TOP U.S. GENERAL: "9/11 WAS FALSE FLAG."
Freedom Fighter
TOP U.S. GENERAL: "9/11 WAS FALSE FLAG."
Posted By: michaeldonovan
Date: Wednesday, 12 July 2006, 8:04 p.m.
http://www.undersiegemovie.com/moreinfo.html
-----Forwarded Message-----
Sent: Jul 11, 2006 9:09 PM
Subject: "It's all over"?
Major General Albert Stubblebine III, as I mentioned in an earlier post, is
the latest in a long line of high-ranking US military officers to openly
challenge the official LIE about 9/11.
Stubblebine was in charge of Imagery Interpretation for Scientific and
Technical Intelligence Ā- a highly specialized area that certainly qualifies
him as an expert in the field of electronic intelligence gathering,
especially imaging.
A friend and colleague who was an officer in US Army Intelligence just
informed me that he had served directly under General Stubblebine for many
years. So high is my friend's esteem of the General, he had only this to
say:
Ā"If Stubblebine is standing up to be counted, it's all over".
A brief clip of the General's interview is attached.
http://www.undersiegemovie.com/moreinfo.html
Albert Stubblebine
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Major General Albert Stubblebine III was the commanding general of the US
Army Intelligence and Security Command from 1981 to 1984. He is known for
his interest in parapsychology, and was a strong supporter of the Stargate
Project.
Albert Stubblebine: Information From Answers.com
Albert Stubblebine Major General Albert Stubblebine III was the commanding
general of the US Army Intelligence and Security Command from 1981 to 1984.
www.answers.com/topic/albert-stubblebine - 24k - Cached - Similar pages
STAR DREAMS INITIATIVE (SDI): Former Commanding Officer of the US ...MAJOR
GENERAL ALBERT N. STUBBLEBINE, III - Former Commanding Officer of the US
Army Intelligence and Security Command. The following speech was given by
...
exopolitics.blogs.com/star_dreams_initiative/2005/09/former_commandi.html -
72k - Cached - Similar pages
Barnes & Noble.com - The Men Who Stare at Goats - Jon Ronson ...Former US
Army Chief of Intelligence, Major General Albert Stubblebine III, who held
his post in the early '80s, recalls his frustrated efforts to get the ...
btobsearch.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?ISBN=0743241924&z=y&btob=Y
- 52k -
Vandar
> http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=90542
> TOP U.S. GENERAL: "9/11 WAS FALSE FLAG."
> Posted By: michaeldonovan
> Date: Wednesday, 12 July 2006, 8:04 p.m.
>
> http://www.undersiegemovie.com/moreinfo.html
>
> -----Forwarded Message-----
> Sent: Jul 11, 2006 9:09 PM
> Subject: "It's all over"?
>
> Major General Albert Stubblebine III, as I mentioned in an earlier post, is
> the latest in a long line of high-ranking US military officers to openly
> challenge the official LIE about 9/11.
>
> Stubblebine was in charge of Imagery Interpretation for Scientific and
> especially imaging.
>
> A friend and colleague who was an officer in US Army Intelligence just
> informed me that he had served directly under General Stubblebine for many
> years. So high is my friend's esteem of the General, he had only this to
> say:
>
Then your friend is an idiot.
From Wikipedia's entry on the Stargate Project:
"Major General Albert Stubblebine: A key sponsor of the research
internally at Fort Meade, he was convinced of the reality of a wide
variety of psychic phenomena, leading him to even attempt to walk
through walls. In the early 1980s he was responsible for Army
Intelligence, during which time the remote viewing project in the army
began. Some commentators have confused Project Jedi run by Special
Forces primarily out of Fort Bragg with Stargate. In fact General
Stubblebine was poorly received when he visited Fort Bragg, and did not
participate nor was aware of the goat lab and other psychic experiments
being conducted there."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stargate_Project
He believes Uri Geller really bends spoons with his mind and he's
married to a "ufologist".
He resigned when an officer under his command had a psychotic episode.
Have a nice day.
DCh...@urass.net
"Vandar" <vand...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:%nyvg.5689$oa1....@news02.roc.ny...
> Freedom Fighter wrote:
>> http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=90542
>> TOP U.S. GENERAL: "9/11 WAS FALSE FLAG."
>> Posted By: michaeldonovan
>> Date: Wednesday, 12 July 2006, 8:04 p.m.
>>
>> http://www.undersiegemovie.com/moreinfo.html
>>
>> -----Forwarded Message-----
>> Sent: Jul 11, 2006 9:09 PM
>> Subject: "It's all over"?
>>
>> Major General Albert Stubblebine III, as I mentioned in an earlier post,
>> is the latest in a long line of high-ranking US military officers to
>> openly challenge the official LIE about 9/11.
>>
>> Stubblebine was in charge of Imagery Interpretation for Scientific and
>> gathering, especially imaging.
>>
>> A friend and colleague who was an officer in US Army Intelligence just
>> informed me that he had served directly under General Stubblebine for
>> many years. So high is my friend's esteem of the General, he had only
>> this to say:
>>
>
> Then your friend is an idiot.
>
> From Wikipedia's entry on the Stargate Project:
> "Major General Albert Stubblebine: A key sponsor of the research
> internally at Fort Meade, he was convinced of the reality of a wide
> variety of psychic phenomena, leading him to even attempt to walk through
> walls. In the early 1980s he was responsible for Army Intelligence, during
> which time the remote viewing project in the army began. Some commentators
> have confused Project Jedi run by Special Forces primarily out of Fort
> Bragg with Stargate. In fact General Stubblebine was poorly received when
> he visited Fort Bragg, and did not participate nor was aware of the goat
> lab and other psychic experiments being conducted there."
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stargate_Project
Posting anything from wikipedia as truth or fact shows just how kooky you
are.
John Agosta
"Dogc...@biteyou.net" <DCh...@urass.net> wrote in message
news:LGCvg.203$FI7...@fe10.lga...
Can you reference something / anything from wikipedia that is indeed false /
non-factual to support your assertion
that quoting this site is "kooky?"
Right here,
please: ------------>>_________________________________________________
David Morgan (MAMS)
>"Freedom Fighter" <lib...@once.net> quoted in message
> >
> > Major General Albert Stubblebine III, as I mentioned in an earlier post, is
> > the latest in a long line of high-ranking US military officers to openly
> > challenge the official LIE about 9/11.
> >
> >"If Stubblebine is standing up to be counted, it's all over".
> Then your friend is an idiot.
Is there ANYTHING you freaks can say or do to address the message
rather than to perpetually attack the messenger? It's really beginning
to totally damage whatever position you think you might have in a debate.
Avoiding the actual issue in favor of dissing the purveyor is a massively
fruitless and childish endeavor. Do yourself and your lost cause a favor,
stay on track with that concept or consider your time as totally wasted.
Anyone with a brain can see that you're merely avoiding the real issue.
> He believes Uri Geller really bends spoons with his mind and he's
> married to a "ufologist".
And you believe your penis is a vagina, so you married yourself.
See... it's really stupid and pointless. ANY idiotic moron can attack
some one or some thing, but it actually requires a wee bit of brains
to discuss the issue.
The issue is not Stubblebine, it's "911 is a mass of government lies".
David Morgan (MAMS)
"John Agosta" <j_agosta@remove_wideopenwest.kom> wrote in message news:d8adnckzy6i3ZSPZ...@wideopenwest.com...
>
> "Dogc...@biteyou.net" <DCh...@urass.net> wrote in message
> news:LGCvg.203$FI7...@fe10.lga...
> >
> > "Vandar" <vand...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:%nyvg.5689$oa1....@news02.roc.ny...
