Any Informed Defenders of the 9E OCT on USMB?

[candycorn]

^ A compilation of EVERY intelligent and honest thing EVER muttered by bent tight, the cowardly pussy! (The asterisks are an editorial insert only. They obviously don't count!)

You're a * * * *

Still striking out in terms of saying anything intelligent or honest, eh bent tight.

In future posts, I will refer to Shakespere 3,000 times, cut and paste his works, chastise his contemporaries, chastise those who like his contemporaries, and speak lovingly about him....BUT as soon as you accuse me of being a fan of his or thinking he has ANY value whatsoever, I'll point out that I never said I was his fan or thought his works had value.

Sound familiar?

 

[Gamolon]

There are major problems with the CR. I said I shared many of the same problems with the CR as the link I provided. I never said it was everything but coward shitrags like you constantly ignore what people actually post and invent your own fantasies. Have fun with that.

Hard to invent your own fantasies when I can quote your fucked up claims and then show you what a dumbass you really are.

The only thing you have proven is that you're definitely accusing the government of an inside job and that you are a liar who tries to change the meaning of their posts by backpedaling when they get caught with their pants down.

I won't waste any more time on you.

Later.

Rotfl! Bitch. You are pure bitch. When I posted the testimonies I said:


Post 66
"I'm also not saying these prove anything in and of themselves as they are but a piece to a much larger puzzle."


Then I had to keep repeating that:


How many times are you going to ask the same question I've already answered at least two or three times. Once again:

I straight up said OCTAs claimed there were no witnesses to explosions and they cited that claim as proof none were used. I showed them that claim is false and there are many eyewitness testimonies of explosives. As I've repeatedly said, I did not post them to prove an inside job. I posted them to show the OCTAs are incorrect to say there are no eyewitness testimonies of explosions. That's it. However, it revealed hypocrisy as well. When they didn't know the testimonies existed they claimed the absence of them was evidence no explosives were used. Now that we know the testimonies exist they say they don't matter. That is clear hypocrisy.


Out of that, pay attention to this part. Pay attention very closely. Please.

"As I've repeatedly said, I did not post them to prove an inside job. I posted them to show the OCTAs are incorrect to say there are no eyewitness testimonies of explosions."


You lie about what I posted, ignore what I did post, accuse me of backpedaling, and avoid addressing the fact the government kept them hidden. You got pwned so you want to be a whiny bitch.

You're nothing but a dishonest little weasel. I'll take a little more time to show you. See this quote from above? See the red letters I bolded?

I straight up said OCTAs claimed there were no witnesses to explosions and they cited that claim as proof none were used. I showed them that claim is false and there are many eyewitness testimonies of explosives. As I've repeatedly said, I did not post them to prove an inside job. I posted them to show the OCTAs are incorrect to say there are no eyewitness testimonies of explosions.

Here is your original quote fuckstick. I put the terms in question in red again, bolded them, and enlarged them so you can see them.

An additional reason to pointing them out is many OCTAs claimed the lack of eyewitness testimonies about demo explosions is proof explosives were not used. I saw that on here when I first joined so I posted some of these testimonies and you know what the response was? They don't matter. They mattered when people didn't know they existed but after proving they do exist they suddenly became "irrelevant."

So piss-ant, why are you NOW purposefully leaving out the word DEMO from your current quotes showing what you actually said in the beginning. Trying to hide something?

What the fuck to you think using quotes from people to prove that DEMO EXPLOSIONS were witnessed implies? What the hell are DEMO EXPLOSIONS but EXPLOSIONS caused by DEMOLITION CHARGES?

I could give a rats ass you think it's part of the puzzle. You used the term DEMO EXPLOSIONS which means SOMEBODY placed charges to create said explosions. You got caught in a fuck up and now you're backpedaling like a scared little bitch.

Is that why you PURPOSEFULLY NEGLECTED to use the word DEMO in all your recent posts?

 

[Gamolon]

I straight up said OCTAs claimed there were no witnesses to explosions and they cited that claim as proof none were used. I showed them that claim is false and there are many eyewitness testimonies of explosives.

WTF!!!!!!

Now you are saying you showed them that there were many eyewitness testimonies to EXPLOSIVES?!?!?!?

You're a nutcase.

 

[Liability]

You're a * * * *

Still striking out in terms of saying anything intelligent or honest, eh bent tight.

