be used as a credible source (especially as they enter college), even though some of the information is factually accurate?
Answer 
Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales is quite clear about the uses of Wikipedia. Asked, "Do you think students and researchers should cite Wikipedia? during an interview with Business Week in 2005, he replied, "No, I don't think people should cite it, and I don't think people should cite Britannica, either... People shouldn't be citing encyclopedias in the first place. Wikipedia and other encyclopedias should...give good, solid background information to inform your studies for a deeper level."

Researching with Wikipedia points out that few articles are of encyclopedic quality when they first appear&#8212;they may be unbalanced, biased, and incomplete, and it takes time for contributors to find consensus. 
http://teachinghistory.org/digital-classroom/ask-a-digital-historian/23863


----------



## Patriot911 (Apr 22, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> The truth is that the Bush Administration did have enough time to stop the 9/11 attacks if they had connected the dots. She was told repeatedly that Al Qaeda was planning to attack the US. The Clinton team warned her in February, Richard Clark warned her repeatedly, a report was even issued entitled Bin Laden Determined To Attack Inside The United States. Now we hear that the CIA warned her that Al Qaeda on July 10, 2001, still months before the attacks occurred and Rice did nothing. All she can say in her defense is that no one could have anticipated that Al Qaeda was planning to attack the US.
> Your excuse does not fly, linked proven, raises enough reasonable doubt and thoroughly debunked-you lose.



First off, it isn't an administration that connects the dots.  Is there ANYTHING you won't flat out lie about?  It is the CIA and FBI that connect the dots and the people in the field doing the work don't change with the administration.  

Second, being a moronic monday morning quarterback and pretending the dots were easy to connect is right on par for a dishonest piece of shit like you.

Third, not one report ever mentions the time, place, or method of attack.  Sure, to a dishonest fuck like you that doesn't mean anything, but to us here in the real world it means they were warned of a possible attack and that's it.  

Fourth, why are you now pretending that Al Qaeda attacked and not our own government?    You really need to make up what little mind you have left and pick which theory you want to go with.  Was the government behind it or did the government make mistakes?  Pick one.  

Fifth, what exactly was Rice suppose to DO?  You sit there whining like a little bitch that she should have done something, but you never say what she could have done that would have prevented 9/11.  Put out a hit on Bin Laden?  That wouldn't have stopped anything.  I have no respect for whiny bitches that whine about what happened, yet have no clue what could have been done about it.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Apr 22, 2011)

*The Bush Administration's Top 40 Lies about War and Terrorism*

An interesting read that shows that the administration was caught lying about the many aspects of the Iraq war and terrorism. A noteworthy few are-
2) The invasion of Iraq was based on a reasonable belief that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction that posed a threat to the U.S., a belief supported by available intelligence evidence.

_Paul Wolfowitz admitted to Vanity Fair that weapons of mass destruction were not really the main reason for invading Iraq: "The decision to highlight weapons of mass destruction as the main justification for going to war in Iraq was taken for bureaucratic reasons.... [T]here were many other important factors as well." Right. But they did not come under the heading of self-defense. _
_We now know how the Bushmen gathered their prewar intelligence: They set out to patch together their case for invading Iraq and ignored everything that contradicted it._

3) Saddam tried to buy uranium in Niger. 
_Lies and distortions tend to beget more lies and distortions, and here is W's most notorious case in point: Once the administration decided to issue a damage-controlling (they hoped) mea culpa in the matter of African uranium, they were obliged to couch it in another, more perilous lie: that the administration, and quite likely Bush himself, thought the uranium claim was true when he made it. But former acting ambassador to Iraq Joseph Wilson wrote an op-ed in the New York Times on July 6 that exploded the claim. Wilson, who traveled to Niger in 2002 to investigate the uranium claims at the behest of the CIA and Dick Cheney's office and found them to be groundless, ..._

4) The aluminum tubes were proof of a nuclear program. 
_The very next sentence of Bush's State of the Union address was just as egregious a lie as the uranium claim, though a bit cagier in its formulation. "Our intelligence sources tell us that [Saddam] has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production." This is altogether false in its implication (that this is the likeliest use for these materials) and may be untrue in its literal sense as well... _

5) Iraq's WMDs were sent to Syria for hiding.
_Or Iran, or.... "They shipped them out!" was a rallying cry for the administration in the first few nervous weeks of finding no WMDs, but not a bit of supporting evidence has emerged. _

7) An International Atomic Energy Agency report indicated that Iraq _could be as little as six months from making nuclear weapons.
Alas: The claim had to be retracted when the IAEA pointed out that no such report existed. _

8) Saddam was involved with bin Laden and al Qaeda in the plotting of 9/11. 
_According to former State Department intelligence chief Gregory Thielman, the consensus of U.S. intelligence agencies well in advance of the war was that "there was no significant pattern of cooperation between Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist operation." _

14) The Bush administration has nothing to hide concerning the events of September 11, 2001, or the intelligence evidence collected prior to that day.

_First Dick Cheney personally intervened to scuttle a broad congressional investigation of the day's events and their origins. And for the past several months the administration has fought a quiet rear-guard action culminating in last week's delayed release of Congress's more modest 9/11 report. The White House even went so far as to classify after the fact materials that had already been presented in public hearing.

What were they trying to keep under wraps? The Saudi connection, mostly, and though 27 pages of the details have been excised from the public report, there is still plenty of evidence lurking in its extensively massaged text. (When you see the phrase "foreign nation" substituted in brackets, it's nearly always Saudi Arabia.) _

Just a few of the many lies, that dupes who support the official version don't want you to mention. It is amazing how OCTAs will go out of their way to defend such liars, even when the lies are exposed and made public. It just goes to show that they would rather defend such lies and live in the fantasy of "being right" then admit the truth to themselves and others that they were duped like the rest of us.

The Bush Administration's Top 40 Lies about War and Terrorism


----------



## Patriot911 (Apr 22, 2011)

Still waiting for you to produce a single piece of real evidence your bullshit claims are true, Jonsie.  When are you going to get around to it?  According to you silly fucks, you have tons of court-admissible evidence all over the place.  Why is it so hard to produce just one piece?  It is not like I am demanding you show us ALL the evidence.....


----------



## BrianH (Apr 22, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > Posted by Mr. Jones
> ...



Are you kidding?  Condi was NOT IN OFFICE at the time of the NORAD exercises.  You are treating the "government" as if it's one entity that knows everything about itself.  How can you expect Condi and Bush to have had any idea that NORAD did exercises on such events?  Prior to 9/11, why would NORAD have had ANY REASON to notify Bush and Condi personally of these exercises.  All that this means is that our government, two years prior to 911, held exercises on possible scenarios.  That's it.  There is no connection to anything.  It's another example of you creating dots that aren't there.  Hindsight is 20/20.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Apr 23, 2011)

BrianH said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > BrianH said:
> ...



So you would believe then that AFTER the attacks the president and his top advisors wouldn't know about the drills, tests and advanced prior knowledge?
After all, they went on record AFTER the attacks saying how they had no idea and that we never would have thought it possible....
You give them less credit than we do!


----------



## candycorn (Apr 23, 2011)

BrianH said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > BrianH said:
> ...



