911 Commission Report is correct!

[CurveLight]

no fuckface. i am saying the legal system presumes people innocent until proven guilty.

i am not the legal system.

It's not even fun to watch retarded bitches like you to backpedal. You're all around boring and completely meaningless.

no backpedaling, jackass. you simply didnt understand the post and needed it explained because you are a moron.

Someone said bush is a war criminal. You responded by saying it's a good thing we live in a country where people are innocent until proven guilty. I pointed out your hypocrisy because you say bin laden is guilty of 9E but he has never been convicted just like Bush has never been convicted. You're such a fucking amateur.

 

[Gamolon]

It's not even fun to watch retarded bitches like you to backpedal. You're all around boring and completely meaningless.

no backpedaling, jackass. you simply didnt understand the post and needed it explained because you are a moron.

Someone said bush is a war criminal. You responded by saying it's a good thing we live in a country where people are innocent until proven guilty. I pointed out your hypocrisy because you say bin laden is guilty of 9E but he has never been convicted just like Bush has never been convicted. You're such a fucking amateur.

You mean we're wrong in saying that he's guilty even though we have videos of him and his group claiming responsibility for the attacks?

 

[CurveLight]

Get a remedialreading class. the report say the towers fell from the impact of the planes and ensuing fire.
Just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean it wasn't addressed. It's in there, the towers fell after the planes hit, and the fires softened the steel.

Maybe you should get someone to read it to you, and discuss it as you go, as it is quite clear that on your own the comprehension is lacking.

An investigation does not begin with a conclusion. There was no investigation into 9E at all. The Commission was a 15 million dollar cherry picked book report on what the msm regurgitated from the Bush administration. If you had read the CR you would know the section on two of the towers (wtc 7 isn't in there at all) says it is a Performance Report. You guys are probably too in love with the government to question it.

Curvelight, I would like to ask you a question.

If there was no investigation and no evidence of anything, why are you only arguing about the OCT? Why are you not arguing with Terral, Christophera, or anyone else for that matter that comes up with their own theory and supporting evidence?

If you are after the truth because you don't really know what happened, why so one-sided?

I never said there was no investigation. I said the CR was not an investigation because it began with conclusions then formed its Report around those preconceived ideas. Likewise, I never said there was no evidence of anything.

I do call out other troofers. You not seeing it does not equate to it not happening. Loose change is a bullshit site slightly lower than the National Enquirer, the constant claim of disinfo agents is super fucking annoying, and every time one claims "INDISPUTABLE EVIDENCE OF EXPLOSIVES ON THE TOWERS!" I fucking cringe because I know it is an oversell and lacking full evidence. I don't argue much with other troofers because I don't look at the facts through other people's theories and the OCTAs (OCTApologists) universally claim the CR is a full investigation of that day, which is bullshit in itself.

One of the reasons more and more people are questioning the OCT is not based on alt theories but more on the OCT and how much it lacks supporting evidence. Not to mention the systematic way it omitted information that calls the OCT into question.

 

[Fizz]

It's not even fun to watch retarded bitches like you to backpedal. You're all around boring and completely meaningless.

no backpedaling, jackass. you simply didnt understand the post and needed it explained because you are a moron.

Someone said bush is a war criminal. You responded by saying it's a good thing we live in a country where people are innocent until proven guilty. I pointed out your hypocrisy because you say bin laden is guilty of 9E but he has never been convicted just like Bush has never been convicted. You're such a fucking amateur.

you cant even get the story right. nobody said bush was a war criminal.

cleanup in aisle 4. get to it.

 

[CurveLight]

no backpedaling, jackass. you simply didnt understand the post and needed it explained because you are a moron.

Someone said bush is a war criminal. You responded by saying it's a good thing we live in a country where people are innocent until proven guilty. I pointed out your hypocrisy because you say bin laden is guilty of 9E but he has never been convicted just like Bush has never been convicted. You're such a fucking amateur.

You mean we're wrong in saying that he's guilty even though we have videos of him and his group claiming responsibility for the attacks?

Bin laden denied involvement twice right after 9E. Over three years later is the first time he supposedly confessed. I'm of the mind he is not a trustworthy guy so I don't care what he says. The fact is the US has never charged bin laden with anything about 9E.

 

[CurveLight]

no backpedaling, jackass. you simply didnt understand the post and needed it explained because you are a moron.