In future posts, I will refer to Shakespere 3,000 times, cut and paste his works, chastise his contemporaries, chastise those who like his contemporaries, and speak lovingly about him....BUT as soon as you accuse me of being a fan of his or thinking he has ANY value whatsoever, I'll point out that I never said I was his fan or thought his works had value.

Sound familiar?

Oddly familiar. Yes.

Yes.

 

[Terral]

Hi Gamolon, Fizz, Retired Guy, DiveConman, Ollie, etc..:

You're nothing but a dishonest little weasel. I'll take a little more time to show you ...

This Topic is about whether or NOT there are any "Informed" USMB Registered Members with guts enough to defend the Official Govt Accounts of 'What Really Happened On 9/11' (my Topic). I made the same challenge to all Official Cover Story LIARS (like you) on "Terral's Challenge" Topic:

Terral's Challenge To Official 9/11 Govt Conspiracy Theory Stooges

No sir. None of the Official 9/11 Govt Conspiracy Theory Stooges (Gamolon, Fizz, Trojan, Ollie, DiveConMan, etc.) has guts enough to start 'their' Topic laying out all the evidence to defend the Govt Version of "What Really Happened On 9/11." This Gamolian Idiot is 'taking more time' (what a moron) mouthing off to other registered members, when he is supposed to be showing us how 'Building Fires' took down WTC-1, WTC-2 and WTC-7 into their own footprints like any typical Controlled Demolition (AE911Truth.org + My WTC-7 CD Topic).

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73qK4j32iuo"]Your Are Looking At "Two" Controlled Demolition Implosions[/ame]

The reason that Gamolon and Fizz will NEVER start their "WTC-7 Collapsed From Building Fires" Topic is because nothing like that has happened to a steel-frame skyscraper in the history of this planet! There is NO precedent for steel-frame skyscrapers collapsing into their own footprints from building fires and/or building debris! Watch this short video clip of the North Tower Collapse again:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYUx5zJ3yss"]North Tower Collapse[/ame]

Note how the skyscraper is imploding 'straight down' into its own footprint, but WTC-7 is standing tall above the dust cloud ...

... some 350 feet away:

This means that Gamolon and Fizz must take out a blank sheet of paper and try to convince us that WTC-1 collapsed straight down into its own footprint 'and' threw 'fire' cuckoo 350 feet away and through WTC-7 'fireproofing countermeasures' to 'cut' all of those massive girders, columns, beams and bar-joists to reduce this building ...

... into this little pile ...

... in just 6.6 seconds. Look at the faces of the adjacent buildings to realize they also suffered NO DAMAGE from the WTC-1 collapse 'and' from this WTC-7 Collapse!!!!! Mr. Gamolon and Mr. Fizz have the gigantic task of explaining how three massive skyscrapers imploded into their own footprints from building fires, when WTC-7 was struck BY NOTHING AT ALL. The fact that WTC-1 and WTC-2 also suffered the SAME EXACT FATE tells you that all three were definitely taken down deliberately using Controlled Demolition!!!!

The fact that Gamolon and Fizz make NO EFFORT at all to start 'their' own 'Building Fires Did It' Topic tells you that THEY ... HAVE ... NO ... CASE! Period! Instead, these Official Govt Cover Story LIARS come to this USMB Conspiracy Theories Forum every day to wave their stupid arms around and throw as much Official Govt Cover Story Dust into the air as possible, while attacking 'real' 911Truthers (like me) with their nonsense and stupidity.

The fact that ANYONE can be mislead into believing Official Govt Cover Story LIES by these idiots is proof that the USA 'is' Worthy Of Utter Destruction (#7-10).

When will Gamolon and Fizz and the Retired Guy Stooge and DiveBomb and Ollie start 'their' Topics explaining how this EMPTY HOLE (my Topic) ...

... equals a crashed 100-ton Jetliner? Never! Why?

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whrE1mXreas"]Because That Never Happened![/ame]

When will these Govt Stooges start 'their' AA77 Crashed Into The Pentagon Topic showing how this EMPTY HOLE (my Topic) ...

... is really a crashed 100-ton Jetliner? Never! Why?

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTJehfQkuyE"]Because That Never Happened![/ame]

The Official Govt Stooges should be laughed off this fine USMB Board ...