It literally never ends does it.  You know, in the 1800's we ran drills for pirate attacks.  If the Pirates attack us whoever is president in 2188 better be ready!  Twoofers are little pieces of shit.


----------



## candycorn (Apr 23, 2011)

TakeAStepBack said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



So you would believe that after Clinton, Bush kept the same military people in charge who had categorical knowledge of their armed forces drills?  Lets see Richard Myers became JCS chair in September 2001.  Lets say he did--the PMA to the President. He calls the SECAF to ask about drills.  The SECAF at the time, Roche hadn't been in the military since 1983.  He most likely is privy to operational names--none of which will be named "OPERATION WTC STRIKE BY HIJACKED AIRCRAFT ORIGINATING IN THE US"    

It's not only possible, its likely.  Twoofers have some sort of belief that their leaders are all experts in every field and are walking dictionaries about all that happened before their commands.  Its a totally ignorant view that comes from smoking way too much pot and spending way too much time in front of the Playstation.  Get a life.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Apr 23, 2011)

So you agree that at the very least, that administration was beyond any level of competency. Yes, I would believe that the president and his top advisors would have combed over all relevant information about what the FBI, CIA and military know in conjunction with the attacks before speaking to the public. It's totally ignorant view to suggest otherwise, that comes from spending too much time with ones head completely up their own ass and trying desperately to keep make believe reality. Come to reality.

Unless of course, there was something to hide or a reason to look incompetent.


----------



## candycorn (Apr 23, 2011)

TakeAStepBack said:


> So you agree that at the very least, that administration was beyond any level of competency. Yes, I would believe that the president and his top advisors would have combed over all relevant information about what the FBI, CIA and military know in conjunction with the attacks before speaking to the public. It's totally ignorant view to suggest otherwise, that comes from spending too much time with ones head completely up their own ass and trying desperately to keep make believe reality. Come to reality.
> 
> Unless of course, there was something to hide or a reason to look incompetent.


\

Whats your reason for looking incompetent?


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Apr 23, 2011)

This isn't about me. This is about the empirical scientific and circumstantial evidence proving question beyond any reasonable doubt that the official story is bullshit and that there is a lot more to it than the world was told.

But go ahead and project. It only makes you look incompetent. You can have the ignore list to for trying to waste my time.


----------



## BrianH (Apr 23, 2011)

TakeAStepBack said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



It's not about credit.  It's about the vastness and complexity of the U.S. government.  The president does no know EVERYTHING that goes on from a day to day basis.  Do you think NORAD called the president as soon as he was elected and said, "Hey, just so you know, we did some drills today involving the possibility of an attack involving airplanes."  Of course they didn't.  On top of that, we don't know WHEN the Bush administration found out about the drills.

USA Today Front Page: NORAD had Pre-9/11 Drills of Hijacked Jets as Weapons

HEre is a link to the USA Today article.  

It says specifically (By a NORAD official) in the article that the events of Sept. 11 were not anticipated or exercised.  IT also says that the hijacked plane exercise and anticipations were that of airplanes coming from outside the nation...not inside.  Later in 2001 there was a drill done that involved two hijacked planes from Utah and Washington, however, this drill and exercise, itself, didn't involve them being used as weapons.  The drill was carried out by military planes escorting the planes into an airport.  

Here's a quote from the NORAD commander at the end of the article.
"We have planned and executed numerous scenarios over the years to include aircraft *originating from foreign *airports penetrating our sovereign airspace," Gen. Ralph Eberhart, NORAD commander, told USA TODAY. *"Regrettably, the tragic events of 9/11 were never anticipated or exercised."*


----------



## BrianH (Apr 23, 2011)

TakeAStepBack said:


> So you agree that at the very least, that administration was beyond any level of competency. Yes, I would believe that the president and his top advisors would have combed over all relevant information about what the FBI, CIA and military know in conjunction with the attacks before speaking to the public. It's totally ignorant view to suggest otherwise, that comes from spending too much time with ones head completely up their own ass and trying desperately to keep make believe reality. Come to reality.
> 
> Unless of course, there was something to hide or a reason to look incompetent.



People expect the President to make statements immediately after an event.  If Bush had taken the days, possibly weeks, to review all of the information, people would have been saying "where's Bush? Where's our president?"  He's have been chastised for that.  Truthers give the government WAY to much credit most of the time, but then tend to think they're, all of a sudden, incompetent when it comes to leaving behind crucial "evidence" that a college student can come up with........
Judging by the current "actions" or "inaction" of the current President, it's obvious that the sitting President doesn't know about everything that goes on in the world.  Obama either makes knee-jerk decisions or doesn't act at all we he needs to. 

THe statement by COndi said the "whitehouse" didn't believe this type of attack was possible.  She said nothing about NORAD or any other government agency.  ON TOP OF THAT, if you were the guy writing up the drills, would YOU be the first one to step forward after this attack and take a bullet?  Would YOU be the one to blast over to the white house the same day and say  "Well listen guys, we did drill for this?"


----------



## BrianH (Apr 23, 2011)

TakeAStepBack said:


> This isn't about me. This is about the empirical scientific and circumstantial evidence proving question beyond any reasonable doubt that the official story is bullshit and that there is a lot more to it than the world was told.
> 
> But go ahead and project. It only makes you look incompetent. You can have the ignore list to for trying to waste my time.



No one here has claimed that the official story is 100% correct.  That's the problem with you truthers.  There's no inbetween with you guys.  IT's either one thing or the other, black and white.  I haven't claimed that the official story is the entire truth.  What I have claimed, is that truthers have no come up with any concrete evidence that the government either did it or let it happen.  What truthers have is a few things, that in their opinion, "raise eyebrows" to a few people.  The truthers on these boards will post something as ABSOULTE EVIDENCE even though it will contradict them in the same article. They will post a video that is supposed to be "proof," but then when you look the video up, the truthers cut out a CRUCIAL part of the video that explains what it is and completely contradicts what the truther is trying to say.  Mr. JOnes has proven this time and time again as he's posted articles and/or documents to "prove" his point while I've taken the same thing he's posted and pointed out passages in each document that refute what he's saying.... It's an endless cycle of bias.  Truthers can't keep posting articles from truther sites an claim that these sites are somehow valid.


----------



## candycorn (Apr 23, 2011)

TakeAStepBack said:


> This isn't about me. This is about the empirical scientific and circumstantial evidence proving question beyond any reasonable doubt that the official story is bullshit and that there is a lot more to it than the world was told.
> 
> But go ahead and project. It only makes you look incompetent. You can have the ignore list to for trying to waste my time.



I would have to imagine you're not as dumb as you look...that would be impossible.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Apr 24, 2011)

BrianH said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > So you agree that at the very least, that administration was beyond any level of competency. Yes, I would believe that the president and his top advisors would have combed over all relevant information about what the FBI, CIA and military know in conjunction with the attacks before speaking to the public. It's totally ignorant view to suggest otherwise, that comes from spending too much time with ones head completely up their own ass and trying desperately to keep make believe reality. Come to reality.
> ...



I've already countered your claim of them not being aware in a prior post that you either didn't read again, or totally ignored.
Facts like the transition phase between incoming and outgoing administrations, that is for bringing them up to speed and facts like Richard Clarke and others sounding the alarm bells, not to mention all the prior attacks that even you mentioned...These people had to have known..either LIHOP, OR MIHOP, but the incompetence excuse just don't fly.
These people are the leaders of the world essentially, and they are THAT stupid and unaware?? Shit, so you're saying most of the public was more aware of the threats then the nations leaders??