Someone said bush is a war criminal. You responded by saying it's a good thing we live in a country where people are innocent until proven guilty. I pointed out your hypocrisy because you say bin laden is guilty of 9E but he has never been convicted just like Bush has never been convicted. You're such a fucking amateur.

you cant even get the story right. nobody said bush was a war criminal.

cleanup in aisle 4. get to it.

You are correct and that was my mistake as the name was Kissinger. Now let's see how much that changes my point:

Someone said Kissinger is a war criminal. You responded by saying it's a good thing we live in a country where people are innocent until proven guilty. I pointed out your hypocrisy because you say bin laden is guilty of 9E but he has never been convicted just like Kissinger has never been convicted. You're such a fucking amateur.

You truly are a fucking amateur.

 

[Gamolon]

An investigation does not begin with a conclusion. There was no investigation into 9E at all. The Commission was a 15 million dollar cherry picked book report on what the msm regurgitated from the Bush administration. If you had read the CR you would know the section on two of the towers (wtc 7 isn't in there at all) says it is a Performance Report. You guys are probably too in love with the government to question it.

Curvelight, I would like to ask you a question.

If there was no investigation and no evidence of anything, why are you only arguing about the OCT? Why are you not arguing with Terral, Christophera, or anyone else for that matter that comes up with their own theory and supporting evidence?

If you are after the truth because you don't really know what happened, why so one-sided?

I never said there was no investigation. I said the CR was not an investigation because it began with conclusions then formed its Report around those preconceived ideas. Likewise, I never said there was no evidence of anything.

I do call out other troofers. You not seeing it does not equate to it not happening. Loose change is a bullshit site slightly lower than the National Enquirer, the constant claim of disinfo agents is super fucking annoying, and every time one claims "INDISPUTABLE EVIDENCE OF EXPLOSIVES ON THE TOWERS!" I fucking cringe because I know it is an oversell and lacking full evidence. I don't argue much with other troofers because I don't look at the facts through other people's theories and the OCTAs (OCTApologists) universally claim the CR is a full investigation of that day, which is bullshit in itself.

One of the reasons more and more people are questioning the OCT is not based on alt theories but more on the OCT and how much it lacks supporting evidence. Not to mention the systematic way it omitted information that calls the OCT into question.

Curvelight,

I never said there was no investigation.

I'm going to have to call bullshit. Here is your quote:

There was no investigation into 9E at all.

You even said "at all". That's pretty definitive in my book.

 

[CurveLight]

Curvelight, I would like to ask you a question.

If there was no investigation and no evidence of anything, why are you only arguing about the OCT? Why are you not arguing with Terral, Christophera, or anyone else for that matter that comes up with their own theory and supporting evidence?

If you are after the truth because you don't really know what happened, why so one-sided?

I never said there was no investigation. I said the CR was not an investigation because it began with conclusions then formed its Report around those preconceived ideas. Likewise, I never said there was no evidence of anything.

I do call out other troofers. You not seeing it does not equate to it not happening. Loose change is a bullshit site slightly lower than the National Enquirer, the constant claim of disinfo agents is super fucking annoying, and every time one claims "INDISPUTABLE EVIDENCE OF EXPLOSIVES ON THE TOWERS!" I fucking cringe because I know it is an oversell and lacking full evidence. I don't argue much with other troofers because I don't look at the facts through other people's theories and the OCTAs (OCTApologists) universally claim the CR is a full investigation of that day, which is bullshit in itself.

One of the reasons more and more people are questioning the OCT is not based on alt theories but more on the OCT and how much it lacks supporting evidence. Not to mention the systematic way it omitted information that calls the OCT into question.

Curvelight,

I never said there was no investigation.

I'm going to have to call bullshit. Here is your quote:

There was no investigation into 9E at all.

You even said "at all". That's pretty definitive in my book.

Out of all that you focus in on that? Lol...let me spell it out for you. There has never been a full investigation as the CR and its defenders claim. So let me repeat: there has never been a full investigation into 9E at all. There have been aspects investigated but never the entire attack. What other semantic deflections can you invent?

 

[candycorn]

Curvelight, I would like to ask you a question.

If there was no investigation and no evidence of anything, why are you only arguing about the OCT? Why are you not arguing with Terral, Christophera, or anyone else for that matter that comes up with their own theory and supporting evidence?

If you are after the truth because you don't really know what happened, why so one-sided?

I never said there was no investigation. I said the CR was not an investigation because it began with conclusions then formed its Report around those preconceived ideas. Likewise, I never said there was no evidence of anything.