> >> Freedom Fighter wrote:
> >>> http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=90542
> >>> TOP U.S. GENERAL: "9/11 WAS FALSE FLAG."
> >>> Posted By: michaeldonovan
> >>> Date: Wednesday, 12 July 2006, 8:04 p.m.
> >>>
> >>> http://www.undersiegemovie.com/moreinfo.html
> >>>
> >>> -----Forwarded Message-----
> >>> Sent: Jul 11, 2006 9:09 PM
> >>> Subject: "It's all over"?
> >>>
> >>> Major General Albert Stubblebine III, as I mentioned in an earlier post,
> >>> is the latest in a long line of high-ranking US military officers to
> >>> openly challenge the official LIE about 9/11.
> >>>
> >>> Stubblebine was in charge of Imagery Interpretation for Scientific and
> >>> qualifies him as an expert in the field of electronic intelligence
> >>> gathering, especially imaging.
> >>>
> >>> A friend and colleague who was an officer in US Army Intelligence just
> >>> informed me that he had served directly under General Stubblebine for
> >>> many years. So high is my friend's esteem of the General, he had only
> >>> this to say:
> >>>
> >>
> >> Then your friend is an idiot.
> >>
> >> From Wikipedia's entry on the Stargate Project:
> >> "Major General Albert Stubblebine: A key sponsor of the research
> >> internally at Fort Meade, he was convinced of the reality of a wide
> >> variety of psychic phenomena, leading him to even attempt to walk through
> >> walls. In the early 1980s he was responsible for Army Intelligence,
> >> during which time the remote viewing project in the army began. Some
> >> commentators have confused Project Jedi run by Special Forces primarily
> >> out of Fort Bragg with Stargate. In fact General Stubblebine was poorly
> >> received when he visited Fort Bragg, and did not participate nor was
> >> aware of the goat lab and other psychic experiments being conducted
> >> there."
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stargate_Project
> >
> > Posting anything from wikipedia as truth or fact shows just how kooky you
> > are.
>
>
> Can you reference something / anything from wikipedia that is indeed false /
> non-factual to support your assertion
> that quoting this site is "kooky?"
>
> Right here,
> please: ------------>>
Sorry...right here will have to do. This problem has been mounting since
2003, not long after the initial launching of Wikipedia. In December of last
year, the feces really hit the fan via the major media and law suits.
"Wikipedia isn’t supposed to be the same thing as an encyclopedia: it’s
an experiment to see if accuracy can be arrived at through consensus."
... And it isn't working very well.
http://www.aetherometry.com/antiwikipedia/Section_I.html
Because of the massive number of lawsuits against Wikipedia, an enormous
number of pages have been forced to carry the heading, "This page is currently
under dispute over it's content accuracy". "This Article or section may require
cleanup", and other disclaimers. It's becoming a real sore on every teacher's
ass in the country for a few years now - that being a publicly editable database,
Wikipedia is subject to containing completely falsified or highly biased and/or
misleading information.
http://courseblog.cs.princeton.edu/spring06/wws528f/?p=68
The problem is so blatant, that various Wikipedia foreign sites are being shut
down by the respective governments to prevent the imparting of fraudulent
information to the public.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060119-6013.html
http://www.israelnewsagency.com/wikipedianewsisraelcensorship48480706.html
The big problem, is that students (and other inquisitive minds) are also
generally too lazy to find a library or other printed reference materials as
sources, so they sit behind their computers and take the easy way out...
believing that what they read in 'the 'pedia' is the truth. In the US, a great
number of teachers are currently refusing to accept Wiki as a reference
on research papers. It's a known issue that it contains false information
as a result of being publicly editable.
It's so easy to commit fraud on Wikipedia, that it's often the brunt of
practical jokes...
http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?ch=infotech&sc=&id=16057&pg=2
<same story> http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/roush/posts.aspx?id=15974
Wkipedia proponents like to use the total number of "errors" or average
"accuracy" in relation to other sources like Britannica... but they aren't
staying aligned with the truth by admitting that we aren't talking about
spelling, punctuation and grammatical errors here... we're talking about
complete fraud.
http://emacsmood.livejournal.com/101766.html
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/ramasastry/20051212.html
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1900708,00.asp
http://www.pressaction.com/news/weblog/print/brandt01212006/
Saturday, January 21, 2006
"There is a problem with the structure of Wikipedia. The basic
problem is that no one, neither the Trustees of Wikimedia
Foundation, nor the volunteers who are connected with Wikipedia,
consider themselves responsible for the content. If you don’t believe
me, then carefully read Wikipedia’s disclaimer."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer
Want a sample of this crappola that people could actually, though
unintentionally, buy into without checking other sources?
June 02, 2006 http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060602/BUSINESS/606020422/1003/rss03
" Popular Wikipedia entries, such as on President Bush, are
continually vandalized. An entry on Wikipedia founder Jimmy
Wales once was falsified with a reference that had him being
shot dead.
Last month, oil giant ExxonMobil's entry was altered by a disgruntled
Internet user who changed the corporate slogan to "Robbing you
blind" and the name of the company chairman to "J.R. Ewing."
This (Wikipedia) will never be a reliable source until someone takes
responsibility for it's accuracy.
Lizard
<ma...@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com> wrotC:DRIVE_E
>
>The issue is not Stubblebine, it's "911 is a mass of government lies".
>
"...and we know this because a total nutter SAYS it is!"
If you're bragging about your source, your source better stand up to
investigation. This post was about how a "top" US General is claiming
that the government was behind 9/11. Since no new facts or evidence
are provided, the sole argument is the argument from authority:"This
guy was in the military, so, we've got to believe him!" This, in turn,
leads to asking:"Is this a credible witness, one whom we should
respect even though he brings nothing to the table but his name and
opinions?" The answer, clearly, is "No way. This guy is a grade-A
nutjob."
BDK
LOL, you're hilarious. A google advanced search came up with all kinds
of great stuff connected to Stubblebine. Almost all of it tends to make
him out to be quite the kook. Maybe even by your very high threshold..
Just a sample.
http://www.militaryremoteviewers.com/remote-viewing-as-a-research-
tool.html
http://www.mindcontrolforums.com/hambone/people1.html Scroll down. He's
there. A whole lotta great kook stuff there..
http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2005/12/i-wish-that-hadnt-
happened_09.html
You guys really need to learn how to pick your so called "experts".
Whoo-hoo!
BDK
BDK
DCh...@urass.net
"John Agosta" <j_agosta@remove_wideopenwest.kom> wrote in message
news:d8adnckzy6i3ZSPZ...@wideopenwest.com...
>
> news:LGCvg.203$FI7...@fe10.lga...
>>
>> "Vandar" <vand...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:%nyvg.5689$oa1....@news02.roc.ny...
>>> Freedom Fighter wrote:
>>>> http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=90542
>>>> TOP U.S. GENERAL: "9/11 WAS FALSE FLAG."
>>>> Posted By: michaeldonovan
>>>> Date: Wednesday, 12 July 2006, 8:04 p.m.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.undersiegemovie.com/moreinfo.html
>>>>
>>>> -----Forwarded Message-----
>>>> Sent: Jul 11, 2006 9:09 PM
>>>> Subject: "It's all over"?
>>>>
>>>> Major General Albert Stubblebine III, as I mentioned in an earlier
>>>> post, is the latest in a long line of high-ranking US military officers
>>>> to openly challenge the official LIE about 9/11.
>>>>
>>>> Stubblebine was in charge of Imagery Interpretation for Scientific and
>>>> gathering, especially imaging.
>>>>
>>>> A friend and colleague who was an officer in US Army Intelligence just
>>>> informed me that he had served directly under General Stubblebine for
>>>> many years. So high is my friend's esteem of the General, he had only
>>>> this to say:
>>>>
>>>
>>> Then your friend is an idiot.