----------



## Mr. Jones (Apr 24, 2011)

BrianH said:


> No one here has claimed that the official story is 100% correct.  That's the problem with you truthers.


There are quite a few of you that say as much and try to gloss over the many glaring inconsistencies and strange anomalies that have not been questioned or adequately explained. One example is some of you OCTAS always saying the 9-11 commission is right on all the major points! How can this be so when a lot of the facts were not even presented nor allowed to be discussed? And they now reject the report because it is not totally accurate!



> There's no inbetween with you guys.  IT's either one thing or the other, black and white.  I haven't claimed that the official story is the entire truth.  What I have claimed, is that truthers have no come up with any concrete evidence that the government either did it or let it happen.


 By them lying and having to come up with outrageous theories that they haven't even proven close to being plausible, is the reasons that many think there was some complicity by certain people in government positions.




> What truthers have is a few things, that in their opinion, "raise eyebrows" to a few people.  The truthers on these boards will post something as ABSOULTE EVIDENCE even though it will contradict them in the same article.


What we have is ABSOLUTE evidence of them lying, absolute evidence that counters their version and provides and alternate explanation, and this provides absolute proof that a new non politically based investigation is needed. What the outcome based on all the new evidence of this and the cover up will produce we can not say for certain, but there is enough to make people think LIHOP, or MIHOP, or extreme dereliction of duty or negligence at the very least.




> They will post a video that is supposed to be "proof," but then when you look the video up, the truthers cut out a CRUCIAL part of the video that explains what it is and completely contradicts what the truther is trying to say.  Mr. JOnes has proven this time and time again as he's posted articles and/or documents to "prove" his point while I've taken the same thing he's posted and pointed out passages in each document that refute what he's saying.... It's an endless cycle of bias.  Truthers can't keep posting articles from truther sites an claim that these sites are somehow valid.


You are probably referring to the NWDS document again, where my rebuttals show, that you were wrong. One instance of them trying to prevent the deaths of black ops agents by using a drone, does not mean that not a single American would have died in such a plot, as I have shown you, many Americans and innocents would have perished

 Also..the many videos of the WTC buildings coming down, with the witnesses to explosions, and prior knowledge, and the scientific and engineering studies that found thermite, and that show the very highly improbability of the official version being true say a lot and back up the truth movements suspicions.
Again like I said before, 1 piece of the puzzle does not a conspiracy make or prove, it is the sum of the many many pieces that make up the whole story that points to certain people and countries looking very suspicious and or responsible.
You admit that the version of 9-11 is not entirely correct, yet you fight against those that want a new investigation because of it.


----------



## candycorn (Apr 24, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > No one here has claimed that the official story is 100% correct.  That's the problem with you truthers.
> ...



Please quote an inaccuracy in the report that is germane to the major points/events of that day.  You can't.  You won't.  I win.  You lose.

Next!


----------



## psikeyhackr (Apr 24, 2011)

candycorn said:


> Please quote an inaccuracy in the report that is germane to the major points/events of that day.  You can't.  You won't.  I win.  You lose.
> 
> Next!



If a report takes 3 years to produce and has 10,000 pages and cost $20,000,000 and uses the word concrete over 3,000 times but *never specifies* the total amount to concrete in the towers even though it mentions the total amount of steel in 3 places that is not an inaccuracy.

That is just a trivial omission.

That fact that the steel had to hold up the concrete is of no consequence.

psik


----------



## Rozman (Apr 24, 2011)

eots said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > grim0187 said:
> ...



The cause of the collapse of the twin towers was the design it self.The strength was in the
outside of the buildings the skin if you will.When a tremendous tear was made and the jet fuel feeding the flames and then the floors had no support and pancaked down one floor on top of the next.

To throw that explanation aside and hold to the concept of some massive coverup and demolition is....well insane plain and simple.    

To have a conspiracy of this magnitude and not have even one person come forward all these years later looking to come clean pretty much proves it was what it was.It wasn't some freedom fighters performing an act of bravery like Bill Maher suggests.It was a diabolic evil plan using terrorists tactics in a free and open society.


----------



## candycorn (Apr 24, 2011)

psikeyhackr said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Please quote an inaccuracy in the report that is germane to the major points/events of that day.  You can't.  You won't.  I win.  You lose.
> ...



The commission report has something like 500 pages....but whatever.  You're an ass.


----------



## BrianH (Apr 25, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > TakeAStepBack said:
> ...



Are you saying that the Bush administration was notified of the NORAD drills before 9/11?  Where is your proof of this?  Where is your proof that Bush and Condi were specifically told  of the NORAD drills during this "transition" phase where everyone is brought up to speed?  THE NORAD COMMANDER HIMSELF SAID THAT THE EVENTS OF 9/11 WERE NOT ANTICIPATD OR EXERCISED BY NORAD....IT SAYS THIS IN THE ARTICLE ITSELF.  

This is once again your inate ability to make more of something than what it is.  The NORAD drills are explained in the article itself and nowhere does it talk of commerical airliners hitting the WTC...IN FACT, it says that they discredited the thought of one hitting the Pentagon because it was thought thought to be impossible.


----------



## BrianH (Apr 25, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > No one here has claimed that the official story is 100% correct.  That's the problem with you truthers.
> ...



You'r are truly delusional if you think you "won" the NWD debate.  I'm done debating you.  You are the most close minded invididual on the planet.  You're so close minded that you can't do your own research, but instead copy and paste other people's research without reading it yourself.  I've taken two documents that you've used  in the last few pages and found stuff IN THE DOCUMENTS that refute what you're trying to use the documents for.  This is a true sign of an idiot.


----------



## BrianH (Apr 26, 2011)

Wiki leaks has just released classified documents that Al Qeada planned further attacks immediately following the Sept 11 attacks.  This document, posted by one of the biggest critics of the U.S. government, proves that was Al Qeada responsible. If this was such a big conspiracy, why allow this document to exist?


----------



## Mr. Jones (Apr 27, 2011)

BrianH said:


> You'r are truly delusional if you think you "won" the NWD debate.  I'm done debating you.  You are the most close minded invididual on the planet.  You're so close minded that you can't do your own research, but instead copy and paste other people's research without reading it yourself.  I've taken two documents that you've used  in the last few pages and found stuff IN THE DOCUMENTS that refute what you're trying to use the documents for.  This is a true sign of an idiot.


The NWDs doc indeed proves that there were people who would put Americans in harms way, with the very real and high possibility of getting them killed, and they show they were willing to kill innocent people in the process also. What you purposely do is put one part of the doc. under a microscope, while ignoring the overall bigger picture of what a false flag is designed to achieve. Anyone with an open mind will see this, but you avoid it so you can claim some kind of weak victory 
It is you that is delusional, and your arguments are weak and pathetic. I would post more evidence about the Norad drills, but you are dead set on the opinion the leaders you elect are idiots and have no clue about the threats to the nation they are sworn to protect. It really is ironic that truthers give the Bush administration more credit, when it comes to this, then you people!