I do call out other troofers. You not seeing it does not equate to it not happening. Loose change is a bullshit site slightly lower than the National Enquirer, the constant claim of disinfo agents is super fucking annoying, and every time one claims "INDISPUTABLE EVIDENCE OF EXPLOSIVES ON THE TOWERS!" I fucking cringe because I know it is an oversell and lacking full evidence. I don't argue much with other troofers because I don't look at the facts through other people's theories and the OCTAs (OCTApologists) universally claim the CR is a full investigation of that day, which is bullshit in itself.

One of the reasons more and more people are questioning the OCT is not based on alt theories but more on the OCT and how much it lacks supporting evidence. Not to mention the systematic way it omitted information that calls the OCT into question.

Curvelight,

I never said there was no investigation.

I'm going to have to call bullshit. Here is your quote:

There was no investigation into 9E at all.

You even said "at all". That's pretty definitive in my book.

He shoots, he scores.

 

[Gamolon]

I never said there was no investigation. I said the CR was not an investigation because it began with conclusions then formed its Report around those preconceived ideas. Likewise, I never said there was no evidence of anything.

I do call out other troofers. You not seeing it does not equate to it not happening. Loose change is a bullshit site slightly lower than the National Enquirer, the constant claim of disinfo agents is super fucking annoying, and every time one claims "INDISPUTABLE EVIDENCE OF EXPLOSIVES ON THE TOWERS!" I fucking cringe because I know it is an oversell and lacking full evidence. I don't argue much with other troofers because I don't look at the facts through other people's theories and the OCTAs (OCTApologists) universally claim the CR is a full investigation of that day, which is bullshit in itself.

One of the reasons more and more people are questioning the OCT is not based on alt theories but more on the OCT and how much it lacks supporting evidence. Not to mention the systematic way it omitted information that calls the OCT into question.

Curvelight,



I'm going to have to call bullshit. Here is your quote:

There was no investigation into 9E at all.

You even said "at all". That's pretty definitive in my book.

Out of all that you focus in on that? Lol...let me spell it out for you. There has never been a full investigation as the CR and its defenders claim. So let me repeat: there has never been a full investigation into 9E at all. There have been aspects investigated but never the entire attack. What other semantic deflections can you invent?

I "invented a semantic deflection"?

There's a BIG difference between "not doing an investigation at all" and "not doing a FULL investigation even though there were SOME aspects investigated". If you don't understand the difference and want to play the "semantics" game, that's your problem. Is that why you changed your sentences to include the word FULL the second time around?

Tell me the difference between:
1. I didn't pay you the money I owed you AT ALL
or
2. I payed you SOME of the money, but not the FULL sum

Big difference. Figure it out. You screwed up.

 

[Fizz]

Someone said bush is a war criminal. You responded by saying it's a good thing we live in a country where people are innocent until proven guilty. I pointed out your hypocrisy because you say bin laden is guilty of 9E but he has never been convicted just like Bush has never been convicted. You're such a fucking amateur.

you cant even get the story right. nobody said bush was a war criminal.

cleanup in aisle 4. get to it.

You are correct and that was my mistake as the name was Kissinger. Now let's see how much that changes my point:

Someone said Kissinger is a war criminal. You responded by saying it's a good thing we live in a country where people are innocent until proven guilty. I pointed out your hypocrisy because you say bin laden is guilty of 9E but he has never been convicted just like Kissinger has never been convicted. You're such a fucking amateur.

You truly are a fucking amateur.

and did i ever state my position on kissinger, you fucking moron?

 

[CurveLight]

Curvelight,



I'm going to have to call bullshit. Here is your quote:


You even said "at all". That's pretty definitive in my book.

Out of all that you focus in on that? Lol...let me spell it out for you. There has never been a full investigation as the CR and its defenders claim. So let me repeat: there has never been a full investigation into 9E at all. There have been aspects investigated but never the entire attack. What other semantic deflections can you invent?

I "invented a semantic deflection"?

There's a BIG difference between "not doing an investigation at all" and "not doing a FULL investigation even though there were SOME aspects investigated". If you don't understand the difference and want to play the "semantics" game, that's your problem. Is that why you changed your sentences to include the word FULL the second time around?

Tell me the difference between:
1. I didn't pay you the money I owed you AT ALL
or
2. I payed you SOME of the money, but not the FULL sum

Big difference. Figure it out. You screwed up.

