try to convince me it was anything other than the official story.

[mudwhistle]

There is something being overlooked. When and where has the Bush admin's version been proven true?

NIST, FEMA and other public reports and it is NOT th Bush admin's version, it is simply the truth

One more time. When and where has the bush admin's version been proven true? It wasn't nist and fema who told the world days after 9E it was bin laden and alqaeda. Why is it when those who believe the bush admin are asked for evidence they simply act indignant and pretend they don't have to prove anything?

If anyone claims the bush admin's version is the "truth" they should be prepared to support that claim and the burden of proof is on them. It is not up to others to prove what happened.

Hard to convince me we needed anymore evidence then the admissions by Bin Laden and Al Qaeda themselves. No proof needed to be offered.

Even Obama seems to think they were responsible otherwise he would have pulled us out of Afghanistan rather then throw us even more deeply into that war.


Man.....it must really suck when your delusions boomerang on you...huh?

 

[CurveLight]

I am no consp. nutjob but how far away was tower 7 from the towers?

close enough to get hit by them when they came down. i dont think anyone disputes that.

Do you have info on how much damage 7 took from falling 1 + 2? (I'm not that familiar with the Towers as the bulk of my time regarding that day has been spent on the Pent)

 

[mudwhistle]

Liberals go around most of their lives with blinders on feeling this rage....wanting to get even....**** someone over.....lying....never wanting to face up to reality.....and when you prove without a shadow of a doubt they're wrong.....they rationalize it away somehow.

Problem is when you're trying to believe a lie you always end up having something come up that totally disproves that lie......and your response is to just ignore it even exists.

 

[mudwhistle]

I am no consp. nutjob but how far away was tower 7 from the towers?

close enough to get hit by them when they came down. i dont think anyone disputes that.

Do you have info on how much damage 7 took from falling 1 + 2? (I'm not that familiar with the Towers as the bulk of my time regarding that day has been spent on the Pent)

Why don't you look for yourself and stop trying to get others to properly educate you.

 

[CurveLight]

NIST, FEMA and other public reports and it is NOT th Bush admin's version, it is simply the truth

One more time. When and where has the bush admin's version been proven true? It wasn't nist and fema who told the world days after 9E it was bin laden and alqaeda. Why is it when those who believe the bush admin are asked for evidence they simply act indignant and pretend they don't have to prove anything?

If anyone claims the bush admin's version is the "truth" they should be prepared to support that claim and the burden of proof is on them. It is not up to others to prove what happened.

Hard to convince me we needed anymore evidence then the admissions by Bin Laden and Al Qaeda themselves. No proof needed to be offered.

Even Obama seems to think they were responsible otherwise he would have pulled us out of Afghanistan rather then throw us even more deeply into that war.


Man.....it must really suck when your delusions boomerang on you...huh?

There are several problems. The first is bin laden denied any involvement.
CNN.com - Bin Laden says he wasn't behind attacks - September 17, 2001

The US has never charged bin laden.

You're also claiming the confession is enough evidence...but it was the bush admin who made those claims. You're also forgetting it would be popular for groups to claim responsibility even if they had nothing to do with it.


So, without jumping the gun, can you or can you not definitively prove the bush admin's conspiracy? That is what is so ironic. Every single version of 9/11 is a Conspiracy Theory. Nothing has been proven as the solid sequence of events.

 

[Fizz]

So, without jumping the gun, can you or can you not definitively prove the bush admin's conspiracy? That is what is so ironic. Every single version of 9/11 is a Conspiracy Theory. Nothing has been proven as the solid sequence of events.

no. obviously you need to read the definition of CONSPIRACY

con⋅spir⋅a⋅cy  [kuhn-spir-uh-see]
–noun, plural -cies.
1. the act of conspiring.
2. an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.
3. a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose: He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government.

 

[SFC Ollie]

I don't know why we have to keep explaining this. But one more time. The official investigation known as the 911 report is the truth as best as we know it. If someone wants to disagree with the official report then it is up to them to prove that it is wrong. It is not up to anyone to prove it is right.