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2THs3oNooM"]Govt Stooges Have A 9/11 Case For NOTHING ...[/ame]

GL,

Terral

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Hi Gamolon, Fizz, Retired Guy, DiveConman, Ollie, etc..:

You're nothing but a dishonest little weasel. I'll take a little more time to show you ...

This Topic is about whether or NOT there are any "Informed" USMB Registered Members with guts enough to defend the Official Govt Accounts of 'What Really Happened On 9/11' (my Topic). I made the same challenge to all Official Cover Story LIARS (like you) on "Terral's Challenge" Topic:

Terral's Challenge To Official 9/11 Govt Conspiracy Theory Stooges

No sir. None of the Official 9/11 Govt Conspiracy Theory Stooges (Gamolon, Fizz, Trojan, Ollie, DiveConMan, etc.) has guts enough to start 'their' Topic laying out all the evidence to defend the Govt Version of "What Really Happened On 9/11." This Gamolian Idiot is 'taking more time' (what a moron) mouthing off to other registered members, when he is supposed to be showing us how 'Building Fires' took down WTC-1, WTC-2 and WTC-7 into their own footprints like any typical Controlled Demolition (AE911Truth.org + My WTC-7 CD Topic).

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73qK4j32iuo"]Your Are Looking At "Two" Controlled Demolition Implosions[/ame]

The reason that Gamolon and Fizz will NEVER start their "WTC-7 Collapsed From Building Fires" Topic is because nothing like that has happened to a steel-frame skyscraper in the history of this planet! There is NO precedent for steel-frame skyscrapers collapsing into their own footprints from building fires and/or building debris! Watch this short video clip of the North Tower Collapse again:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYUx5zJ3yss"]North Tower Collapse[/ame]

Note how the skyscraper is imploding 'straight down' into its own footprint, but WTC-7 is standing tall above the dust cloud ...

... some 350 feet away:

This means that Gamolon and Fizz must take out a blank sheet of paper and try to convince us that WTC-1 collapsed straight down into its own footprint 'and' threw 'fire' cuckoo 350 feet away and through WTC-7 'fireproofing countermeasures' to 'cut' all of those massive girders, columns, beams and bar-joists to reduce this building ...

... into this little pile ...

... in just 6.6 seconds. Look at the faces of the adjacent buildings to realize they also suffered NO DAMAGE from the WTC-1 collapse 'and' from this WTC-7 Collapse!!!!! Mr. Gamolon and Mr. Fizz have the gigantic task of explaining how three massive skyscrapers imploded into their own footprints from building fires, when WTC-7 was struck BY NOTHING AT ALL. The fact that WTC-1 and WTC-2 also suffered the SAME EXACT FATE tells you that all three were definitely taken down deliberately using Controlled Demolition!!!!

The fact that Gamolon and Fizz make NO EFFORT at all to start 'their' own 'Building Fires Did It' Topic tells you that THEY ... HAVE ... NO ... CASE! Period! Instead, these Official Govt Cover Story LIARS come to this USMB Conspiracy Theories Forum every day to wave their stupid arms around and throw as much Official Govt Cover Story Dust into the air as possible, while attacking 'real' 911Truthers (like me) with their nonsense and stupidity.

The fact that ANYONE can be mislead into believing Official Govt Cover Story LIES by these idiots is proof that the USA 'is' Worthy Of Utter Destruction (#7-10).

When will Gamolon and Fizz and the Retired Guy Stooge and DiveBomb and Ollie start 'their' Topics explaining how this EMPTY HOLE (my Topic) ...

... equals a crashed 100-ton Jetliner? Never! Why?

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whrE1mXreas"]Because That Never Happened![/ame]

When will these Govt Stooges start 'their' AA77 Crashed Into The Pentagon Topic showing how this EMPTY HOLE (my Topic) ...

... is really a crashed 100-ton Jetliner? Never! Why?

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTJehfQkuyE"]Because That Never Happened![/ame]

The Official Govt Stooges should be laughed off this fine USMB Board ...

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2THs3oNooM"]Govt Stooges Have A 9/11 Case For NOTHING ...[/ame]

GL,

Terral

so very well said.you totally took them to school there Terral. the whole discussion about the towers falling down due to explosives is mute,its been proven in spades hundreds of times here that explosives did bring them down.

