Jiggs, oh man, I can't really respond. I mean, you've got two out of context quotes like that to PROVE that for some godforsaken reason the people who WERE IN ON THE COVERUP lapsed and accidentally admitted it, so yeah, LIHOP for sure.

Also, I answered your question the first time, you were just too illiterate to understanding my straightforward response and I had to hold your hand through it step by step because you literally do not know how to process written English.

Also, to the throng of increasingly angry coincidence theorists who mock "just asking quetions" as a pejorative, it's telling that you're uncomfortable by the right questions ... that much is for sure. So while you waste coins playing "missile command" with "questions" about thermite, remote controlled planes, and the legitimacy (this one time, anyway) of government reports investigating itself, the contrast in your inability to offer rational answers to the real questions is satisfyingly obvious.

So that's right. I'll keep "just asking questions" -- about things like Mahmood Ahmed, the SEC destroying their records, and the war-game exercises -- and you all can keep right on conjuring up hypotheticals that are painfully short on logic and intellectual honesty.

In the end, coincitards can be loosely successful deflecting notions of direct complicity (due entirely to stonewalling and redactions), but they can NEVER explain away the obvious levels of extreme negligence that should have cost men their jobs. Because, at base, Team Cheney was undoubtedly guilty of that, and yet no one lost their job. Why is that?

I mean, just asking questions. ... though the answer is painfully transparent.

I never once suggested Kean nor Hamilton were "in on the coverup." Take your Ritalin, and focus on what I say, not what you choose to extrapolate. What was that you mentioned about "written English?" It's hard to tell if you're just perpetually dishonest, or really that stupid.

No, you didn't answer it at all. You danced around it.

So I'll ask it again, another way, and hopefully you'll be man enough to just give a straightforward answer this time, for the love of God:

Was the 9/11 Commission a legitimate investigation that followed all leads to their reasonable conclusion? Even when it set a mandate of not assigning blame on anyone before the investigation even began?

"The QUESTION, JERK!!"

And we'll keep laughing at you for not knowing what a "coincidence" is.

Irony.

Your entire storyline utterly relies upon an endless array of coincidences. That's why it's mockingly called "coincidence theory."

Here's the thing, though, it actually doesn't. You can't connect the ISI chief's actions with the U.S. in any way. You'll of course claim that doesn't matter, but it does if you want anyone to take you seriously.

There's the rub, right? We are talking about perhaps the highest impact single transgression against our country and, initially, no investigation was called for. Then we get the 9/11 commission, initially headed by Kissinger and ultimately being soundly trounced even by many who would never think to entertain conspiracy theories.

I am thinking that we should just start a thread about the commission report. And I do have a ulterior motive there in addition to proving my point about the investigation being a sham: I want people to read it and be educated about it.

I don't focus on that. I have talked about it ITT but there is a huge scope to the event, and posting about something does not mean it's an inordinate focus. I even have stated wherever the investigation should have led, it wouldn't likely mean much. But it is important as an example of the nature of the "investigation" into 9/11.

This is a hugely important point which I understand and believe. Furthermore I don't think many people appreciate this (me feeling special again obv). This doesn't however, obviate the need for a rigorous and transparent investigation. Do you understand that?


To "spice up my life" lol I actually get involved with more current issues, some of which are related to the aftermath of 9/11 but hey, you can't go back and change history. Again, it doesn't make me feel important to belong to a large cohort of skeptics. If you count the conspiracy theorists among the skeptics, we form a majority. Why would I feel special being in a majority?

LOL "skeptics." You guys are skeptics of 9/11 like evangelical Christians are skeptics of evolutionary theory. Until you tell us what's wrong with the investigation- and I mean actually find a flaw in it, not just say "Kissinger, inside job obv!" This claim will never hold water.

Jiggs and Deuces on one side of an issue means the other side is -10000 to be correct

Looooooooool Deuces, supposedly not just a grad school burnout but a "professional" poker player, doesn't understand basic stats and conclusions. Looooooool

Yes, and way more legitimate than your compulsion to link random things
energy IS the economy lol
Fires in manhattan ARE a conspiracy lol
Mahmood Ahmed's money IS 9/11 related

God bless you Jiggs, you are the greatest freakshow on the internet
Now hulk up and get real mad so your betters can finish the weekend off with another laugh

The reason you are a conspiratard is that there is no answer that can come from any investigation that will change your mind.

This is a good question. I won't reciprocate and ignore the more challenging posts thrown at me. After all, I have to do something to make myself feel special since such a high percentage of people share my position on 9/11 and thereby indistinguish me.

It's challenging because it's asking me to guess in the absence of a lot of information. I do believe the said planes took off that day (all on time I guess, terrorist win flips obv) and I do believe that commercial planes hit the towers. Given that, I think that the probability of flight 77 having hit the pentagon is pretty high. I can't put too much stock into the "evidence" pointed to by conspiracy theorists who say there was no evidence of a plane. This is not like building 7, where we have a high number of natural experiments to compare it to. We have no prior data on flying planes into the pentagon. As far as the degree of difficulty of the flight maneuver, there are experts on both sides.

But I do give the missile theory a nonzero probability. Two things really bother me. One is the fact that this plane wasn't shot down, especially given that we were clearly still under attack since this happened after the planes hit the towers and there were still planes int he air. I can still chalk this up to government incompetence and, again, lack of previous data on something like this.