----------



## Mr. Jones (Apr 27, 2011)

BrianH said:


> Wiki leaks has just released classified documents that Al Qeada planned further attacks immediately following the Sept 11 attacks.  This document, posted by one of the biggest critics of the U.S. government, proves that was Al Qeada responsible. If this was such a big conspiracy, why allow this document to exist?


 You simply have no idea do you?  Carry on with your head up your ass you dope.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Apr 27, 2011)

Right?
Total cognitive disonance.


----------



## BrianH (Apr 27, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > Wiki leaks has just released classified documents that Al Qeada planned further attacks immediately following the Sept 11 attacks.  This document, posted by one of the biggest critics of the U.S. government, proves that was Al Qeada responsible. If this was such a big conspiracy, why allow this document to exist?
> ...



Oh good!  You got it!  I just did the same thing you dumb-asses do when you post a document and then claim it is absolute proof of something when it is most obviously not.  You've done it throughout this thread, I was just seeing if you recognized you're own stupid strategy...It's amazing what you twoofers will cherry-pick....lol


----------



## BrianH (Apr 27, 2011)

mr. Jones said:


> brianh said:
> 
> 
> > you'r are truly delusional if you think you "won" the nwd debate.  I'm done debating you.  You are the most close minded invididual on the planet.  You're so close minded that you can't do your own research, but instead copy and paste other people's research without reading it yourself.  I've taken two documents that you've used  in the last few pages and found stuff in the documents that refute what you're trying to use the documents for.  This is a true sign of an idiot.
> ...



you used the nwd to justify your opinion that  the u.s. Was willing to murder 3,000 civlians on 9/11.  This document cannnot even  be loosely connected to 9/11.  If you are suggesting that 9/11 was a false-flag attack, either mihop or lihop, then the nwd does not illustrate anything, because even if it did prove the u.s. Was willing to take casualties, they would be military casualites *after* a false-flag attack, and not during.  And that's excluding, of course, that all of the scenarios in the nwd were described *in detail* that measures would be taken to not harm our personell in the initiation and carrying out of the false-flag attacks.  The attempt of your delusional mind to make anything more of it is simply that...delusional.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Apr 27, 2011)

BrianH said:


> > you used the nwd to justify your opinion that  the u.s. Was willing to murder 3,000 civlians on 9/11.
> 
> 
> Read the exchange that started this debate.. Way back a few pages the exchange started with this statement by me..
> ...


----------



## Mr. Jones (Apr 27, 2011)

BrianH said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > BrianH said:
> ...



The NWDs document is an official document that outlines a plan to deceive the nation at large into a military response and war that would kill many innocent Americans and innocent Cubans, that was why I posted it, because it IS proof that backs up my original statement here-

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3530456-post151.html
 And you still have found no counter to this claim


----------



## Mr. Jones (Apr 27, 2011)

BrianH said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > BrianH said:
> ...



 Now you are again resorting to having to nit pic about Norad drills specifically! We are talking about whether the Bush administration saying they had no idea of impending attacks have any merit!

*  Heres what we know.  During the summer immediately prior to 9/11, Italian, Israeli, Jordanian, Egyptian, Tunisian, Moroccan, Russian, Malaysian, Filipino and British intelligence agencies warned the Bush administration that al Qaida was planning a large terrorist hit in the U.S.  Many of these agencies accurately speculated upon both the targets and the means by which they would be attacked.  The Filipino report, according to The New York Times, detailed the cross-country odyssey of one would-be terrorist as he attended flight schools in New York, Texas, California and North Carolina in order to learn the skills needed to precisely fly a jumbo jet directly into a target.*
*
In the months leading up to 9/11, other FBI offices around the country followed suit, warning about the potential use of airplanes as terrorist weapons, with the most recent warning coming out of the Phoenix office in July of 2002, less than two months before 9/11.  Officials in Minneapolis were more specific, and had already identified Zacarias Moussaoui as one of the would-be hijackers.*

* The Bush folks countered that such an attack was unforeseeable.  Unthinkable.  But in 1995, Ramsi Yousef, the mastermind of the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, revealed plans to fly a hijacked jetliner into the CIAs headquarters in Virginia.  Filipino police, according to The Associated Press, recently warned that another such plan was in the works.  None of this was new.  In 1994, Algerian hijackers attempted to use an Air France jetliner to destroy the Eiffel Tower, only to be thwarted during a stop on the ground in Marseille.  The unthinkable was clearly thinkable, planned, and already attempted. *

*  A 1999 study commissioned by the U.S, government also foresaw the unforeseeable, reporting that al Qaida wanted to crash aircraft into several targets in Washington, D.C.  Richard Clarke, Bushs top Counter-Terrorism official, said that U.S. intelligence agencies were convinced, ten weeks prior to 9/11, that a major al Qaida attack was imminent.  Documents indicate that the administration expected the attack to be aimed at symbolic structures such as the White House and the World Trade Center.*

* The Washington Post reports that on July 5th, 2001, the White House briefed officials from a dozen federal agencies that, Something really spectacular is going to happen here, and its going to happen soon.  Richard Clarke ordered all counter-terrorism officials to cancel vacations and get ready for immediate action.  The unfortunate reality is that the immediate action wouldnt take place until after the terrorists struck.*

* So this, in a nutshell, is what the Bush administration knew.  *

Did Bush Know
*
We know now that the Bush administration received numerous warnings of impending terrorist attacks, some arriving almost on the eve of the Sept. 11 disaster, and did next to nothing. Well, it did slip word to John Ashcroft, our faith-based attorney general, and Ashcroft stopped flying on commercial aircraft. Faith has its limitations.*--Editorial, Arkansas Times, May 24, 2002:

*Heads-Up To Ashcroft Proves Threat Was Known Before 9/11*
Heads-Up To Ashcroft Proves Threat Was Known Before 9/11

No one wants to believe that the attacks of Sept. 11 could have been prevented, but we do a disservice to our country if we stay in denial. No one wants to believe that President Bush had more forewarning than he acknowledges, but there is strong circumstantial evidence that he did
*
As warnings of a major terrorist operation against the United States poured in last summer, we know that George Tenet kept warning everyone who would listen. It seems to me certain that he would have kept the vacationing president up to date, including the fresh information on Moussaoui.
And that's probably why Tenet didn't get fired after Sept. 11. *
---Ray McGovern, Miami Herald, June 3, 2002:

Read more: Heads-Up To Ashcroft Proves Threat Was Known Before 9/11

And yet again their statements made on national TV of "having no idea" are flushed down the Al Qaeda, along with your willfully ignorant and delusional attempt to justify their lies.
You would think that as an American you would be concerned and appalled at witnessing your elected leaders squirm and try to lie their way out of the responsibility to uphold the pledge they took upon assuming their positions in the government. They are caught in bald faced lies and you still try with all your might to deny it!?


----------



## BrianH (Apr 27, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > > you used the nwd to justify your opinion that  the u.s. Was willing to murder 3,000 civlians on 9/11.
> ...