In a mere collapse of a building,the concrete doesnt pulverize to mere dust,neither office or jet fuel fires can melt steel like the photos showed several steel columns MELTED,the laws of physics that scientists have gone by for thousands of years now all of a sudden no longer applys anymore, reminds me of the explanation of the kennedy assassination in that other fairy tale commission,the warren commission, you got to call all the witnesses who said they saw orange and yellow lights flashing before the explosives going off liars, temps recorded by NASA recorded fire temps that were FAR TOO INTENSE in their heat readings after being sprayed down for weeks to be either office or jet fuel fires,and a mere collapse of a building doesnt cause thousands of bone fragments to be found on rooftops blocks away.

yet the Bush dupes here bury their heads in the sand when confronted by this evidence and ignore it cause it doesnt go along with their version of events.the 9/11 coverup commission.they sure love making idiots out of themselves here being in denial.

 

[Gamolon]

so very well said.you totally took them to school there Terral.

*in a whiney, prepubescent, voice*

"You totally took them to school there Terral"



I can just picture you being a scrawny little whelp of about 11 years old with big eyes looking up at Terral in adoration. Thanks for the great mental picture. Terral, make sure to buy your "fan" an ice cream cone with sprinkles. That'll keep him kissing your ass for sure.

 

[Terral]

Hi Gam:

I can just picture you being a scrawny little whelp of about 11 years old with big eyes looking up at Terral in adoration ...

And now Gamolon and Fizz are going to start 'their' Building Fires Did It WTC Topics in support of Official Govt Cover Story LIES.

We all look forward to seeing your evidence for how fire jumped from WTC-1 to WTC-7 some 350 feet away to cause this ...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zv7BImVvEyk]WTC-7 -- This Is An Orange[/ame]

Those of you running around this place pushing Official Cover Story LIES are just as guilty as the inside-job murders of innocent Americans doing the dastardly deeds ...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgfzqulvhlQ]Gamolon Is LYING 'And' Getting Away With It -- For Now[/ame]

GL,

Terral

 

[CurveLight]

Hard to invent your own fantasies when I can quote your fucked up claims and then show you what a dumbass you really are.

The only thing you have proven is that you're definitely accusing the government of an inside job and that you are a liar who tries to change the meaning of their posts by backpedaling when they get caught with their pants down.

I won't waste any more time on you.

Later.

Rotfl! Bitch. You are pure bitch. When I posted the testimonies I said:


Post 66
"I'm also not saying these prove anything in and of themselves as they are but a piece to a much larger puzzle."


Then I had to keep repeating that:


How many times are you going to ask the same question I've already answered at least two or three times. Once again:

I straight up said OCTAs claimed there were no witnesses to explosions and they cited that claim as proof none were used. I showed them that claim is false and there are many eyewitness testimonies of explosives. As I've repeatedly said, I did not post them to prove an inside job. I posted them to show the OCTAs are incorrect to say there are no eyewitness testimonies of explosions. That's it. However, it revealed hypocrisy as well. When they didn't know the testimonies existed they claimed the absence of them was evidence no explosives were used. Now that we know the testimonies exist they say they don't matter. That is clear hypocrisy.


Out of that, pay attention to this part. Pay attention very closely. Please.

"As I've repeatedly said, I did not post them to prove an inside job. I posted them to show the OCTAs are incorrect to say there are no eyewitness testimonies of explosions."


You lie about what I posted, ignore what I did post, accuse me of backpedaling, and avoid addressing the fact the government kept them hidden. You got pwned so you want to be a whiny bitch.

You're nothing but a dishonest little weasel. I'll take a little more time to show you. See this quote from above? See the red letters I bolded?

I straight up said OCTAs claimed there were no witnesses to explosions and they cited that claim as proof none were used. I showed them that claim is false and there are many eyewitness testimonies of explosives. As I've repeatedly said, I did not post them to prove an inside job. I posted them to show the OCTAs are incorrect to say there are no eyewitness testimonies of explosions.

Here is your original quote fuckstick. I put the terms in question in red again, bolded them, and enlarged them so you can see them.

An additional reason to pointing them out is many OCTAs claimed the lack of eyewitness testimonies about demo explosions is proof explosives were not used. I saw that on here when I first joined so I posted some of these testimonies and you know what the response was? They don't matter. They mattered when people didn't know they existed but after proving they do exist they suddenly became "irrelevant."