The other thing that bothers me is the refusal to release all the video of the pentagon attack. Is it some pride thing? What is the reason? Why not just show people and end all speculation? There is a good chance that the government is hiding the footage to protect themselves. But that doesn't mean it's to protect them conspiracy charges. It could be to protect them from responsibility related to criminal negligence or some other bad outcome for them which I am not considering. Another possibility is a missile that the government proper had nothing to do with but doesn't want to reveal because of the social unrest doing so would unduly cause.

I would give the odds 225 to 1 in favor of it being the plane. Yeah, that is nothing but a gut feeling based on what I know and not some bs multivariate regression analysis.

Right about what? Your affirming thus and so, not me.

I was right about the government shutdown and in giving a significant chance of Dunn not being found guilty on murder though, right? Maybe, when the question of me being right or not is a legit question, you should use my history to adjust the odds. But then again if you could do that then you wouldn't be you.

Lots of people believe the moon landings were faked and the holocaust never happened, the number of people who believe something doesn't have much to do with it being true.

Deuces, during the Dunn trial you said the only thing preventing him for walking was likely the two African American women, which was clearly wrong

You also said repeatedly in that shutdown thread that we'd likely breach the debt ceiling and would definitely have another debt ceiling fight in February.

Your best examples of being right are cases where you were wrong.

You didn't get to be the consensus worst poster in the forum by accident

where "random things" means links to scientific research that leaves you disappearing from an exchange. Got it.

If you were really in "lol" mode, you'd answer my challenge asking how it's somehow not. Instead, you avoid it because you're the forum's biggest coward.

I never said fire at JP Morgan was a conspiracy. Merely that it was newsworthy, and worth being watched, given their interesting trend of gold hording. I then posted a humorous cartoon of Bernanke and Dimon moving gold through a tunnel.

Gosh, it's not? He gave $100K to Mohammed Atta. Is "follow the money" not something that registers in your world of delusional Ayn Rand worship?

You truly are the biggest troll on these boards. I enjoy taking you behind the woodshed every time you make the mistake of following me around.

Only one moron on this forum thinks ENERGY IS THE ECONOMY. Learn some rudimentary facts about economics or energy if you want to catch up to everyone else.

Must suck hardcore to go through your whole life so angry, alone, and unfulfilled in a world you can't understand

The moon landings were faked, it's obvious if u look closely at the footage, u can spot discrepancies with the shadows/lighting. Not to mention that it's impossible to go that far out into space as man hasn't the technology and the atmosphere out there isn't suitable for man/made technology.

And i'd bet that there are more people in the world who believe man has gone to the moon and planes were flown into the towers by terrorists, causing them to collapse.

So yeah, just because the majority of people think it to be true, doesn't mean jack.

The msm is not to be trusted, but meh, most people don't want to know, they're too content with their simulated reality.

Wow, you are an idiot.

That's also a good indication of the validity of a theory. Do normal people support it or do idiots and morons support it?

Of all the crazy theories I've ever heard, the planes not existing might be the craziest.

Learn some nuance, you overly-literal d***.

And, your cult-like devotion to traditional (flawed) economic theory is entirely why you have a mental deficiency understanding energy. You'll never learn, even after conventional crude begins its nosedive and the markets tank. You don't have the capacity to understand. That much was beyond clear a long time ago.

We have no modern economy, such as it is, without cheap abundant energy to make everything go. Read a book, and maybe watch a little less Jim Cramer.

Ha! Project much? ... But, whatever you need to tell yourself, you morally bankrupt tool of consumerism.

If you're not going to answer my questions that rape your premise, and have no actual arsenal beyond acting like a frat boy, I guess we're done here. You're too much of a p***** to have a real discussion about all the reasons you're perpetually dead wrong.

That was part of a tongue-in-cheek . I honestly don't know if you are just incredibly stupid or your trolling style is to just make up ****. This had nothing to do with my assessment.

I said that we were likely looking at a breach for awhile. Likely, you dumb mother****er. After I said that, Krugman came out and said the same thing. I'm not implying a connection just that the most popular economist in the country, who has a popular reputation to consider, went out on a limb and came to the same conclusion I did. When other information came in, I reevaluated. Yet, you always leave that out as well as insist that the fact that it didn't happen means there was never any chance. That's how I first knew you were a complete idiot.


The more you get owned the more this type of juvenile bull**** comes out.

There is a pretty big jump from questions about evolution to "God made everything". So no, I am not like the Christian evangelical skeptics of evolution. But thank God (if they exist) that when people do question evolution they aren't berated by accusations of religious anti-intellectualism. A student should be able to ask how the first eyeball came into being from no eyeball. Notice how scientists, who understand and truly believe in their theories, welcome questions and welcome challenging questions even more.

Kissinger means cover up. But as I said it doesn't necessarily mean covering up a conspiracy. It could also mean covering up the criminal negligence. But I kinda get the feeling like you and Fly aren't particularly upset that some terrorists weren't prevented from hitting us with a kill ratio of 157-1 and 3.3 trillion in financial impact according to one the NYT. If you were you would be as quick to find fault with the 9/11 commission report as I am.