>>>
>>> From Wikipedia's entry on the Stargate Project:
>>> "Major General Albert Stubblebine: A key sponsor of the research
>>> internally at Fort Meade, he was convinced of the reality of a wide
>>> variety of psychic phenomena, leading him to even attempt to walk
>>> through walls. In the early 1980s he was responsible for Army
>>> Intelligence, during which time the remote viewing project in the army
>>> began. Some commentators have confused Project Jedi run by Special
>>> Forces primarily out of Fort Bragg with Stargate. In fact General
>>> Stubblebine was poorly received when he visited Fort Bragg, and did not
>>> participate nor was aware of the goat lab and other psychic experiments
>>> being conducted there."
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stargate_Project
>>
>> Posting anything from wikipedia as truth or fact shows just how kooky you
>> are.
>
>
> Can you reference something / anything from wikipedia that is indeed false
> / non-factual to support your assertion
> that quoting this site is "kooky?"
>
> Right here, please: ------------>>google.com
you little fucking turd
Vandar
> "Vandar" <vand...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:%nyvg.5689$oa1....@news02.roc.ny...
>
>>Freedom Fighter wrote:
>>
>>>http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=90542
>>>TOP U.S. GENERAL: "9/11 WAS FALSE FLAG."
>>>Posted By: michaeldonovan
>>>Date: Wednesday, 12 July 2006, 8:04 p.m.
>>>
>>>http://www.undersiegemovie.com/moreinfo.html
>>>
>>>-----Forwarded Message-----
>>>Sent: Jul 11, 2006 9:09 PM
>>>Subject: "It's all over"?
>>>
>>>Major General Albert Stubblebine III, as I mentioned in an earlier post,
>>>is the latest in a long line of high-ranking US military officers to
>>>openly challenge the official LIE about 9/11.
>>>
>>>Stubblebine was in charge of Imagery Interpretation for Scientific and
>>>Technical Intelligence Â- a highly specialized area that certainly
>>>qualifies him as an expert in the field of electronic intelligence
>>>gathering, especially imaging.
>>>
>>>A friend and colleague who was an officer in US Army Intelligence just
>>>informed me that he had served directly under General Stubblebine for
>>>many years. So high is my friend's esteem of the General, he had only
>>>this to say:
>>>
>>>Â"If Stubblebine is standing up to be counted, it's all over".
>>
>>Then your friend is an idiot.
>>
>>From Wikipedia's entry on the Stargate Project:
>>"Major General Albert Stubblebine: A key sponsor of the research
>>internally at Fort Meade, he was convinced of the reality of a wide
>>variety of psychic phenomena, leading him to even attempt to walk through
>>walls. In the early 1980s he was responsible for Army Intelligence, during
>>which time the remote viewing project in the army began. Some commentators
>>have confused Project Jedi run by Special Forces primarily out of Fort
>>Bragg with Stargate. In fact General Stubblebine was poorly received when
>>he visited Fort Bragg, and did not participate nor was aware of the goat
>>lab and other psychic experiments being conducted there."
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stargate_Project
>
>
> Posting anything from wikipedia as truth or fact shows just how kooky you
> are.
Do your research.
Vandar
> "Vandar" <vand...@yahoo.com> wrote in message...
>
>
>>"Freedom Fighter" <lib...@once.net> quoted in message
>>
>>>Major General Albert Stubblebine III, as I mentioned in an earlier post, is
>>>the latest in a long line of high-ranking US military officers to openly
>>>challenge the official LIE about 9/11.
>>>
>>>"If Stubblebine is standing up to be counted, it's all over".
>
>
>>Then your friend is an idiot.
>
>
> Is there ANYTHING you freaks can say or do to address the message
> rather than to perpetually attack the messenger?
If the "message" wasn't nonsense spouted by fools, then I *might*
address it.
> It's really beginning
> to totally damage whatever position you think you might have in a debate.
Gimme a fucking break. You haven't believed any fact presented counter
to your beliefs since the day you slithered in here.
> Avoiding the actual issue in favor of dissing the purveyor is a massively
> fruitless and childish endeavor. Do yourself and your lost cause a favor,
> stay on track with that concept or consider your time as totally wasted.
> Anyone with a brain can see that you're merely avoiding the real issue.
You do realize that you didn't address the message of my post, and
instead attacked the messenger.
>>He believes Uri Geller really bends spoons with his mind and he's
>>married to a "ufologist".
>
>
> And you believe your penis is a vagina, so you married yourself.
And you call others childish?
> See... it's really stupid and pointless. ANY idiotic moron can attack
> some one or some thing,
So you've shown.
> but it actually requires a wee bit of brains
> to discuss the issue.
>
> The issue is not Stubblebine, it's "911 is a mass of government lies".
The issue in this thread, moron, is "TOP U.S. GENERAL" Albert N.
Stubblebine.
Freedom Fighter
news:tFFvg.7091$Lw.4478@trnddc07...
> "Vandar" <vand...@yahoo.com> wrote in message...
>
>>"Freedom Fighter" <lib...@once.net> quoted in message
>> >
>> > Major General Albert Stubblebine III, as I mentioned in an earlier
>> > post, is
>> > the latest in a long line of high-ranking US military officers to
>> > openly
>> > challenge the official LIE about 9/11.
>> >
>> >"If Stubblebine is standing up to be counted, it's all over".
>
>> Then your friend is an idiot.
>
> Is there ANYTHING you freaks can say or do to address the message
> rather than to perpetually attack the messenger? It's really beginning
> to totally damage whatever position you think you might have in a debate.
> Avoiding the actual issue in favor of dissing the purveyor is a massively
> fruitless and childish endeavor. Do yourself and your lost cause a favor,
> stay on track with that concept or consider your time as totally wasted.
> Anyone with a brain can see that you're merely avoiding the real issue.
This is why I've killfiled "Vandar" and will not allow him to waste my time.
From experience I know that he's either a troll or a government-coverup
shill.
Ad-hominem attack is the refuge of unintelligent and immature people that
can't refute an opinion with logic or facts, so they resort to childishly
attacking the person that holds the opinion.
Freedom Fighter
news:tecub2pvtje8p33c7...@4ax.com...
" - - This guy is a grade-A nutjob."
mindarea
You can always count on Dave to inject his 2 cents precisely at the point
where no one is interested in hearing it.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
mindarea
> "David Morgan (MAMS)" <ma...@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com> wrote in message
> news:tFFvg.7091$Lw.4478@trnddc07...
>> "Vandar" <vand...@yahoo.com> wrote in message...
>>
>>>"Freedom Fighter" <lib...@once.net> quoted in message
>>> >
>>> > Major General Albert Stubblebine III, as I mentioned in an earlier
>>> > post, is
>>> > the latest in a long line of high-ranking US military officers to
>>> > openly
>>> > challenge the official LIE about 9/11.
>>> >
>>> >"If Stubblebine is standing up to be counted, it's all over".
>>
>>> Then your friend is an idiot.
>>
>> Is there ANYTHING you freaks can say or do to address the message
>> rather than to perpetually attack the messenger? It's really
>> beginning to totally damage whatever position you think you might have
>> in a debate. Avoiding the actual issue in favor of dissing the purveyor
>> is a massively fruitless and childish endeavor. Do yourself and your
>> lost cause a favor, stay on track with that concept or consider your
>> time as totally wasted. Anyone with a brain can see that you're merely
>> avoiding the real issue.
>
> This is why I've killfiled "Vandar" and will not allow him to waste my
> time.