So piss-ant, why are you NOW purposefully leaving out the word DEMO from your current quotes showing what you actually said in the beginning. Trying to hide something?

What the fuck to you think using quotes from people to prove that DEMO EXPLOSIONS were witnessed implies? What the hell are DEMO EXPLOSIONS but EXPLOSIONS caused by DEMOLITION CHARGES?

I could give a rats ass you think it's part of the puzzle. You used the term DEMO EXPLOSIONS which means SOMEBODY placed charges to create said explosions. You got caught in a fuck up and now you're backpedaling like a scared little bitch.

Is that why you PURPOSEFULLY NEGLECTED to use the word DEMO in all your recent posts?

ROTFL! Didn't I already explain in the context of the Towers it doesn't matter if one says "demo explosives" or just "explosives." They both have the same meaning. Are you hanging on to that for life because you keep avoiding the fact I said in post 66:


"I'm also not saying these prove anything in and of themselves as they are but a piece to a much larger puzzle."


I have also repeatedly stated my main reason for bringing them up is to prove the government kept them hidden from the public for four years.

I have also repeatedly stated my main reason for bringing them up is to prove the government kept them hidden from the public for four years.

I have also repeatedly stated my main reason for bringing them up is to prove the government kept them hidden from the public for four years.

I have also repeatedly stated my main reason for bringing them up is to prove the government kept them hidden from the public for four years.

You fucking losers ignore that.

 

[Fizz]

You snitched on him because you are a whiny bitch.

when do we get to the part where the CIA duped eots into doing something against the board rules?

he's a big boy. if he broke the rules then its his fault not the person pointing it out.

go fucking cry that you lost one of your little sandbox playmates, jerkoff.

 

[Liability]

You snitched on him because you are a whiny bitch.

when do we get to the part where the CIA duped eots into doing something against the board rules?

he's a big boy. if he broke the rules then its his fault not the person pointing it out.

go fucking cry that you lost one of your little sandbox playmates, jerkoff.

LOL!

I "made" id-eots jump off the ledge.



The notion of "responsibility" is as alien to the thinking of some of these libtards as is the concept of "honesty."

 

[Gamolon]

Rotfl! Bitch. You are pure bitch. When I posted the testimonies I said:


Post 66
"I'm also not saying these prove anything in and of themselves as they are but a piece to a much larger puzzle."


Then I had to keep repeating that:


How many times are you going to ask the same question I've already answered at least two or three times. Once again:

I straight up said OCTAs claimed there were no witnesses to explosions and they cited that claim as proof none were used. I showed them that claim is false and there are many eyewitness testimonies of explosives. As I've repeatedly said, I did not post them to prove an inside job. I posted them to show the OCTAs are incorrect to say there are no eyewitness testimonies of explosions. That's it. However, it revealed hypocrisy as well. When they didn't know the testimonies existed they claimed the absence of them was evidence no explosives were used. Now that we know the testimonies exist they say they don't matter. That is clear hypocrisy.


Out of that, pay attention to this part. Pay attention very closely. Please.

"As I've repeatedly said, I did not post them to prove an inside job. I posted them to show the OCTAs are incorrect to say there are no eyewitness testimonies of explosions."


You lie about what I posted, ignore what I did post, accuse me of backpedaling, and avoid addressing the fact the government kept them hidden. You got pwned so you want to be a whiny bitch.

You're nothing but a dishonest little weasel. I'll take a little more time to show you. See this quote from above? See the red letters I bolded?


Here is your original quote fuckstick. I put the terms in question in red again, bolded them, and enlarged them so you can see them.

An additional reason to pointing them out is many OCTAs claimed the lack of eyewitness testimonies about demo explosions is proof explosives were not used. I saw that on here when I first joined so I posted some of these testimonies and you know what the response was? They don't matter. They mattered when people didn't know they existed but after proving they do exist they suddenly became "irrelevant."

So piss-ant, why are you NOW purposefully leaving out the word DEMO from your current quotes showing what you actually said in the beginning. Trying to hide something?

What the fuck to you think using quotes from people to prove that DEMO EXPLOSIONS were witnessed implies? What the hell are DEMO EXPLOSIONS but EXPLOSIONS caused by DEMOLITION CHARGES?