You jumped in the middle of a convo I had with slackjawed so look at the context. Are you done whining? This is what is so pathetic about you bitches. You're so fucking insecure you hunt relentlessly for any excuse to dodge the issue. Even after I cleared up any possible confusion you still want to obsess over it. Lol.

 

[CurveLight]

you cant even get the story right. nobody said bush was a war criminal.

cleanup in aisle 4. get to it.

You are correct and that was my mistake as the name was Kissinger. Now let's see how much that changes my point:

Someone said Kissinger is a war criminal. You responded by saying it's a good thing we live in a country where people are innocent until proven guilty. I pointed out your hypocrisy because you say bin laden is guilty of 9E but he has never been convicted just like Kissinger has never been convicted. You're such a fucking amateur.

You truly are a fucking amateur.

and did i ever state my position on kissinger, you fucking moron?

Hahahahaha.....you dumb ****! Damn you are so fucking pathetic! Dance BITCH! Dance!

 

[Gamolon]

Out of all that you focus in on that? Lol...let me spell it out for you. There has never been a full investigation as the CR and its defenders claim. So let me repeat: there has never been a full investigation into 9E at all. There have been aspects investigated but never the entire attack. What other semantic deflections can you invent?

I "invented a semantic deflection"?

There's a BIG difference between "not doing an investigation at all" and "not doing a FULL investigation even though there were SOME aspects investigated". If you don't understand the difference and want to play the "semantics" game, that's your problem. Is that why you changed your sentences to include the word FULL the second time around?

Tell me the difference between:
1. I didn't pay you the money I owed you AT ALL
or
2. I payed you SOME of the money, but not the FULL sum

Big difference. Figure it out. You screwed up.

You jumped in the middle of a convo I had with slackjawed so look at the context. Are you done whining? This is what is so pathetic about you bitches. You're so fucking insecure you hunt relentlessly for any excuse to dodge the issue. Even after I cleared up any possible confusion you still want to obsess over it. Lol.

Nice try.

What the fuck does "jumping in the middle of a conversation" have to do with it when you are QUOTED AS SAYING IT?!

 

[Fizz]

You are correct and that was my mistake as the name was Kissinger. Now let's see how much that changes my point:

Someone said Kissinger is a war criminal. You responded by saying it's a good thing we live in a country where people are innocent until proven guilty. I pointed out your hypocrisy because you say bin laden is guilty of 9E but he has never been convicted just like Kissinger has never been convicted. You're such a fucking amateur.

You truly are a fucking amateur.

and did i ever state my position on kissinger, you fucking moron?

Hahahahaha.....you dumb ****! Damn you are so fucking pathetic! Dance BITCH! Dance!

so you got caught talking out of your ass again!!!!

lets look at the facts:
1. i said "its good we live in a country where you are innocent until proven guilty"
2. kissinger is an american citizen and lives in america.
3. Osama bin Laden is not an american citizen and doesnt live in america.
4. i think Osama is guilty of 9/11
5. i havent stated my opinion on war crimes of Kissinger because i have no opinion.

according to you this proves i am a hypocrite.

you really are a fucking moron!!!

face it. you are still pissed off that i proved you were lying when you said it was impossible for an FDR to record more than 25 hours of data and for months you have inspected every post i make in order to find any little flaw in hopes you can come up with some little thing to prove me wrong on something.

how's that working out for you?
you really do lead a pathetic life!!

 

[CurveLight]

and did i ever state my position on kissinger, you fucking moron?

Hahahahaha.....you dumb ****! Damn you are so fucking pathetic! Dance BITCH! Dance!

so you got caught talking out of your ass again!!!!

lets look at the facts:
1. i said "its good we live in a country where you are innocent until proven guilty"
2. kissinger is an american citizen and lives in america.
3. Osama bin Laden is not an american citizen and doesnt live in america.
4. i think Osama is guilty of 9/11
5. i havent stated my opinion on war crimes of Kissinger because i have no opinion.

according to you this proves i am a hypocrite.

you really are a fucking moron!!!

face it. you are still pissed off that i proved you were lying when you said it was impossible for an FDR to record more than 25 hours of data and for months you have inspected every post i make in order to find any little flaw in hopes you can come up with some little thing to prove me wrong on something.

how's that working out for you?
you really do lead a pathetic life!!

Dance BITCH dance! Rotfl.....

 

[CurveLight]

I "invented a semantic deflection"?