Liar
Vandar
> "David Morgan (MAMS)" <ma...@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com> wrote in message
> news:tFFvg.7091$Lw.4478@trnddc07...
>
>>"Vandar" <vand...@yahoo.com> wrote in message...
>>
>>
>>>"Freedom Fighter" <lib...@once.net> quoted in message
>>>
>>>>Major General Albert Stubblebine III, as I mentioned in an earlier
>>>>post, is
>>>>the latest in a long line of high-ranking US military officers to
>>>>openly
>>>>challenge the official LIE about 9/11.
>>>>
>>>>"If Stubblebine is standing up to be counted, it's all over".
>>
>>>Then your friend is an idiot.
>>
>>Is there ANYTHING you freaks can say or do to address the message
>>rather than to perpetually attack the messenger? It's really beginning
>>to totally damage whatever position you think you might have in a debate.
>>Avoiding the actual issue in favor of dissing the purveyor is a massively
>>fruitless and childish endeavor. Do yourself and your lost cause a favor,
>>stay on track with that concept or consider your time as totally wasted.
>>Anyone with a brain can see that you're merely avoiding the real issue.
>
>
> This is why I've killfiled "Vandar" and will not allow him to waste my time.
> From experience I know that he's either a troll or a government-coverup
> shill.
Don't be afraid. I'm just infinitely smarter than you.
> Ad-hominem attack is the refuge of unintelligent and immature people that
> can't refute an opinion with logic or facts, so they resort to childishly
> attacking the person that holds the opinion.
Like calling them a troll, government-coverup shill, unintelligent,
immature, and childish.
Vandar
That was 2 cents worth?
Damn... I must've forgot to adjust for inflation.
David Morgan (MAMS)
"Vandar" <vand...@yahoo.com> wrote in message...
> Dogc...@biteyou.net wrote:
> > Posting anything from wikipedia as truth or fact shows just how kooky you
> > are.
> Do your research.
Done pundit... I guess you don't read much before you knee-jerk....
DM
mindarea
>> Dogc...@biteyou.net wrote:
>
>> > Posting anything from wikipedia as truth or fact shows just how kooky
>> > you are.
>
>> Do your research.
>
> Done pundit... I guess you don't read much before you knee-jerk....
>
> DM
The free online resource Wikipedia is about as accurate on science as the
Encyclopedia Britannica, a study shows.
The British journal Nature examined a range of scientific entries on both
works of reference and found few differences in accuracy.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4530930.stm
Accuracy of Wikipedia matches Britannica, review shows
http://www.cbc.ca/story/science/national/2005/12/15/Wikipedia-review051215.html
Once again Dave backs himself into the corner.
Don't let your knee hit the desk, Dave.
Vandar
> "Vandar" <vand...@yahoo.com> wrote in message...
>
>
>>Dogc...@biteyou.net wrote:
>
>
>>>Posting anything from wikipedia as truth or fact shows just how kooky you
>>>are.
>
>
>>Do your research.
>
>
> Done
Good. Then you now know that their info on Stubblebine under the
Stargate Project entry is accurate, thus there is no need for the rest
of your musings.
Lizard
wrotC:DRIVE_E
And misunderstanding of logical fallacies is the most common logical
fallacy on the net.
Please refer to my previous post. The *only* thing this guy offers is
his reputation -- look at the title of the thread. Since the "fact"
involved IS his reputation, questioning that reputation IS questioning
the facts.
When someone who believes nine provably silly things tells you he
believes in a tenth thing, odds are, the tenth this is also going to
be silly. Call it the Gary North syndrome. If a "source" is
consistently wrong in the past, it's a safe bet he's going to keep
being wrong.
In the abscence of any new evidence, an opinion is just that -- an
opinion. The best way to judge an opinion is to judge the person
espousing it. Is he generally reliable? Is he usually correct? Is this
a subject in which he has personal expertise? All of these are valid
questions to ask. There are no objective facts here, just one man's
comments and interpretation of facts already placed into evidence --
so we need to ask how valid that interpretation is likely to be. The
answer, clearly, is "Not Very". Once again, the nutters have brought
forth a fellow nutter, dressed him up in fancy clothes, and said
"Here! Listen to this guy!" And, once again, the simplest research
shows he's as reliable a 2 dollar watch.
(I also find it rather amusing that the conspiracy nutters would
complain about anyone investigating the backgrounds of their "shining
stars", when the bulk of their arguments are founded on innuendo and
guilt-by-association. "George Bush knew this guy who knew this guy
whose second cousin's brother's hairdresser once took a tour of
Israel! This is PROOF!!! the Jews were behind 9/11!!!!")
Lizard
do freedom fighters fight?
Freedom Fighter
> On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 22:07:34 GMT, "Freedom Fighter" <lib...@once.net>
> wrotC:DRIVE_E
>
>>"Lizard" <liz...@dnai.com> wrote in message
>>news:tecub2pvtje8p33c7...@4ax.com...
>>
>>" - - This guy is a grade-A nutjob."
>>
>>Ad-hominem attack is the refuge of unintelligent and immature people that
>>can't refute an opinion with logic or facts, so they resort to childishly
>>attacking the person that holds the opinion.
>>
>
> And misunderstanding of logical fallacies is the most common logical
> fallacy on the net.
>
> Please refer to my previous post. The *only* thing this guy offers is
> his reputation -- look at the title of the thread. Since the "fact"
> involved IS his reputation, questioning that reputation IS questioning
> the facts.
>
> When someone who believes nine provably silly things tells you he
> believes in a tenth thing, odds are, the tenth this is also going to
> be silly. Call it the Gary North syndrome. If a "source" is
> consistently wrong in the past, it's a safe bet he's going to keep
> being wrong.
True - but in trying to discredit such a source in this way, one can select
instances of error on his part and ignore all the times he was correct. The
statements of one individual must be seen not only in the context of
history, but in that of the evidence relevant to the claims.
> In the abscence of any new evidence, an opinion is just that -- an
> opinion. The best way to judge an opinion is to judge the person
> espousing it.
To a degree, but not as an absolute. Even liars sometimes tell the truth,
and the punishment for their lies is that no one believes them.
> Is he generally reliable? Is he usually correct? Is this
> a subject in which he has personal expertise? All of these are valid
> questions to ask. There are no objective facts here,
There are MANY facts and alleged facts available on 9/11 all over the
Internet!
> just one man's
> comments and interpretation of facts already placed into evidence --
> so we need to ask how valid that interpretation is likely to be. The
> answer, clearly, is "Not Very". Once again, the nutters have brought
> forth a fellow nutter, dressed him up in fancy clothes, and said
> "Here! Listen to this guy!" And, once again, the simplest research
> shows he's as reliable a 2 dollar watch.
Use of the term "nutter," even if seemingly justified, makes YOU less
credible in that you are stooping to ad-hominem attack.
> (I also find it rather amusing that the conspiracy nutters would
> complain about anyone investigating the backgrounds of their "shining
> stars", when the bulk of their arguments are founded on innuendo and
> guilt-by-association. "George Bush knew this guy who knew this guy
> whose second cousin's brother's hairdresser once took a tour of
> Israel! This is PROOF!!! the Jews were behind 9/11!!!!")
The collapse of WTC 7 is all the "proof" I need to know that, at the very
least, a new and independent investigation of this crime of the century is
essential.
Freedom Fighter
> PS: If crime fighters fight crime, and fire fighters fight fire, what
> do freedom fighters fight?
This is an infantile statement originated in the past by a notorious troll.
Do you wish to be seen in the same light?
John Agosta
"David Morgan (MAMS)" <ma...@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com> wrote in message
Thank you.
mindarea
You have no 'relevant evidence'. And someone who believes they can walk
through walls and bend spoons can't expect to be taken seriously.