----------



## BrianH (Apr 27, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



Is a passage from an article called Conspiracies and the Defactualization of Analysis by Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed



"Whether or not Northwoods is taken as an example of this institutional dynamic, previous instances of contriving attacks on U.S. symbols of power as a pretext for the declaration of wars are systematic enough to demonstrate that this is a method employed by U.S. decision-making structures when elite military, political, strategic and economic considerations converge on making such a method appear favourable, in terms of meeting elite institutional interests. Nevertheless, Shalom and Albert argue that Northwoods is not a relevant example here:

But the Joint Chiefs didnt call for killing U.S. citizens. They did propose sinking a boatload of Cuban refugees (though we dont know whether the Joint Chiefs would have arranged for a U.S. vessel to fortuitously be on hand to pick up the refugees in the water), but with regard to the shoot down of a plane filled with U.S. college students, the plan was to switch an actual planeload of students with an unmanned drone that would be shot down, supposedly by Cuba. Elsewhere, *Operation Northwoods proposes blowing up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay in a Remember the Maine replay, but explicitly refers to a non-existent crew*. The document also suggests attacks on Cuban refugees in the United States even to the extent of wounding. So if this document is supposed to show us what U.S. officials are morally capable of, it seems to suggest that they are* capable of lying, deceit,* conspiring to wage a war of aggression - *but not killing U.S. citizens*. Moreover, as far as we can tell, the plan proposed by the Joint Chiefs was rejected by the U.S. civilian leadership.

It mentions your crazy assertion that they're going to blow up a ship with people on it....  But like I said, this plan was REJECTED....PROVING THE GOVERNMENT WAS NOT WILLING TO KILL PEOPLE FOR THIS PURPOSE!!!


----------



## BrianH (Apr 27, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



I sure hope you don't discredit THIS CBS article, considering you've used them as well.

What Bush Knew Before Sept. 11 - CBS News

"CBS News National Security Correspondent David Martin says the warning was in a document called the President's Daily Brief, which is considered to be the single most important document that the U.S. intelligence community turns out. *The document did not, however, mention the possibility of planes being flown into buildings*."


I'll let you read the rest and hope that you're smart enough to figure it out for yourself.  This article shows what Bush knew and what actions were taken before hand.   And have you noticed that all of these "reports" written about using planes as weapons happened BEFORE BUSH WAS IN OFFICE!  ?


----------



## candycorn (Apr 27, 2011)

BrianH said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > BrianH said:
> ...




*The document did not, however, mention the possibility of planes being flown into buildings*."

*The document did not, however, mention the possibility of planes being flown into buildings*."

*The document did not, however, mention the possibility of planes being flown into buildings*."

*The document did not, however, mention the possibility of planes being flown into buildings*."

*The document did not, however, mention the possibility of planes being flown into buildings*."

*The document did not, however, mention the possibility of planes being flown into buildings*."

*The document did not, however, mention the possibility of planes being flown into buildings*."

*The document did not, however, mention the possibility of planes being flown into buildings*."

*The document did not, however, mention the possibility of planes being flown into buildings*."

*The document did not, however, mention the possibility of planes being flown into buildings*."


Maybe posting it 10 times will force that grotesque bitch to actually read what her site says.


----------



## Patriot911 (Apr 27, 2011)

candycorn said:


> Maybe posting it 10 times will force that grotesque bitch to actually read what her site says.



You're kidding, right?    Truthtards wouldn't believe the truth if God Almighty himself showed up in person, held their hand, and threatened eternal damnation if they didn't listen.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Apr 27, 2011)

BrianH said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > BrianH said:
> ...



So this must be the end all article? 

Main stream news integrity is so virgin. 

Believe none of what you hear and half of what you see. Ben Franklin


----------



## Patriot911 (Apr 27, 2011)

TakeAStepBack said:


> So this must be the end all article?
> 
> Main stream news integrity is so virgin.
> 
> Believe none of what you hear and half of what you see. Ben Franklin


Oh look!  TakeAShit is back to impress us with his massive irrelevance!  Funny how truthtards can't understand it when their own sources prove they are full of shit.  Even funnier when another piece of shit truthtard comes along to dismiss the article in question even though it is the "proof" the first truthtard pretended was relevant!    Truthtards stepping all over one another.  Who would have thunk it?


----------



## BrianH (Apr 27, 2011)

TakeAStepBack said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



Yet you twoofers have posted dozens of articles from CBS to "prove" your points.  Why don't you go back and look at some of the mass media sites Mr. Jones has posted.  It's funny how they, so instantly, become less credible when they're turned around to disprove a truther's point.


----------



## candycorn (Apr 27, 2011)

> Today, 07:11 PM
> Remove user from ignore listTakeAStepBack
> This message is hidden because TakeAStepBack is on your ignore list.


Loser said what?


----------



## Mr. Jones (Apr 27, 2011)

TakeAStepBack said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



The point is that it was even on the MSM sites that Bushs own counter terrorism czar informed the administration, now these people have to go to great lengths to excuse the lies they told to the nation such as the BS sited above. It really is funny watching them fucks take the most obvious and brazen lies and scramble to come up with pathetic excuses 
Fact is they lied, because they knew of the threats Ashcroft knew, Bush knew Condi knew, then they lied, and when confronted they lied some more, and those assholes refuse to admit it 
Questions...Has the US ever planned a false flag attack? Answer-YES.
Northwoods.
Has the US gone to war based on false claims? Answer-YES.
Multiple instances. Iraq Afghanistan Vietnam to name a few.
Can you trust the US government to be honest? Answer-NO.
Multiple instances of lying and corruption.
Have we been told the truth about the events and attacks of 9-11?
Answer-Hell no.
There are multiple instances of stonewalling, omissions, and lying to cover up the truth.
Are there people that defend the criminals in the US government and their actions throughout history? 
Answer-YES.
Why?
Because they are anti American scumbag traitors.
Do they feel a new independent investigation is warranted because of this?
Answer-No.
Why?
Because they are anti American scumbag traitors.


----------



## candycorn (Apr 27, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > BrianH said:
> ...



Northwoods was never planned; it was never signed off on by the SECDEF or the POTUS.
You're simply lying because youre an anti-american scumbag traitor who sucks cock when she can get it.


----------



## BrianH (Apr 28, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > BrianH said:
> ...



Yet more nonsense without any evidence.  You post this shit, and then post "evidence." 9 times out of 10 take the very "evidence" you post and find something in it that contradicts what you're saying.....YET, you still claim that you're right.  

You posted that the Bush administration knew that planes were going to flown into buildings.  You posted a link to "prove" your point.  I posted a link from the same source that said the IDEA of commerce jets flying into skyskrapers was not exericed or even expected.  The same goes for the NORAD nonsense you posted.  Even the NORAD commander says they didn't imagine it.  THe only thing they did exercise was for planes hijacked OUTSIDE of the U.S.  Hell, the FBI agent that gave rise to this whole theory even clarified that when he said that he thought terrorists would use planes as weapons; he meant a Cessna and NOT a commercial airliners.  You have been WRONG at every turn, but somehow can only keep the debate going by saying "They're all liars" <--I'm paraphrasing of course.  

So once again, nothing you've posted, thus far, has even hinted at a government conspiracy or cover-up in regards to 9/11.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Apr 28, 2011)

candycorn said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > TakeAStepBack said:
> ...