I still haven't seen any proof that Chapter one of the 911 commissions report has any errors or untruths in it.

So how about chapter 2?

 

[DiveCon]

Liberals go around most of their lives with blinders on feeling this rage....wanting to get even....**** someone over.....lying....never wanting to face up to reality.....and when you prove without a shadow of a doubt they're wrong.....they rationalize it away somehow.

Problem is when you're trying to believe a lie you always end up having something come up that totally disproves that lie......and your response is to just ignore it even exists.

this isnt a left/right, conservative/liberal, democrat/republican thing
most troofers are independent and tend to be on the libertarian side of the political spectrum, but thats not saying its a libertarian thing either


its more an issue with people that are gullible enough to believe anything and not willing to accept facts

 

[mudwhistle]

One more time. When and where has the bush admin's version been proven true? It wasn't nist and fema who told the world days after 9E it was bin laden and alqaeda. Why is it when those who believe the bush admin are asked for evidence they simply act indignant and pretend they don't have to prove anything?

If anyone claims the bush admin's version is the "truth" they should be prepared to support that claim and the burden of proof is on them. It is not up to others to prove what happened.

Hard to convince me we needed anymore evidence then the admissions by Bin Laden and Al Qaeda themselves. No proof needed to be offered.

Even Obama seems to think they were responsible otherwise he would have pulled us out of Afghanistan rather then throw us even more deeply into that war.


Man.....it must really suck when your delusions boomerang on you...huh?

There are several problems. The first is bin laden denied any involvement.
CNN.com - Bin Laden says he wasn't behind attacks - September 17, 2001

The US has never charged bin laden.

You're also claiming the confession is enough evidence...but it was the bush admin who made those claims. You're also forgetting it would be popular for groups to claim responsibility even if they had nothing to do with it.


So, without jumping the gun, can you or can you not definitively prove the bush admin's conspiracy? That is what is so ironic. Every single version of 9/11 is a Conspiracy Theory. Nothing has been proven as the solid sequence of events.

Bin Laden admitted he was behind it. Senior Al Qaeda members planned it and junior members carried it out.
http://mprofaca.cro.net/binladen_oct2904.html

The plan was to anger us enough to cause us to invade Afghanistan. It didn't work out quite that way....that is until that fucken idiot Obama decided to win an election by saying he was gonna win the good war.....in Afghanistan. He said he would find Bin Laden and he said if he's in Pakistan he would invade them as well. He's here to clean up Bush's mess after all.

Don't you remember all if this?

No...you're trying to claim now that Osama [rhymes with Obama] is innocent. So that must mean that Al Qaeda is innocent and only trying to defend themselves from false accusors.....by blowing up innocent civilians in cities all over the world.

Go soak your head dipshit.

 

[chanel]

Wasn't Van Jones a "troofer"? He lost his job.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Wasn't Van Jones a "troofer"? He lost his job.

Truther; that he denied, among other things. (Communist comes to mind).

 

[mudwhistle]

Wasn't Van Jones a "troofer"? He lost his job.

A "Troofer"????

RLMAO

 

[DiveCon]

Wasn't Van Jones a "troofer"? He lost his job.

Truther; that he denied, among other things. (Communist comes to mind).

dont call em "truthers"
they dont give a rats ass about the truth
thats why i and many others call em troofers

 

[eots]

and then there are all those offical story bush dupes that molest children...

 

[DiveCon]

and then there are all those offical story bush dupes that molest children...

naw, that would more likely be troofers too
many troofers are also moon landing deniers and birfers too

 

[manifold]

try to convince me it was anything other than the official story.

Official stories are always 100% truthful and factual. That's what makes them official.

Nothing to see here, move along. The octomom is getting her own reality show, Tiger Wood's wife is a crazy ***** and The Colts are still undefeated. Those things are in desperate need of your attention.

 

[eots]

Homeland Security contractor accused of ‘prolific’ child porn

A computer specialist for the Department of Homeland Security was arrested Thursday for being one the nation’s most prolific disseminators of child pornography.