There's a BIG difference between "not doing an investigation at all" and "not doing a FULL investigation even though there were SOME aspects investigated". If you don't understand the difference and want to play the "semantics" game, that's your problem. Is that why you changed your sentences to include the word FULL the second time around?

Tell me the difference between:
1. I didn't pay you the money I owed you AT ALL
or
2. I payed you SOME of the money, but not the FULL sum

Big difference. Figure it out. You screwed up.

You jumped in the middle of a convo I had with slackjawed so look at the context. Are you done whining? This is what is so pathetic about you bitches. You're so fucking insecure you hunt relentlessly for any excuse to dodge the issue. Even after I cleared up any possible confusion you still want to obsess over it. Lol.

Nice try.

What the fuck does "jumping in the middle of a conversation" have to do with it when you are QUOTED AS SAYING IT?!

Context. Have you ever heard of it? In the dialogue with slackjawed we were discussing the 9E CR and based on that I said there has never been an investigation into 9E. That means, by context, 9E as a whole. You jumped into the convo and claimed I said there has never been an investigation so all I did was try to clarify. You jump on that like white on rice and obsess over it while ignoring the fact I answered your question. So if you want to keep obsessing over that then go ahead. You have already proven your question was insincere bullshit.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

OKC is crazy and the only things I hear about WWII is our entry into Pearl Harbor/Hitler's death.

Some say FDR knew about the Pearl Harbor attack coming, which is more of a half-truth than anything. He didn't know it was going to be at that exact time or location. However, talks had broken down only a couple weeks prior with Hull finally wiping his hands of the entire situation, exhausted of no progress. (Much like the Israel/Palestine situation today.) So he and others in the government could of suspected that something was coming in the future at some point.

Hitler's death is suspected due to the fact that Stalin himself believed until he died that Hitler had escaped. There's also the revival as of late that the so called skull of Hitler's wasn't Hitler's but rather a woman's.

And the JFK situation is because many people don't trust the Government since they locked up all the information until most of the people alive at the time would be dead. The Warren Commission Report itself may have been factual for the most part but never questioned more than a few members of the Mafia.

And then there is also evidence that sheds new light with Carlos Marcello admitting to a FBI wire unknowingly that he had JFK killed.

Carlos Marcello Had JFK Killed

While yes, many of the truthers do believe some of these theories to connect to their New World Order theory, that's not the case for everyone involved.

OKC I could see, the other two however do leave room for questions, especially with more evidence coming forward in recent years.

Edit:

To Clarify: Anyone saying OKC is some sort of scheme put forth by the Government should get to a doctor immediately. There is evidence however with WWII and JFK that leave room for reasonable and logical debate. Both of which are lacking in those who believe OKC or 9/11 was done by a massive organization or the U.S. Government.

oh please do some research for once in your life.Unlike you,I have done research into 9/11,oklahoma city and JFK to know that they were all inside jobs. WW II I will give you the benefit of the doubt on because that one I havent done any research into.with JFK and 9/11,we know both of those were inside jobs and not just mere incompetence because nobody got fired on either of those days or lost their jobs when there should have been multiple heads rolling in the secret service in 1963 and for the incompetence of NORAD on sept 11

The mob was involved alright but at a lower level,they didnt have the power to control the media to tell all major outlets the lie that oswald alone killed kennedy or to set him up like he was or to change the parade route to violate all secret service regulations.Also you really need to read the book THE LAST INVESTIGATION by gaston fonzi.He served on the house select committe on assassinations in the 70's and resigned in disgust from that commission because of how they ignored evidence of CIA involvement.He talks about in his book how two CIA men came forward and confessed they did it and aksed the committe where they wanted to go with the investigation and they ignored that lead since it pointed towards government involvement when the investigation was winding down.

That's quite a case of paranoia you have going on there sir.
Don't worry, we're right outside and won't let you hurt yourself.

thanks for proving what a stupid idiot Bush dupe you are as always.I gave sources that proved my cases,YOU havent done jack shit here.keep being the chicken you are with your head buried in the sand,thats just what they want you to do.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

For my treasonous kangaroofer friends;(yes you)

YouTube - Happy Tree Friends, Flippy & Flaky, They are coming to get me AGAIN

childish videos when you cant counter facts.great debater you are.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Dailymotion - Aaron Russo Says 9/11 Was A Fraud - a News & Politics video

unfortuantly Ron you will find out they wont look at that video,they only see what they want to see when it comes to government conspiracys so they wont watch a video or read a book you refer them to since it doesnt support their version of events and shoots down their theorys they worship..