Ah.. Candy fag projecting again and reminding us all what is near and dear to it. It is amazing the things one can learn about candyfag from simply reading its posts, with their little hints and messages about itself, what you just posted is exactly what it is your are and what you enjoy doing, you write what is really in your inner being, which is a dark, lonely, filthy place, filled with homosexual fantasies, no doubt imagined so as to try and overcome a deep childhood tragedy, possibly sexual in nature (but you actually found enjoyable) that happened to it by someone close...very...close, it thought it was supposed to trust. 
So sad you turned out to be a fat grotesque slob with no life and no real friends except your dominant hand. 
I would suggest you get help, but it is too late, and only a merciful suicide will do, go ahead candyfag and do the world a favor for once, you will make many happy I promise.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Apr 28, 2011)

BrianH said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > TakeAStepBack said:
> ...



In case you haven't noticed, you have not furthered the cause or elevated the battle cry for the traitors and liars, in fact the only thing you have done is scramble to do damage control for people that will always be remembered in a very bad light over this episode in the nations history. You are a douchebag and very anti American for siding with the criminals and liars.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Apr 28, 2011)

9/11 inside job said:


> someones life is so pathetic that like clockwork,he has to resurrect and old dead thread of his for the attention he seeks around here which many truthers ignorantly give him.



Bears worth repeating.unbelieveble how you VETERAN Truthers who should know better, feed this agent troll.He resurrected this old dead thread because he clearly seeks attention at message boards,thats why he goes to DOZENS of them and posts all day long and you all are taking the bait and playing his game giving him the attention he desperately seeks.He is making you look bad with you all taking the bait. You feed the trolls and these agents,even though they get their asses handed to them on a platter from you everyday,they STILL win since you are playing their game they want.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Apr 28, 2011)

9/11 inside job said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > someones life is so pathetic that like clockwork,he has to resurrect and old dead thread of his for the attention he seeks around here which many truthers ignorantly give him.
> ...



They don't make me look bad at all, in fact it is quite the opposite, that an objective reader will notice. When all else fails for these fucks they have to resort to sick personal attacks, and I am glad I make them have to do it, it shows I am getting under their skin and they are completely left with nothing else to do but post sick shit that new readers will notice right away, and THEY lose all credibility.
There are at least 5 on here that have truly shown who and what they really are, and I save their most sickest posts, and moderator enforced edits to show the others they may engage with the truth about them.


----------



## BrianH (Apr 28, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



Another humble post with no evidence... I should start copying and pasting this response.  The fact of the matter is that you can't provide any evidence; so you do nothing but claim that anyone who does not agree with you is a traitor and a liar.  You've posted your "proof" time and time again while I've showed you that your proof is not proof at all.  I've proven to you, over and over again, that you truthers lack the ability to read past your own bias.  You'll post an article and read something in the first two paragraphs that get your panties all in a bunch.  However, what you forget to do is read further in the article that actually explains what you read.  If you understood anything about artcles and how they're written, you'd know that the primary reason for writing one is to get people to read it.  Therefore you find controversial remarks, possibly "eyebrow raising" remarks, at the beginning of an article to grasp your attention.  For example:  The title of the CBS article was "What Bush knew before 9/11."  THis is title to grasp the readers' attention.  However later in the article it tells you that BUSH did NOT know this was going to happen.  This thesis is confirmed by numerous government officials responsible for knowing, actually saying that this scenario was never excercised or dreamed possible....

I'll post his over and over again:  You have proven NOTHING.


----------



## BrianH (Apr 28, 2011)

9/11 inside job said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > someones life is so pathetic that like clockwork,he has to resurrect and old dead thread of his for the attention he seeks around here which many truthers ignorantly give him.
> ...



I'm not sure what kind of meds you're on, but you need to seek help immediately.  You lack a basic brain activity that most normal Americans possess.


----------



## BrianH (Apr 28, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > 9/11 inside job said:
> ...





Posted by Mr. Jones
"You are a* douchebag *and very *anti American *for siding with the* criminals and liars."*

Posted by Mr. Jones
"Ah.. *Candy fag *projecting again and reminding us all what is near and dear to it. It is amazing the things one can learn about* candyfag *from simply reading its posts, with their little hints and messages about itself, what you just posted is exactly what it is your are and what you enjoy doing, you write what is really in *your inner being, which is a dark, lonely, filthy place, filled with homosexual fantasies*, no doubt imagined so as to try and overcome a *deep childhood tragedy, possibly sexual in nature *(but you actually found enjoyable) that happened to it by someone close...very...close, it thought it was supposed to trust. 
So sad you turned out to be a* fat grotesque slob with no life and no real friends except your dominant hand.* 
I would suggest you get help, but it is too late, and only a *merciful suicide will do, go ahead candyfag *and do the world a favor for once, you will make many happy I promise."

That's just within the last couple of post.  Why don't you look in the mirror.
You are truly a loser...


----------



## Patriot911 (Apr 28, 2011)

BrianH said:


> That's just within the last couple of post.  Why don't you look in the mirror.
> You are truly a loser...



Don't forget hypocrite, liar and, above all else, traitorous bitch.    We're not the one spreading sedition through blatant lies.  We're the ones calling his little bitch ass out on it.


----------



## BrianH (Apr 28, 2011)

Patriot911 said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > That's just within the last couple of post.  Why don't you look in the mirror.
> ...



Exactly!


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Apr 28, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > 9/11 inside job said:
> ...



Okay let me rephrase that,you are right,they dont make you look bad at all and you are right as well that its just the opposite.yes an objective reader will notice that but you got to remember,the majority of them here are not objective and are afraid to look at the evidence which I know you already know and yeah we both know they resort to personal attacks and act like innocent victems crying when they are insulted back since they can dish it out but cant take it and yes you are right as well,there are at LEAST 5 here that have shown they are shills that have penetrated this site.They do such a sloppy and lousy job of exposing themselves as ones with the way they constantly come back for their ass beatings here everyday all day long.they would never do that for free if they were not agents.

My point is they are just here to attack you for speaking the truth because thats what their handlers pay them to do, so why play their game,ESPECIALLY with the biggest dumbfuck troll of them all candyfag? He exposes himself everywhere he goes to all these different message boards what a dumbfuck troll he is just seeking attention so i dont understand WHY you give this dumbfuck the attention he seeks and play his game or ANY of these dumbfuck trolls,they are just here to waste your time.Thats why Terral got wise and stopped wasting time with them,same with me.

These dumbfuck trolls dont realise they expose themselves as agents constantly coming back here for their ass beatings here everyday,that if they were NOT agents,they would leave when confronted with evidence and facts instead of showing off what morons they are posting bible length posts to try and save face in their posts when they know they are defeated. 

That one poster that posted on JRK'S thread is another I could understand why you would reply to,HE wasnt an agent,that was obvious because he left and did not come back after facts and evidence was given to him.He was just a Bush dupe in denial.Thats how these dumbfuck trolls expose themselves as agents is they dont do the same thing.They just come back showing off what a bunch of idiotic brainless morons they are to toot the official version.

That JRk guy was just a retard,you could tell with his alzheimers diseace he had the way he kept repeating the same questions over and over again when they had been answered many times before just like candyfag always does,so HIM I could understand why you would try to reason with by using facts and evidence,but he didnt want to look at links you gave so he was a lost cause,too far brainwashed.But at least with HIM I could understand why you would get into a discussion with,these OTHER dumbfucks,I dont understand why you waste you time on. 