>> In the abscence of any new evidence, an opinion is just that -- an
>> opinion. The best way to judge an opinion is to judge the person
>> espousing it.
>
> To a degree, but not as an absolute. Even liars sometimes tell the
> truth, and the punishment for their lies is that no one believes them.
>
Speaking from experience?
>> Is he generally reliable? Is he usually correct? Is this a subject in
>> which he has personal expertise? All of these are valid questions to
>> ask. There are no objective facts here,
>
> There are MANY facts and alleged facts available on 9/11 all over the
> Internet!
>
No there aren't. You have ZERO proof, ZERO facts. And here's a hint - weblinks do
not equal proof.
>> just one man's
>> comments and interpretation of facts already placed into evidence -- so
>> we need to ask how valid that interpretation is likely to be. The
>> answer, clearly, is "Not Very". Once again, the nutters have brought
>> forth a fellow nutter, dressed him up in fancy clothes, and said "Here!
>> Listen to this guy!" And, once again, the simplest research shows he's
>> as reliable a 2 dollar watch.
>
> Use of the term "nutter," even if seemingly justified, makes YOU less
> credible in that you are stooping to ad-hominem attack.
>
No it doesn't. If it is justified by definition it's credible.
>> (I also find it rather amusing that the conspiracy nutters would
>> complain about anyone investigating the backgrounds of their "shining
>> stars", when the bulk of their arguments are founded on innuendo and
>> guilt-by-association. "George Bush knew this guy who knew this guy
>> whose second cousin's brother's hairdresser once took a tour of Israel!
>> This is PROOF!!! the Jews were behind 9/11!!!!")
>
> The collapse of WTC 7 is all the "proof" I need to know that, at the
> very least, a new and independent investigation of this crime of the
> century is essential.
If you already have proof, why do you need further investigation? I'll
predict that if and when there is this 'independent' investigation,
whatever that means, you won't like the results of that either. Then what
will you do? More conspiracy? More cover up? How tiresome. It's time
your side confess that the party is over and you have lost the debate,
collect up all your tinfoil hats and go back to wherever you came from.
John P.
> The collapse of WTC 7 is all the "proof" I need to know that, at the very
> least, a new and independent investigation of this crime of the century is
> essential.
What about WTC 3, 4, 5 & 6 and the 21 other buildings damaged or destroyed
by the falling WTC towers?
You accept that each of them was severely damaged or destroyed by the
falling towers, but you feel there is something unusual in the fact that WTC
7 suffered the same fate? Why? What does the collapse of WTC 7 prove to you?
DCh...@urass.net
"David Morgan (MAMS)" <ma...@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com> wrote in message
>
> "Vandar" <vand...@yahoo.com> wrote in message...
>
>> Dogc...@biteyou.net wrote:
>
>> > Posting anything from wikipedia as truth or fact shows just how kooky
>> > you
>> > are.
>
>> Do your research.
Swallow, faggot.
DCh...@urass.net
"mindarea" <mind...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:44c012d8$0$2177$8826...@free.teranews.com...
> On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 18:04:32 -0500, David Morgan \(MAMS\) wrote:
>
>>> Dogc...@biteyou.net wrote:
>>
>>> > Posting anything from wikipedia as truth or fact shows just how kooky
>>> > you are.
>>
>>> Do your research.
>>
>> Done pundit... I guess you don't read much before you knee-jerk....
>>
>> DM
>
>
> The free online resource Wikipedia is about as accurate on science as the
> Encyclopedia Britannica, a study shows.
>
> The British journal Nature examined a range of scientific entries on both
> works of reference and found few differences in accuracy.
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4530930.stm
Were the subjects under review of the same topic?
What were these serious errors?
Were the errors in statistics or caused by political spin?
If there were only eight serious errors they should have been included for
context.
You posted two vague articles. Where's the study conducted by Nature?
Do you believe everything you read?
"But reviewers also found many factual errors, omissions or misleading
statements: 162 and 123 in Wikipedia and Britannica, respectively."
Quite a difference in errors with each having four reviewed. I bet the
numbers would be more appalling if they were broken down by factual errors,
omissions or misleading statements.
>
> Accuracy of Wikipedia matches Britannica, review shows
> http://www.cbc.ca/story/science/national/2005/12/15/Wikipedia-review051215.html
>
> Once again Dave backs himself into the corner.
> Don't let your knee hit the desk, Dave.
Dave has stated a well known fact. You on the other hand might as well post
the link to the 9/11 Commissions work as the end all on 9/11.
DCh...@urass.net
"Freedom Fighter" <lib...@once.net> wrote in message
news:s7Tvg.154260$mF2.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
This is why I throw it back at them.
DCh...@urass.net
DCh...@urass.net
> Freedom Fighter wrote:
>
>> "David Morgan (MAMS)" <ma...@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com> wrote in message
>> news:tFFvg.7091$Lw.4478@trnddc07...
>>
>>>"Vandar" <vand...@yahoo.com> wrote in message...
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Freedom Fighter" <lib...@once.net> quoted in message
>>>>
>>>>>Major General Albert Stubblebine III, as I mentioned in an earlier
>>>>>post, is
>>>>>the latest in a long line of high-ranking US military officers to
>>>>>openly
>>>>>challenge the official LIE about 9/11.
>>>>>
>>>>>"If Stubblebine is standing up to be counted, it's all over".
>>>
>>>>Then your friend is an idiot.
>>>
>>>Is there ANYTHING you freaks can say or do to address the message
>>>rather than to perpetually attack the messenger? It's really beginning
>>>to totally damage whatever position you think you might have in a debate.
>>>Avoiding the actual issue in favor of dissing the purveyor is a massively
>>>fruitless and childish endeavor. Do yourself and your lost cause a
>>>favor,
>>>stay on track with that concept or consider your time as totally wasted.
>>>Anyone with a brain can see that you're merely avoiding the real issue.
>>
>>
>> This is why I've killfiled "Vandar" and will not allow him to waste my
>> time. From experience I know that he's either a troll or a
>> government-coverup shill.
>
> Don't be afraid. I'm just infinitely smarter than you.
Yet you're here almost on a daily basis defending the government.
DCh...@urass.net
"John Agosta" <j_agosta@remove_wideopenwest.kom> wrote in message
Could you speak up?
Vandar
Big difference between defending the government and opposing your
absurdities.
Realizing that is the first step.
mindarea
The study demonstrates that Wikipedia is just as accurate as the
Encyclopedia Britannica. The research covered a variety of scientific
disciplines. The conclusion is that the on-line reference can be regarded
as reliable, equally as authoritative as Britannica itself. It did not say
there weren't any errors. Any body of text that comprehensive will contain
flaws.
>
>
>> Accuracy of Wikipedia matches Britannica, review shows
>> http://www.cbc.ca/story/science/national/2005/12/15/Wikipedia-review051215.html
>>
>> Once again Dave backs himself into the corner. Don't let your knee hit
>> the desk, Dave.
>
> Dave has stated a well known fact. You on the other hand might as well
> post the link to the 9/11 Commissions work as the end all on 9/11.
He suggested using anecdotal references in support of the comments from an
obviously flawed and deranged Stubblebine . Dave's references
bared no relationship to Stubblebine's character or comments and can be
considered a non-sequitur.
I'm not following the commission report reference, perhaps you could explain
what you mean? Stubblebine's ability to be a credible reference are greatly
attenuated resulting from Stubblebine's claims of psychic spoon bending and
attempts to walk through walls. This person is not to be taken seriously.
mindarea
HEY!, that's not nice. I'm going to call you a bunch of names, then I'm going
to accuse you of an ad-hominem attack. Then I'm going to pretend to killfile
you, then secretly monitor all of your posts to see if your still talking about me.
