PhysicsExist
Member
- Dec 8, 2010
- 661
- 18
- 16
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
((some muddled, self absorbed gibberish))
((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.
((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.
((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.
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.
((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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The facts show you couldn't get past yoru Turrets problem. That's all.
Not only have you demonstrated your lack of intelligence (not to mention your sheer insensitivity toward those who suffer from the disorder).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.
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.
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!!!
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.
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.
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..
LOL. You can always tell when a Bushie Loyalist is out of bullets. He punts to grammar nazi deflection.
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.
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..
((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.
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.
Sure. Your move.
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?
your making a mistake.everybody that debates with him finds that out...