They are  doing exactly what their handlers pay them to,waste your time and get you to take their bait while THEIR handlers handlers, are planning something for us in the next year or two.9/11 is all a smokescreen they are using to keep you occupied.

9/11 is the least of our problems we have to worry about from the government and The Obama administration right now is why I dont get it that you waste your time with them especially with attention seeking troll candyfag that his   lovers that you have argued with here worship.


----------



## Patriot911 (Apr 28, 2011)

So I'll ask you truthtards yet again.

You claim to have tons of evidence.  Please present one real piece of evidence that backs up your bullshit.  

When it comes right down to it, truthtards run and debunkers point and laugh at the truthtards.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Apr 28, 2011)

speak of the devil,the dumbfuck agent troll PARROT911 exposes himself for the paid troll he is replying IMMEDIATELY to my post  and kissing the ass of his lover candyfag.His handlers are very pleased that he has his email notifications set for a truther to reply so he can come on and derail the topic and defend his lover immediately like he did.how pathetic the way he exposed himself coming on immediatley like that.He obviously did not think that through. total dumbfuck.


----------



## candycorn (Apr 28, 2011)

BrianH said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > 9/11 inside job said:
> ...



Right you are but then again, you're not really telling anybody anything new.  She's been at this futile effort for 7 years now and has nothing to show...hell; I'd be frustrated too.  It makes me laugh when she lashes out in anger and desperation for attention.  Cries for help come in many forms; this is simply hers.  Pitiful really.


----------



## Patriot911 (Apr 28, 2011)

9/11 inside job said:


> speak of the devil,the dumbfuck agent troll PARROT911 exposes himself for the paid troll he is replying IMMEDIATELY to my post  and kissing the ass of his lover candyfag.His handlers are very pleased that he has his email notifications set for a truther to reply so he can come on and derail the topic and defend his lover immediately like he did.how pathetic the way he exposed himself coming on immediatley like that.He obviously did not think that through. total dumbfuck.



Thank you for proving once again you have absolutely nothing.    I love it when stupid fucks like you prove exactly what I've been saying.  

So I'll ask you truthtards yet again.

You claim to have tons of evidence. Please present one real piece of evidence that backs up your bullshit. 

When it comes right down to it, truthtards run and debunkers point and laugh at the truthtards. 

Come on.  You're the ones saying you have all this evidence.  How hard can it be to pick just one really good piece?  

I await your next example of verbal diarrhea.


----------



## BrianH (Apr 29, 2011)

9/11 inside job said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > 9/11 inside job said:
> ...



This is where you are wrong again.  I have looked at every piece of evidence he has posted.  And like I said, I have come up with rebuttals to everyone.  And several times I've used the same link he posted to prove him wrong....  IT is you truthers who have a preconceived idea of what happened and are, therefore, unwilling to believe anything else....


----------



## BrianH (Apr 29, 2011)

9/11 inside job said:


> speak of the devil,the dumbfuck agent troll PARROT911 exposes himself for the paid troll he is replying IMMEDIATELY to my post  and kissing the ass of his lover candyfag.His handlers are very pleased that he has his email notifications set for a truther to reply so he can come on and derail the topic and defend his lover immediately like he did.how pathetic the way he exposed himself coming on immediatley like that.He obviously did not think that through. total dumbfuck.



Quit qatching V for Vendetta and get a real life.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Apr 29, 2011)

BrianH said:


> This is where you are wrong again.  I have looked at every piece of evidence he has posted.  And like I said, I have come up with rebuttals to everyone.  And several times I've used the same link he posted to prove him wrong....  IT is you truthers who have a preconceived idea of what happened and are, therefore, unwilling to believe anything else....


 Wrong again, the only thing you have done is run a pathetic damage control campaign that no matter how you spin, fails at putting all the doubts about the honesty of the official version of 9-11 to rest. 
Your so-called _rebuttals_, were then thoroughly destroyed, with FACTS, and real world critical thinking using common logic that most everyone, especially a jury would use. 
You ignore this and resort to childish excuses, that you call _rebuttals!_
You have resort to excuses for the Bush administration akin to the juvenile "dog ate my homework", "Oh.. I didn't know", "who could have ever imagined". These types of excuses is the best you and the _leaders of the free world _can come up with? 

You have had to resort to ignoring what most reasonable people around the world that know about 9-11, consider vast evidence that produce a reasonable doubt, that the events as told, and the excuses they tried to sell, are pure BS.
You ignore the fact that the official version of events of 9-11 are a mere theory that can not and has not been proven, nor stand up to scrutiny, especially the scientific aspect of the destruction.

You were proven wrong when you suggested to readers that the US is a benevolent nation, not capable of putting their own people in harms way by planning a false flag conspiracy.
You were proven wrong as to how much the administration knew, and what they did about the threats.
 Even Condi Rice said "while we cannot foresee attacks domestically, we cannot rule them out."
But your stance is that they are somehow justified for doing so?

Realistically, all you have done is parrot the same old BS with childish excuses and microscopic details that ignore the overall bigger picture to a vast conspiracy, and theory that has been shown by many credible people from all walks of life and occupation to have HUGE holes in it.

 You have also exposed yourself as a true anti American that would rather go on living in a fantasy that is detrimental to the over all well being of the nation, the constitution, and its security.

As if all that weren't enough, you have the nerve to ridicule posters on this forum for retaliating when they are personally attacked by filthy minded members, all the while ignoring the filth they said that started the exchange.
It puts you in the same class as them, (as in no class at all) and shows you would rather sell your self respect (what little you may have) by aligning yourself with these types.

Furthermore, you have done nothing to question the 9-11 version of events as told by the government and its agencies, despite the evidence of inconsistencies, obfuscations, stonewalling, lies and corruption, and despite you even admitting that the US government has indeed lied in the past, and has been involved in false flag conspiracies, that have been known FACTS for years now, you carry on as though it is no big deal.
You are more loyal to an office, or a holder of office then you are to the country and what its core values are supposed to be.

You have to actually believe in doctored, and tortured _evidence_
and a NIST theory of destruction that has been shown to be anything but scientific, and solid!
You have had to backtrack so many times in this one thread alone it's pathetic, from your 





> "WHAT INNOCENT PEOPLE?"


 to this-


> "This document demonstrates that the U.S. is willing to make things appear a certain way to justify an attack. It does not demonstrate the U.S. willingness to kill thousands of Americans....


 both regarding the NWDs document plan.
You were proved absolutely WRONG in making those statements.
You were even ignorant as to what a false flag attack is designed to achieve! When your ignorance was exposed, you post this pathetic crybaby excuse! 



> "Second, You said nothing about ensuing wars, or blaming innocent people..."



You are a truly pathetic, sorry excuse for an American and what the nation is supposed to be an example of, and you shame yourself with every official conspiracy theory apologetic response, that can not solidly stand when exposed to the light of day.

Dissent is the ultimate expression of patriotism.


----------



## Patriot911 (Apr 29, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> Dissent is the ultimate expression of patriotism.



Dissent based on lies to boost one's ego and forward their agenda is the ultimate expression of an asshole of epic proportions.  A shame truthtards don't understand this simple fact.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Apr 29, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > This is where you are wrong again.  I have looked at every piece of evidence he has posted.  And like I said, I have come up with rebuttals to everyone.  And several times I've used the same link he posted to prove him wrong....  IT is you truthers who have a preconceived idea of what happened and are, therefore, unwilling to believe anything else....
> ...