BDK
lib...@once.net says...
And what did you expect 7 to do after it was damaged by other buildings
coming down and having major fires in it?
Oh that's right, that didn't happen..LOL.
And the NYFD went into the demo business when Larry S called them and
told them to "pull" the building.
I bet they tied ropes to the fire trucks to get it going, eh?
You are the definition of "Nutter"/"Whackjob"/"Loon"
BDK, vacationing at Shill HQ.
BDK
says...
That's what the kooks don't get. They are purely basing all their
horseshit on politics, and thing else.
If we disagree, we're "Bush Lovers".
If only sanity was a virus..
BDK
David Morgan (MAMS)
"Dogc...@biteyou.net" <DCh...@urass.net> wrote in message news:rwpwg.104$h54...@fe10.lga...
>
> "John Agosta" <j_agosta@remove_wideopenwest.kom> wrote in message
> news:xIWdnSRu7ezVAVzZ...@wideopenwest.com...
> >
> > "David Morgan (MAMS)" <ma...@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com> wrote in message
> > news:lEGvg.9290$Ss2.5532@trnddc01...
> >> This (Wikipedia) will never be a reliable source until someone takes
> >> responsibility for it's accuracy.
> >>
> >> http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1900708,00.asp
> > Thank you.
> Could you speak up?
I think he did just fine.
Lizard
wrotC:DRIVE_E
>"Lizard" <liz...@dnai.com> wrote in message
>news:m3t1c2prn1l1sqevd...@4ax.com...
>> PS: If crime fighters fight crime, and fire fighters fight fire, what
>> do freedom fighters fight?
>
>This is an infantile statement originated in the past by a notorious troll.
I heard it as a joke in the early 1980s, when Reagan was supporting
the Nicaraguan "Freedom fighters".
>Do you wish to be seen in the same light?
>
Your assumption that I would care about your opinion of me is rather
interesting, albeit incorrect.
Lizard
wrotC:DRIVE_E
>The collapse of WTC 7 is all the "proof" I need to know that, at the very
>least, a new and independent investigation of this crime of the century is
>essential.
>
Really?
In addition to the criticisms others have made in reply, I'd also say
the collapse of WTC7 is proof that it *wasn't* a conspiracy -- because
such a collapse does, indeed, look odd (to those not used to examining
the facts).
Since it *wasn't* hit, why would "they" have ordered it to be blown
up? Assuming that it was supposed to be hit, and thus, explosives were
placed in it, when "they" found "their" plans had somehow gone awry,
wouldn't that have ordered the demolition stopped? The damaged to the
building from the collapsing towers was more than enough for "them" to
order to it sealed off for "public safety", and then "they" could send
"their" stooges in to "plant" the explosives already there, then
perform a publicly acknowledged controlled demolition to destroy the
building, accomplishing whatever-it-was "they" were trying to
accomplish by destroying it, and without arousing suspiscion. I mean,
that's how I'd do it.
The fact the building collapsed without being hit is very consistent
with the chaos and odd events which surround genuine disasters. It
makes absolutely no sense as a conspiratorial event. What was
accomplished?
(Indeed, the whole thing makes no sense as a planned conspiracy. One
plane hitting one building would have been more than enough to justify
war. The damage to the towers from the planes alone would necessitate
them being brought down via normal demolition, so there would be no
need to plant explosives to do that. Etc, etc, etc. The only way one
can believe the events of 9/11 were an American conspiracy is to
accept the "Machiavellian Moron" philosophy, that the plotters were
simulataneously evil geniuses of the highest order AND dunderheaded
idiots who couldn't pour piss out of a boot if you told them you
printed the directions on the heel.)
This is why the conspirators have started hauling in people like
"psychic viewers" and evoking Masonic/Satanic/etc links. The
"conspiracy", as presented, is far too irrational to have been plotted
by men cunning enough to pull it off; thus, only irrational
explanations (the 'symbolism' of the dates, or 'satanic' activities,
or 'masonic' plots) can "explain" it.
mindarea
Hey feeble fighter, the THE HONORABLE RUDOLPH W. GIULIANI is coming for you!
Lizard
wrotC:DRIVE_E
>
>Big difference between defending the government and opposing your
>absurdities.
Or, as I've said:"Just because the government usually lies doesn't
mean everyone opposed to the government always tells the truth."
Did the current administration exploit the 9/11 attacks to serve an
unrelated agenda? Damn straight.
Did they CAUSE the attacks? Nope. They got, in a sick sense, "lucky".
mellstrrr
> the THE HONORABLE RUDOLPH W. GIULIANI is coming for you!
To do what? Bore us all to death?
Do tell...
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Click these links and scare the shit out of a shillfly:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com
http://www.blackboxvoting.org
mindarea
> On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 16:21:04 -0500, Freedom Fighter wrote:
>
>> "Lizard" <liz...@dnai.com> wrote in message
>> news:m3t1c2prn1l1sqevd...@4ax.com...
>>> PS: If crime fighters fight crime, and fire fighters fight fire, what
>>> do freedom fighters fight?
>>
>> This is an infantile statement originated in the past by a notorious
>> troll. Do you wish to be seen in the same light?
>
> Hey feeble fighter, the THE HONORABLE RUDOLPH W. GIULIANI is coming for
> you!
Here's a photo of the criminal FF being arrested by NY finest.
http://www.cnn.com/US/9803/29/artistic.license/link.arrest.jpg
Way to go Giuliani!
MANFRED the heat seeking OBOE
>On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 13:37:05 -0500, mindarea wrote:
>> On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 16:21:04 -0500, Freedom Fighter wrote:
>>> news:m3t1c2prn1l1sqevd...@4ax.com...
>>>> PS: If crime fighters fight crime, and fire fighters fight fire, what
>>>> do freedom fighters fight?
>>>
>>> This is an infantile statement originated in the past by a notorious
>>> troll. Do you wish to be seen in the same light?
>>
>> Hey feeble fighter, the THE HONORABLE RUDOLPH W. GIULIANI is coming for
>> you!
>
>Here's a photo of the criminal FF being arrested by NY finest.
>http://www.cnn.com/US/9803/29/artistic.license/link.arrest.jpg
>
>Way to go Giuliani!
Could it be NONE OTHER than the RIGHT HONORABLE Horatio Jackson?
The one who will lead us in the championing of the mediocre?
http://www.alicia-logic.com/capsimages/bar_026JonathanPryce.jpg
http://www.thelin.net/laurent/cinema/films/tt0096764/14583.jpg
http://www.newlin-deschler.com/Pictures/dvorak/Horatio_Jackson.jpg
http://www.z06vette.com/gallery/data/500/1796DoItRudy-med.jpg
Do it RUDY!
me@com Animal
Most konspiracy kooks are suffering from severe 'Bush Derangement Syndrome"
mindarea
The madman FF screaming obscenities at police as he is dragged away in
handcuffs.
http://www.openair.org/alerts/artist/graphics/nyyell.jpg
A crazed FF spits at the camera on his way to jail.
http://www.openair.org/alerts/artist/graphics/ny2hand.jpg
The criminal FF behind bars where he belongs.
http://www.openair.org/alerts/artist/graphics/nybars.jpg
FF is behind bars, THE HONORABLE RUDOLPH W. GIULIANI saves the day!
DCh...@urass.net
> On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 08:07:42 -0500, Dogc...@biteyou.net wrote:
>
>
>> "mindarea" <mind...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:44c012d8$0$2177$8826...@free.teranews.com...
>>> On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 18:04:32 -0500, David Morgan \(MAMS\) wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Dogc...@biteyou.net wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> > Posting anything from wikipedia as truth or fact shows just how
>>>>> > kooky you are.