After a months-long investigation, FBI agents tracked Peter W. North to his home in Alexandria where they discovered 80 gigabytes — the equivalent of 25,000 pictures or 250 hours of video on your iPod — of child pornography in an external hard drive, according to a sworn statement by FBI agent Chad J. Gallagher.

North had come to Gallagher’s attention after the agent reviewed a list of the “most prolific offerors of apparent child pornography in the United States” that had been pieced together by a Wyoming-based federal task force. Working with Comcast, North’s Internet provider, Gallagher was able to use an Internet Protocol address assigned to North to find his home.

The Wyoming task force’s review of activity at North’s IP address between Dec. 10 and March 11 showed that the address was connected to more than 600 files containing child pornography, Gallagher wrote. Between March 27 and June 23, another 375 files were linked to the address

Homeland Security contractor accused of ‘prolific’ child porn - Examiner.com



Homeland Security official arrested in child sex sting
Sheriff: Suspect chatted online with detective posing as teen girl

Wednesday, April 5, 2006; Posted: 11:38 a.m. EDT (15:38 GMT)


Department of Homeland Security
Crime, Law and Justice
or Create Your Own
Manage Alerts | What Is This? WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A Department of Homeland Security official was arrested Tuesday night on charges of using his computer to seduce a child after he allegedly struck up sexually explicit conversations with a detective posing as a 14-year-old girl, authorities said.

Brian J. Doyle, 55, is charged with seven counts of use of a computer to seduce a child and 16 counts of transmission of harmful material to a minor, according to the Polk County, Florida, Sheriff's Office.

Doyle, a deputy press secretary, will be placed on administrative leave, although it's unclear if it he will be paid, a department official said.

In interviews with police, Doyle confessed and has agreed to waive extradition to Florida from Maryland, Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd said. (Watch deputies take Doyle away in cuffs -- 3:18)

On March 12, Doyle contacted a Polk County computer crimes detective who was posing online as a 14-year-old girl and "initiated a sexually explicit conversation with her. ... Doyle knew that the 'girl' was 14 years old, and he told her who he was and that he worked for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security," according to a statement from the sheriff's office


CNN.com - Homeland Security official arrested in child sex sting - Apr 5, 2006

 

[HUGGY]

there are some problems with the conspiracy theories. so let me take a step by step approach to this.

1. as far as the 9/11 attacks are concerned i think most people agree the twin towers were hit by airplanes. is there anybody that wishes to argue this point?

2. assuming we got past step one i think we can all agree the towers collapsed. now here is where the conspiracy people lose me. there already were planes flown into the buildings. there were fires burning. people were dying. lots of people. there were around 3000 people dead by the end of the day. a few hundred were police and firemen (i think its a little over 400 but exact numbers arent important for this discussion right now). so we have about 2500 civilians getting killed because they are trapped by fires in a burning skyscraper. everybody with me so far? ok, maybe even a few hundred people were still making their way down the steps. still we are talking a very large amount of casualties, right?

3. so we already have severe damage to a building, people dying by the thousands, etc.
so why blow up the buildings with explosives? where is the logic in that? its already a horrific tragedy. what logical purpose could sending people with explosives into a burning building serve? at this point the building probably needs to come down anyway and thousands are going to die anyway. where is the logic to risk getting caught sending in explosives? why not just wait and take down the building later?

4. now you already have people outraged over an incident in new york with people dying. why would you go and do something stupid like firing a missile at the pentagon or some other "it wasnt a 757" conspiracy?

5. ok, so i kinda get that flight 93 passengers may have been made into heroes. its nice to have some heroes out of the horrible day. i've seen claims of it being taken down by a missile and all that stuff. i'm not convinced and i dont think it happened but i am open minded about it. so what about these claims that it didnt crash in pennsylvania? what purpose does faking a crash serve? if a plane didnt crash in pennsylvania then where is it? what about the DNA of the victims and the hijackers found there?

Farmer, the head council for the commission says most of the report is untrue. Ya think he might know what he is talking about?

 

[eots]

the lead investigator at NIST seems to find their report less than factual as well


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

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

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

 

[SFC Ollie]

Yet none of the other people interviewed by the congressional team that day agreed with the good Doctor.