Again, again, again. Fundamentally, any discussion with a truther will lead to them endorsing ****ing nonsense.


Deuces thinks a missile hit the Pentagon.

Jiggs apparently has "questions" about WTC7, a.k.a. he thinks it was a controlled demolition.

It's very very difficult for these people to know where to stop when it comes to making up bull****.

Wrong, you unrivaled troll. I never said anything about WTC7's cause. For the 12th or so time, I'm merely pointing out that your romantic novel was a sham. How could something like that not be so much as mentioned in the only "official investigation?"

When you can get that through your thick head, we may have a starting point. Otherwise, I can safely assume you're not here for honest debate. Clown.

You sound like a defense attorney telling the judge to throw the case out in pretrial because I haven't tied my evidence all together yet just for you. We're still in the evidence phase. And you have no explanation why the money man was never apprehended. That's because it's an enormous gap in your ridiculous coincidence storyline.

So then run along. You're wildly uninformed on even the most basic tenets of this subject matter. What's far worse, you're obnoxiously dishonest.

Correct. Instead, certain power circles knew the attack was coming and looked the other way. ... Even buried and stonewalled investigations and cutoff surveillance of the attackers. That much is indisputable.

I guess that's not technically "aiding" the enemy.

In any event, no one lost their job or went to jail. And good little loyalists everywhere are just fine with that. Disgusting, really.

[img]http://s29.************/57idq8egj/WTC7_poor_Digital_Rendering1sucks.jpg[/img]

[img]http://s10.************/eaw1dou5h/REALITY_CHECK3_officelights.jpg[/img]

[img]http://s21.************/l7ppj0ug3/NO_PHOTOGRAPHY_ALLOWED.jpg[/img]

Planes don't get flown into buildings, period! And if a plane were to fly into a sky scraper, it would be impossible for the resulting fire to cause the building to collapse, as has been pointed out by many structural engineers.

The story goes that debris fell from the first two towers and hit wtc7 which caused a fire. Larry Silverstein himself says that the decision was made to pull the building.


So if it was a controlled demolition that caused the collapse of wtc7 then it was obviously the same method that brought down the first 2 towers.

No I don't.

In every post you make up **** about what people say yet you feel righteous enough to talk about people making up bull****, ironically the very same bull**** you dishonestly attribute to them. And your tone conveys that it really pisses you off. It's like you raging at your own straw man puppets that you yourself are talking for.

You're nuts. Why not just cut out us, the middle men? Go to the arts and crafts store. Make some puppets out of straw men. Then go home and write some dialogue in which they say something you're against as well as some counter dialogue (for the "other" you) in which you tear your other made up argument down. The best part is when you're at home getting worked up with your puppets you can then literally tear them to shreds, hover over their shredded puppet carcasses, and scream out your contrived anger about how "people died that day!".

Or maybe you already do all that and just come in here when you can't afford new puppet making material.

One of the most videoed event in history doesn't happen period!
When it did happen I'll only believe the engineers that say what I want them to say.

But you have doubts it was a plane?

Why on earth would I leave? It's tremendous fun watching you eat yourself as the backtracking continues. There is no evidence "phase" This is what I have been calling for since I entered this discussion. You say there is an ISI connection. If that's true, and it's so obvious that we have to be coincitards not to see it, then lay it out and put me in my place.

Or keep flailing around, as you always do

Yet you haven't showed us why yet.

Is this like Scientology where i'll become violently ill if I learn the truth without proper training?

There's no backtracking at all, child. Powering forward, as you trolls dance and avoid and clutch and grab.

OK, here's a challenge for you to be honest for once:

Do you believe the 9/11 Commission did its due diligence, despite what we all now know? Despite announcing from the start that it wouldn't be assigning blame to anyone? Does that sound exhaustive and thorough? Are you sure you wanna keep bringing it to the table? Because it's kinda killing your argument.

We're still on your favorite romance novel, if you've forgotten. When you can admit it was a sham, we can move forward. It's ok, we're all here waiting for you, little scup. Honesty feels good. Try it.

If I say no, will you lay out how you can tie Mahmood's Atta money to the U.S.?

Do you promise?

Every video regarding this matter has been proven to be fake. When scrutinized closely, it becomes very clear that it's cgi. I already pointed all of this out previously.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...&postcount=129

And we have all told you that you are a worthless stupid detestable leech previously. Yet you remain.

This raises a question of what sources are out there claiming to have put together the pieces. We were attacked. Initially there was no investigation and the potential investigation was compromised in many ways. This much has, hopefully, been firmly established.

So then we get the 9/11 commission, which is crap. Filling the void of explanation are various sources, most of who are crackpots. Then we get NIST on building 7. kerowo mentions Nova. Maybe we should try to establish what the official sources are and what the unofficial but trustworthy sources supplemental sources are. The government lost my trust. Other groups are cut off from the evidence, so how can I trust them draw higher level valid conclusions?

I think the logical approach is to not trust any source on this. Take the basic facts that are established and try to piece together a range of what could have happened while not ever being too confident. The problem with the commission report is the commission report. The problem with anything else is the lack of access to evidence. Trying to piece together what actually happened should be a very tenuous process as things stand.

The best outcome would be a new investigation by the U.N. of the attacks to be paralleled by an internal investigation aimed at exposing the criminal negligence of those in power at the time.

Just for fun. Which part of the 9/11 commission report is crap? It seems to be to be an insanely detailed account of what all the terrorist cells were doing prior to 9/11 and how it came together. It also documents our intelligence failings, which would be kind of weird for a dishonest investigation.

Fly asked me the odds it was a plane. I said 225-1 in favor of it being a plane.

Yeah, I leave a very small nonzero chance that it was something else. When I see the footage they refuse to release I will most likely drop that to zero lol.

Yea none of this is relevant.

Either show me how the U.S. was involved in 9/11 or don't. The reason you guys get so frustrated is because the people who are your interlocutors here have done this many times before, and won't allow you to dance around with spooky background tangents.

Without the American Revolution, 9/11 would not have occurred.

I don't know who Mahmood Atta is, but if you can refine your request a little better, and perhaps not reveal yourself as a rookie to this subject material, I may agree to your terms and flesh out how Mahmud Ahmad is relevant. But you will not dictate my burden of proof. And you will stop using the 9/11 Commission as proof on anything.

So Deuces, theKid, etc. Are you seeing this? Ask yourself why he can't present evidence that Mahmood's money to Attah was done with the knowledge of the U.S. if its so easy to prove.

And then remember this is the guy you thought was making good arguments...

So you agreed to the "concession," then quickly deleted it and retreated to this?

Coward. Did you think I didn't see it? I guess you've withdrawn the agreement, because you know you need the fictional novel to stand behind.

Ah well.

LOL wat

I deleted it because I felt this was a better post. You still conceded, don't worry, we all see it.

Incidentally, what was the point of that post?

You have no face to save here.

You have been beaten

again

And it appears to be the final time since all I have to do to send you running is ask you to to provide evidence for one of the key links in your own chain

loljiggsy

Liar. I didn't concede jack. I asked you to write better, and admit the Commission doesn't count. You said you'd agree to the arraingment and openly admit that the 9/11 Commission was not a real investigation. Then you quickly deleted and re-wrote the post.

It's not a "better post." You basically changed your mind, and went back on a handshake. That's because you know the Kean Commission is your only weapon, and the commissioners themselves admitted it was a disaster.

Just get out. There are much more talented coincidence theorists ready to take your place. You're doing "Team Nothing to See Here" no favors. Rookie.