I could give a rats ass you think it's part of the puzzle. You used the term DEMO EXPLOSIONS which means SOMEBODY placed charges to create said explosions. You got caught in a fuck up and now you're backpedaling like a scared little bitch.

Is that why you PURPOSEFULLY NEGLECTED to use the word DEMO in all your recent posts?

ROTFL! Didn't I already explain in the context of the Towers it doesn't matter if one says "demo explosives" or just "explosives." They both have the same meaning. Are you hanging on to that for life because you keep avoiding the fact I said in post 66:


"I'm also not saying these prove anything in and of themselves as they are but a piece to a much larger puzzle."


I have also repeatedly stated my main reason for bringing them up is to prove the government kept them hidden from the public for four years.

I have also repeatedly stated my main reason for bringing them up is to prove the government kept them hidden from the public for four years.

I have also repeatedly stated my main reason for bringing them up is to prove the government kept them hidden from the public for four years.

I have also repeatedly stated my main reason for bringing them up is to prove the government kept them hidden from the public for four years.

You fucking losers ignore that.

Why did you leave the word DEMO out of all your posts AFTER it was pointed out to you?

You keep avoiding that question.

 

[CurveLight]

I straight up said OCTAs claimed there were no witnesses to explosions and they cited that claim as proof none were used. I showed them that claim is false and there are many eyewitness testimonies of explosives.

WTF!!!!!!

Now you are saying you showed them that there were many eyewitness testimonies to EXPLOSIVES?!?!?!?

You're a nutcase.

The witnesses thought they were explosives as evidenced by the sample quotes I provided. If you'll try to remember I said their testimonies don't prove anything in and of themselves.

Maybe now you can try to distract by saying my grammar is too poor or you don't like my font size? It's no less silly than the dumb shit you have tried to use to ignore the pertinent facts. Like how you kept whining how I used the word "Hidden" and when I proved they were hidden you dropped that like a hot potato. Just another example of your hypocrisy.

 

[Gamolon]

ROTFL! Didn't I already explain in the context of the Towers it doesn't matter if one says "demo explosives" or just "explosives." They both have the same meaning. Are you hanging on to that for life because you keep avoiding the fact I said in post 66:


"I'm also not saying these prove anything in and of themselves as they are but a piece to a much larger puzzle." .

Now your catching on!!!! DEMO EXPLOSIVES and EXPLOSIVES mean the same thing.

So, you admitted to using those quotes as PROOF that the DEMO EXPLOSIVES existed. That if you are providing proof that they did in fact exist, then SOMEONE had to plant them in the towers. They don't just all of a sudden grow.

So who would that someone be?

 

[CurveLight]

You're nothing but a dishonest little weasel. I'll take a little more time to show you. See this quote from above? See the red letters I bolded?


Here is your original quote fuckstick. I put the terms in question in red again, bolded them, and enlarged them so you can see them.


So piss-ant, why are you NOW purposefully leaving out the word DEMO from your current quotes showing what you actually said in the beginning. Trying to hide something?

What the fuck to you think using quotes from people to prove that DEMO EXPLOSIONS were witnessed implies? What the hell are DEMO EXPLOSIONS but EXPLOSIONS caused by DEMOLITION CHARGES?

I could give a rats ass you think it's part of the puzzle. You used the term DEMO EXPLOSIONS which means SOMEBODY placed charges to create said explosions. You got caught in a fuck up and now you're backpedaling like a scared little bitch.

Is that why you PURPOSEFULLY NEGLECTED to use the word DEMO in all your recent posts?

ROTFL! Didn't I already explain in the context of the Towers it doesn't matter if one says "demo explosives" or just "explosives." They both have the same meaning. Are you hanging on to that for life because you keep avoiding the fact I said in post 66:


"I'm also not saying these prove anything in and of themselves as they are but a piece to a much larger puzzle."


I have also repeatedly stated my main reason for bringing them up is to prove the government kept them hidden from the public for four years.

I have also repeatedly stated my main reason for bringing them up is to prove the government kept them hidden from the public for four years.

I have also repeatedly stated my main reason for bringing them up is to prove the government kept them hidden from the public for four years.

I have also repeatedly stated my main reason for bringing them up is to prove the government kept them hidden from the public for four years.

You fucking losers ignore that.

Why did you leave the word DEMO out of all your posts AFTER it was pointed out to you?

You keep avoiding that question.