>>>>
>>>>> Do your research.
>>>>
>>>> Done pundit... I guess you don't read much before you knee-jerk....
>>>>
>>>> DM
>>>
>>>
>>> The free online resource Wikipedia is about as accurate on science as
>>> the Encyclopedia Britannica, a study shows.
>>
>>
>>> The British journal Nature examined a range of scientific entries on
>>> both works of reference and found few differences in accuracy.
>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4530930.stm
>>
>>
>> Were the subjects under review of the same topic?
Well?
What were these
>> serious errors?
Well?
>> Were the errors in statistics or caused by political spin? If there were
>> only eight serious errors they should have been included for context.
Well?
>> You posted two vague articles. Where's the study conducted by Nature? Do
>> you believe everything you read?
Well?
>>
>>
>> "But reviewers also found many factual errors, omissions or misleading
>> statements: 162 and 123 in Wikipedia and Britannica, respectively."
>>
>>
>>
>> Quite a difference in errors with each having four reviewed. I bet the
>> numbers would be more appalling if they were broken down by factual
>> errors, omissions or misleading statements.
>>
>>
>
> The study demonstrates that Wikipedia is just as accurate as the
> Encyclopedia Britannica.
You say this but haven't provided this fact.
The research covered a variety of scientific
> disciplines.
Yet they remain a secret.
The conclusion is that the on-line reference can be regarded
> as reliable, equally as authoritative as Britannica itself.
You've provided no information that says this to be the case.
It did not say
> there weren't any errors. Any body of text that comprehensive will contain
> flaws.
And the type of errors are what's important here.
>
>>
>>
>>> Accuracy of Wikipedia matches Britannica, review shows
>>> http://www.cbc.ca/story/science/national/2005/12/15/Wikipedia-review051215.html
>>>
>>> Once again Dave backs himself into the corner. Don't let your knee hit
>>> the desk, Dave.
>>
>> Dave has stated a well known fact. You on the other hand might as well
>> post the link to the 9/11 Commissions work as the end all on 9/11.
>
> He suggested using anecdotal references in support of the comments from an
> obviously flawed and deranged Stubblebine .
The only deranged one here is the person who refutes what was said with a
secret scientific
and totally flawed paper.
DCh...@urass.net
Kook
DCh...@urass.net
Defending the government is what you do. Whether it be unproven theory's or
know facts you're here defending the government.
BDK
No he isn't and neither am I! You're thinking in a very odd way.
Your logic:
MUST be Bush Plot+desperately try to prove it+ bad science, + kooksites
+ insane/out for $$$ kook "experts" = ????. (A load of nonsensical
theories)
Including:
Thermite
Thermate
Super Thermite
Explosives planted in buildings when constructed
Explosives secreted into buildings on weekends
NY firemen suddenly in the demolition business.
Remotely piloted planes
Holograms.
Invisible beams.
And on and on..
Result: Failure.
No matter how much you insist otherwise.
Our logic:
Hijackers take planes + slam into buildings + fires + real experts such
as engineers = logical causes for what happened.
Result= It pretty much fits. Something you can't claim at all.
THOUSANDS of real experts, that aren't selling books, videos, etc, have
no problems with the "official" findings on what happened, Bush or no
Bush.
And Bush, etc aren't even in the picture until afterwards anyway.
He may be the worst president ever, but there's no reason to believe he
had anything to do with 911 at all.
And you guys consistently refuse to talk to an engineer about your
theories about the WTC or pentagon. Only logical reason I can come up
with is that you are scared you will be embarrassed or ridiculed.
If there is another reason, let's hear it..
BDK
Vandar
As I said, there's a difference between defending them and opposing
absurd claims. You seem unable to recognize that difference.
mind...@gmail.com
Government shill. How much does the CIA pay you to be here?
mind...@gmail.com
Thanks, but I'll take the conclusions of the Encyclopedia Britannica
over yours. If this is deranged in your view, and you'd rather trust
the statements of a "spoon bender" your welcome to do so. This is a
reflection on your abilities, not mine.
Dogchain
<mind...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1153688888....@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
My you are very confused. This is why you can't answer the simplest
questions.
Dogchain
"BDK" <king...@buckeye-express.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1f2d715bc...@news.buckeye-express.com...
No I'm not.
>
> Your logic:
>
> MUST be Bush Plot
Wrong right off the bat.
+desperately try to prove it+ bad science, + kooksites
> + insane/out for $$$ kook "experts" = ????. (A load of nonsensical
> theories)
Some are and some aren't. You love to bunch them all together.
>
> Including:
>
> Thermite
> Thermate
> Super Thermite
> Explosives planted in buildings when constructed
> Explosives secreted into buildings on weekends
> NY firemen suddenly in the demolition business.
> Remotely piloted planes
> Holograms.
> Invisible beams.
> And on and on..
See them bunched all together while others are left out...over and over.
>
> Result: Failure.
Yes you do fail.
>
> No matter how much you insist otherwise.
I'd say it was the other way around, buckwheat.
>
> Our logic:
>
> Hijackers take planes + slam into buildings + fires + real experts such
> as engineers = logical causes for what happened.
Yes your stated logic is known. Why you don't mention why these guys were
allowed to enter or remain in the continental US, some very openly and
others at informant abodes, after they were on watch lists is why I state
for good reason you're here defending the government. These repeated actions
along with blocking and/or obstructing investigations are why your logic is
flawed.
>
> Result= It pretty much fits. Something you can't claim at all.
That you're here defending the government pretty much fits.
> THOUSANDS of real experts, that aren't selling books, videos, etc, have
> no problems with the "official" findings on what happened, Bush or no
> Bush.
Yet your bible (9/11 Commission) was sold.
>
> And Bush, etc aren't even in the picture until afterwards anyway.
More facts which show there was some type of complicity in the US
Government. When undoubtedly known there was an attack... he was told to
continue with his phony photo op.
>
> He may be the worst president ever, but there's no reason to believe he
> had anything to do with 911 at all.
Bush isn't part of the attack. He wasn't part of the attack or its
execution.
>
> And you guys consistently refuse to talk to an engineer about your
> theories about the WTC or pentagon.
Don't need to talk to an engineer when they talk to you, kook.
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/WhoAreWe.html
Only logical reason I can come up
> with is that you are scared you will be embarrassed or ridiculed.
> If there is another reason, let's hear it..
>
> BDK
You just heard it, moron.
Dogchain
I recognise you don't address anything that factually shows complicity.
BDK
Oh, you better believe it, you are.
>
> >
> > Your logic:
> >
> > MUST be Bush Plot
>
> Wrong right off the bat.
Oh?
>
>
> +desperately try to prove it+ bad science, + kooksites
> > + insane/out for $$$ kook "experts" = ????. (A load of nonsensical
> > theories)
>
> Some are and some aren't. You love to bunch them all together.
>
>
>
> >
> > Including:
> >
> > Thermite
> > Thermate
> > Super Thermite
> > Explosives planted in buildings when constructed
> > Explosives secreted into buildings on weekends
> > NY firemen suddenly in the demolition business.
> > Remotely piloted planes
> > Holograms.
> > Invisible beams.
> > And on and on..
>
> See them bunched all together while others are left out...over and over.
Feel free to ad the ones I missed, Cocky..
>
>
> >
> > Result: Failure.
>
> Yes you do fail.
LOL, like you would know.
>
>
> >
> > No matter how much you insist otherwise.
>
>
> I'd say it was the other way around, buckwheat.
Sure Cocky, sure.
>
>
> >
> > Our logic:
> >
> > Hijackers take planes + slam into buildings + fires + real experts such
> > as engineers = logical causes for what happened.