----------



## Patriot911 (Apr 29, 2011)

9/11 inside job said:


>



Ah, yes.  The truthtard cheerleader who has his head so far up Jones' ass that he suffers from anal asphyxiation.    Do you have any original thoughts of your own 911?  Or are you a terminal sycophant?


----------



## BrianH (Apr 29, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > This is where you are wrong again.  I have looked at every piece of evidence he has posted.  And like I said, I have come up with rebuttals to everyone.  And several times I've used the same link he posted to prove him wrong....  IT is you truthers who have a preconceived idea of what happened and are, therefore, unwilling to believe anything else....
> ...



National Security Advisor Rice on Pre-9/11 Terrorism Info Chronology
"On July 2nd, as a result of some of that work, *the FBI released a message saying that there are threats to be worried about overseas, but we cannot -- while we cannot foresee attacks domestically, we cannot rule them out*. This is an inlet, and again, an inlet goes out to law enforcement from the FBI. "


KEEP SPEWING YOUR NONSENSE...THE GUYS AT WORK LOVE THIS SHIT....


----------



## Mr. Jones (Apr 29, 2011)

My original statement to you was this-



> Try this one on for size then. According to the government that you are so convinced is telling you the truth, and that in your opinion would never ever harm its own people-they thought this would work-
> Operation Northwoods: Justification for U.S. Military Intervention in Cuba, 3/13/62
> with remote guidance..back in the '60s no less.
> But they would never hurt their own peoples huh?
> Wise up dude, you really should know better.



Can you read and understand the highlighted parts dipshit?
The NWDs document is proof of BOTH of these statements!
Where in this original exchange does it say anything that the posting of the NWDs document is purported to prove anything other then what is highlighted??
I showed you proof of what I said, that the gov can't be trusted and that they don't give a shit about you or it's people when it comes to this type of a conspiracy.
You lose asshole, especially when you are shown the parts of the document that have no regard for innocent lives and is designed to provoke the response it IS INTENDED TO PROVOKE, you know what a FLASE FLAG ATTACK IS ACTUALLY DESIGNED TO DO. 

I can not believe you are really as dense as you portray yourself to be, but I am more inclined to believe that you know my statement and backing of it is correct and you just refuse to admit it.

I think that  an impeccably qualified, fully funded, independent, and exhaustive inquiry with the power to subpoena any and all witnesses in connection with the events of 9-11 is not only merited, but essential. Such an inquiry is necessary to address the growing mountain of evidence which suggests that we are no longer a free society. Evidence traitors and shills like you always ignore, unless it's a signed confession, but you readily believe a fake video and tortured evidence?
The FBI doesn't even have enough evidence to accuse OBL of the 9-11 attacks!
I think that this is our right, it is our duty, as a free people to demand such an inquiry of our government.
I think our unwillingness to spend time, money, or even the lives of our precious sons and daughters are not viable excuses for refusal to establish such an inquiry. Furthermore, the only potential motive which remains for any power, party, or authority to refuse the people the truth which is rightfully theirs to know is complicity before or after the fact and to cover it up. 
Now why is it you know all these facts to be true but you still are against the American people and their search for truth and justice?


----------



## Patriot911 (Apr 29, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> My original statement to you was this-
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Once again the king of dishonesty takes a statement NEVER MADE BY BRIANH and pretends that this is the debate.    What a fucking loser!


----------



## candycorn (Apr 29, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > This is where you are wrong again.  I have looked at every piece of evidence he has posted.  And like I said, I have come up with rebuttals to everyone.  And several times I've used the same link he posted to prove him wrong....  IT is you truthers who have a preconceived idea of what happened and are, therefore, unwilling to believe anything else....
> ...



Please shut the fuck up; you've convinced absolutely no one of anything except that you're a fucking lunatic you un-American piece of shit.


----------



## BrianH (Apr 30, 2011)

Patriot911 said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > My original statement to you was this-
> ...



It just amazes me what kind of bull shit Mr. Jones can make up.  

He/she starts by posting bogus "evidence."  Then when he/she gets prove wrong, he/she starts putting words in my posts that I never said.  Then when he/she's called out on it, he/she deflects the argument into something else that it didn't start out to be.  Then he/she makes upsurd accusations that I somehow don't know (or didn't know) what a false-flag incident was or its intent.  When he/she is completely wrong, he/she changest the vocabulary in his/her argument and starts saying that because the government is "capable" of it, therefore they did it.

It is clear that Mr. Jones lacks a basic capability to debate rationally....  I'm glad I'm not the only one that sees this.  I only say that because I know, for a fact, that if Eots had thought this debate was worth his while, and if he thought that Mr. Jones was correct in his/her "debate," he would have posted more on the issue.  Even Eots knows Mr. Jones is full of shit when it comes to this issue.


----------



## candycorn (May 7, 2011)

BrianH said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



It literally never stops does it?


----------



## BolshevikHunter (May 7, 2011)

~BH


----------



## Wicked Jester (May 7, 2011)

What..........The twoofer loons still haven't produced any evidence of a conspiracy?

Yeah, that's what I thought........I'll come back another time and see if anything has changed.


----------



## BolshevikHunter (May 8, 2011)

Wicked Jester said:


> What..........The twoofer loons still haven't produced any evidence of a conspiracy?
> 
> Yeah, that's what I thought........I'll come back another time and see if anything has changed.



Even if it did change, you still would be another example of the depth of the ranks of yes men, don't ever ask any questions, robots in America. Which to be honest with you bro, that suprises me about you. I always had the impression that you read between the lies in regards to this 24/7 brainwashing machine. You don't have to believe in every nutcase theory, I don't. At the same time though bro, why not keep an open mind WJ?  ~BH


----------



## Wicked Jester (May 9, 2011)

BolshevikHunter said:


> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> > What..........The twoofer loons still haven't produced any evidence of a conspiracy?
> ...


I keep my mind open to the obvious, while completely dismissing the idiots.

It's obvious there was no conspiracy, other than the conspiracy by all those dirtbags in Al qaeda......Anybody who thinks otherwise is a fucking moonbat.

And now we have another conspiracy perpetrated by a bunch of paranoid moonbats about 
Bin laden's death.....Many of whom dress in BDU's, run around the forest playing ARMY, and are still waiting for the Y2K invasion of government forces.

It's fuckin' comical.


----------



## JackDan (May 9, 2011)

Wicked Jester said:


> of whom dress in BDU's, run around the forest playing ARMY, and are still waiting for the Y2K invasion of government forces.



Throw in a bottle of whiskey and a couple girls in bikinis and that might be fun.


----------



## candycorn (May 9, 2011)

Wicked Jester said:


> BolshevikHunter said:
> 
> 
> > Wicked Jester said:
> ...



When I first got here; I asked every twoofer to supply a version (in reasonable detail) of events that fit in with all of the known facts of 9/11.  For example, you need to explain the lightpoles, wreckage, the planes hitting the buildings, the collapses, the crash of flight 93...

To date, not one has ever done it; not here...not anywhere.

My mind is open but I know there was wreckage, I know it matches the planes that hit the buildings and the field in PA.    If someone can get to Point B by not going through Point A, I'm more than willing to listen.


----------