Why is it you keep asking questions that I have already answered? You just quoted my answer you dumbass. Read it again:


ROTFL! Didn't I already explain in the context of the Towers it doesn't matter if one says "demo explosives" or just "explosives." They both have the same meaning.

How else could it be explained? Let's see.......when talking about the Towers it is commonly understood the terms "demo explosives," "explosives," and even "explosions" is referencing......explosives. Want to ignore that again?

How many fucking times did you accuse me of claiming the testimonies proved explosives were used even after I said:

"I'm also not saying these prove anything in and of themselves as they are but a piece to a much larger puzzle."

"I'm also not saying these prove anything in and of themselves as they are but a piece to a much larger puzzle."

"I'm also not saying these prove anything in and of themselves as they are but a piece to a much larger puzzle."

......in the same fucking post where I linked the testimonies!

You guys are displaying cognitive dissonance in all of it's beautiful glory. You know it was wrong for the government to hide those testimonies from the public and you know you cannot justify why they did it so you frantically scurry like mice in a piercing eternal shrill t drown that out by being dishonest what I have stated.

 

[CurveLight]

ROTFL! Didn't I already explain in the context of the Towers it doesn't matter if one says "demo explosives" or just "explosives." They both have the same meaning. Are you hanging on to that for life because you keep avoiding the fact I said in post 66:


"I'm also not saying these prove anything in and of themselves as they are but a piece to a much larger puzzle." .

Now your catching on!!!! DEMO EXPLOSIVES and EXPLOSIVES mean the same thing.

So, you admitted to using those quotes as PROOF that the DEMO EXPLOSIVES existed. That if you are providing proof that they did in fact exist, then SOMEONE had to plant them in the towers. They don't just all of a sudden grow.

So who would that someone be?

You're a fucking idiot. I've explained this several times and you keep ignoring it to try and justify lying about what I have said.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Hi Gam:

I can just picture you being a scrawny little whelp of about 11 years old with big eyes looking up at Terral in adoration ...

And now Gamolon and Fizz are going to start 'their' Building Fires Did It WTC Topics in support of Official Govt Cover Story LIES.

We all look forward to seeing your evidence for how fire jumped from WTC-1 to WTC-7 some 350 feet away to cause this ...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zv7BImVvEyk]WTC-7 -- This Is An Orange[/ame]

Those of you running around this place pushing Official Cover Story LIES are just as guilty as the inside-job murders of innocent Americans doing the dastardly deeds ...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgfzqulvhlQ]Gamolon Is LYING 'And' Getting Away With It -- For Now[/ame]

GL,

Terral

you have provided this video for them hundreds of times to watch before terral but they always run off with their tails between their legs like the cowards they are and always find excuses not to watch it or comment on it since it proves the 9/11 commission lied about the war and their findings,never had any interest in the truth and that it was an inside job.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

ROTFL! Didn't I already explain in the context of the Towers it doesn't matter if one says "demo explosives" or just "explosives." They both have the same meaning. Are you hanging on to that for life because you keep avoiding the fact I said in post 66:


"I'm also not saying these prove anything in and of themselves as they are but a piece to a much larger puzzle." .

Now your catching on!!!! DEMO EXPLOSIVES and EXPLOSIVES mean the same thing.

So, you admitted to using those quotes as PROOF that the DEMO EXPLOSIVES existed. That if you are providing proof that they did in fact exist, then SOMEONE had to plant them in the towers. They don't just all of a sudden grow.

So who would that someone be?

You're a fucking idiot. I've explained this several times and you keep ignoring it to try and justify lying about what I have said.

thats why nobody here should ever bother with him.thats how he always operates,just like candy corn troll boy.You explain something to him several times and since it doesnt fit his version of events,he ignores it and comes back with more lies.dont know why you bother with him.

 

[Gamolon]

I straight up said OCTAs claimed there were no witnesses to explosions and they cited that claim as proof none were used. I showed them that claim is false and there are many eyewitness testimonies of explosives.

WTF!!!!!!

Now you are saying you showed them that there were many eyewitness testimonies to EXPLOSIVES?!?!?!?

You're a nutcase.

The witnesses thought they were explosives as evidenced by the sample quotes I provided. If you'll try to remember I said their testimonies don't prove anything in and of themselves.

Maybe now you can try to distract by saying my grammar is too poor or you don't like my font size? It's no less silly than the dumb shit you have tried to use to ignore the pertinent facts. Like how you kept whining how I used the word "Hidden" and when I proved they were hidden you dropped that like a hot potato. Just another example of your hypocrisy.

You are batshit crazy. You say that your quotes don't prove anything, yet you post this bullshit.

I straight up said OCTAs claimed there were no witnesses to explosions and they cited that claim as proof none were used. I showed them that claim is false and there are many eyewitness testimonies of explosives.

In YOUR QUOTE above you clearly state that you posted the quotes as "PROOF OF EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY OF EXPLOSIVES". Meaning they are proof that explosives existed. Damn! What a fucking moron. You keep saying that you never said the quotes proved anything and then come right back and say the quotes are proof of eyewitness testimony that explosives existed. READ YOUR DAMN QUOTE IN RED JACKASS! How can you read that red quote of yours and then turn around and tell everyone here that the quotes you posted weren't meant to prove anything?!

 

[CurveLight]

WTF!!!!!!

Now you are saying you showed them that there were many eyewitness testimonies to EXPLOSIVES?!?!?!?

You're a nutcase.

The witnesses thought they were explosives as evidenced by the sample quotes I provided. If you'll try to remember I said their testimonies don't prove anything in and of themselves.

Maybe now you can try to distract by saying my grammar is too poor or you don't like my font size? It's no less silly than the dumb shit you have tried to use to ignore the pertinent facts. Like how you kept whining how I used the word "Hidden" and when I proved they were hidden you dropped that like a hot potato. Just another example of your hypocrisy.

You are batshit crazy. You say that your quotes don't prove anything, yet you post this bullshit.

I straight up said OCTAs claimed there were no witnesses to explosions and they cited that claim as proof none were used. I showed them that claim is false and there are many eyewitness testimonies of explosives.

In YOUR QUOTE above you clearly state that you posted the quotes as "PROOF OF EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY OF EXPLOSIVES". Meaning they are proof that explosives existed. Damn! What a fucking moron. You keep saying that you never said the quotes proved anything and then come right back and say the quotes are proof of eyewitness testimony that explosives existed. READ YOUR DAMN QUOTE IN RED JACKASS! How can you read that red quote of yours and then turn around and tell everyone here that the quotes you posted weren't meant to prove anything?!

"I'm also not saying these prove anything in and of themselves as they are but a piece to a much larger puzzle."


"As I've repeatedly said, I did not post them to prove an inside job. I posted them to show the OCTAs are incorrect to say there are no eyewitness testimonies of explosions."

"I'm also not saying these prove anything in and of themselves as they are but a piece to a much larger puzzle."


"As I've repeatedly said, I did not post them to prove an inside job. I posted them to show the OCTAs are incorrect to say there are no eyewitness testimonies of explosions."

"I'm also not saying these prove anything in and of themselves as they are but a piece to a much larger puzzle."


"As I've repeatedly said, I did not post them to prove an inside job. I posted them to show the OCTAs are incorrect to say there are no eyewitness testimonies of explosions."

"I'm also not saying these prove anything in and of themselves as they are but a piece to a much larger puzzle."


"As I've repeatedly said, I did not post them to prove an inside job. I posted them to show the OCTAs are incorrect to say there are no eyewitness testimonies of explosions."

"I'm also not saying these prove anything in and of themselves as they are but a piece to a much larger puzzle."


"As I've repeatedly said, I did not post them to prove an inside job. I posted them to show the OCTAs are incorrect to say there are no eyewitness testimonies of explosions."

"I'm also not saying these prove anything in and of themselves as they are but a piece to a much larger puzzle."


"As I've repeatedly said, I did not post them to prove an inside job. I posted them to show the OCTAs are incorrect to say there are no eyewitness testimonies of explosions."

"I'm also not saying these prove anything in and of themselves as they are but a piece to a much larger puzzle."


"As I've repeatedly said, I did not post them to prove an inside job. I posted them to show the OCTAs are incorrect to say there are no eyewitness testimonies of explosions."

"I'm also not saying these prove anything in and of themselves as they are but a piece to a much larger puzzle."


"As I've repeatedly said, I did not post them to prove an inside job. I posted them to show the OCTAs are incorrect to say there are no eyewitness testimonies of explosions."