>
>
> Yes your stated logic is known. Why you don't mention why these guys were
> allowed to enter or remain in the continental US, some very openly and
> others at informant abodes, after they were on watch lists is why I state
> for good reason you're here defending the government.
LOL, the govt missed the boat, and that proves a plot?
LOL, you must not have ever dealt with any govt agencies before.
> These repeated actions
> along with blocking and/or obstructing investigations are why your logic is
> flawed.
>
>
Blocking and obstructing? Who? Where?
> >
> > Result= It pretty much fits. Something you can't claim at all.
>
> That you're here defending the government pretty much fits.
You know what I meant, Cocky.
>
> > THOUSANDS of real experts, that aren't selling books, videos, etc, have
> > no problems with the "official" findings on what happened, Bush or no
> > Bush.
>
> Yet your bible (9/11 Commission) was sold.
???????Please translate?
>
> >
> > And Bush, etc aren't even in the picture until afterwards anyway.
>
> More facts which show there was some type of complicity in the US
> Government. When undoubtedly known there was an attack... he was told to
> continue with his phony photo op.
LOL, I'm glad you aren't in charge of homicide or arson investigations,
you'd be putting all kinds of people in jail for doing "something" you
thought proved them guilty.
>
>
> >
> > He may be the worst president ever, but there's no reason to believe he
> > had anything to do with 911 at all.
>
> Bush isn't part of the attack. He wasn't part of the attack or its
> execution.
Oh, let's hear the "real story"....
>
>
> >
> > And you guys consistently refuse to talk to an engineer about your
> > theories about the WTC or pentagon.
>
> Don't need to talk to an engineer when they talk to you, kook.
>
> http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/WhoAreWe.html
LOL, you link to a damn kooksite? WTF is wrong with you?
Still scared to talk to someone without a motive to lie/exaggerate, huh?
>
>
>
> Only logical reason I can come up
> > with is that you are scared you will be embarrassed or ridiculed.
> > If there is another reason, let's hear it..
> >
> > BDK
>
> You just heard it, moron.
You haven't said anything worth a shit yet, assclown.
Rave on Cocky!
BDK
mindarea
Confused enough to believe the rantings of a 'spoon bender'? Confused
enough to believe the statements of someone who claims he can walk through
walls? Your definition of confused is well..., confused. I'll go as far to
say, as a long-time listener to the Art Bell show, I'm sympathetic towards
Stubblebine's paranormal beliefs and can imagine a sort of fanciful,
mythical world where claims like his are actually true. However even the
most biased individual must confess, upon returning to reality, that he is
bat-shit crazy.
I'm not obliged to respond to your questions that are put forth in an
interrogator fashion. Answers to questions which you likely already know
the answer. I suspect the facts are irrelevant in any case as it has
always been for those who advocate the 911 nonsense. Having said that, you
might find the following links relating to the Encyclopedia Britannica
study informative:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/extref/438900a-s1.doc
http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051212/multimedia/438900a_m1.html
http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051212/full/438900a.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_peer_review/Nature_December_2005/Errors
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_peer_review
Vandar
Nothing has been presented that factually shows complicity.
mellstrrr
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yet you're here almost on a daily basis defending the government.
>>>>>
>>>>> Big difference between defending the government and opposing your
>>>>> absurdities.
>>>>
Just keep telling yourself that, shillshitter...
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Take a sledgehammer to computerized voting:
Vandar
> On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 22:46:41 GMT, Vandar <vand...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yet you're here almost on a daily basis defending the government.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Big difference between defending the government and opposing your
>>>>>> absurdities.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>
> Just keep telling yourself that, shillshitter...
Just keep not presenting anything proving it wrong, psycho.
Will you be posting 137 replies to yourself now?
BDK
says...
No, only 136....
Or is it 138...
Or is it 141..
BDK
John P.
>> And you guys consistently refuse to talk to an engineer about your
>> theories about the WTC or pentagon.
> Don't need to talk to an engineer when they talk to you, kook.
> http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/WhoAreWe.html
Dogbrain... do you know how many engineers there are in the Scholars for 911
truth?
Let me help you out here ... I'll go slow, since it involves math. Just
scratch your paw on the ground for each number.
Take Zero and add it to Zero. Now, multiply that times 000, add 00 and then
subtract 000.0.
The answer is exactly the same as the number of engineers that are among the
SF911T.
Zero.
Now go sit in the corner and quit barking.
Dogchain
Defending the government! It should be well known to you, government
apologist, there was complicit behaviors within the intelligence and FBI
Counter-Intelligence agencies.
Nobody dropped the ball or missed the boat.
>
> LOL, you must not have ever dealt with any govt agencies before.
>
>> These repeated actions
>> along with blocking and/or obstructing investigations are why your logic
>> is
>> flawed.
>>
>>
>
> Blocking and obstructing? Who? Where?
Defending the government! It should be well known to you, government
apologist, there was complicit behaviors within the intelligence and FBI
Counter-Intelligence agencies.
Nobody dropped the ball or missed the boat. Google is your friend.
>
>> >
>> > Result= It pretty much fits. Something you can't claim at all.
>>
>> That you're here defending the government pretty much fits.
>
> You know what I meant, Cocky.
That you're STILL here defending the government pretty much fits.
>
>>
>> > THOUSANDS of real experts, that aren't selling books, videos, etc, have
>> > no problems with the "official" findings on what happened, Bush or no
>> > Bush.
>>
>> Yet your bible (9/11 Commission) was sold.
>
> ???????Please translate?
Dumbing down when a point showing your hypocrisy is drilled home are you?
Your bible, "the commission created by congressional legislation, chartered
to prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the
September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks", was also sold. With this fact being
known, what's your point?
>
>>
>> >
>> > And Bush, etc aren't even in the picture until afterwards anyway.
>>
>> More facts which show there was some type of complicity in the US
>> Government. When undoubtedly known there was an attack... he was told to
>> continue with his phony photo op.
>
> LOL,
Makes you giggle does it?
I'm glad you aren't in charge of homicide or arson investigations,
> you'd be putting all kinds of people in jail for doing "something" you
> thought proved them guilty.
Huh. Your logic is so twisted I can't believe you can function on any level.
Do you not think Bush being told to wait to take action and then listeneing
to this isn't displaying some form of complicity?
>> > He may be the worst president ever, but there's no reason to believe he
>> > had anything to do with 911 at all.
>>
>> Bush isn't part of the attack. He wasn't part of the attack or its
>> execution.
>
> Oh, let's hear the "real story"....
>
>>
>>
>> >
>> > And you guys consistently refuse to talk to an engineer about your
>> > theories about the WTC or pentagon.
>>
>> Don't need to talk to an engineer when they talk to you, kook.
>>
>> http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/WhoAreWe.html
>
> LOL, you link to a damn kooksite? WTF is wrong with you?
Now it has to be a certain type of engineer...one who believes in the
official version.
WTF is wrong with you. You asked and I replied. You want to qualify your
"kooksite" label?
> Still scared to talk to someone without a motive to lie/exaggerate, huh?
Would that motive you're again referring too be money? I've already shown it
to be a flaw in your logic.
>
>>
>>
>>
>> Only logical reason I can come up
>> > with is that you are scared you will be embarrassed or ridiculed.
>> > If there is another reason, let's hear it..
>> >
>> > BDK
>>
>> You just heard it, moron.
>
> You haven't said anything worth a shit yet, assclown.
The record will speak for itself.
>
> Rave on Cocky!
>
> BDK
Dogchain
It has been ad-nauseam. More proof that you're here defending the
government.
Dogchain
Well?
>>>>
>>>> Well?
Well?
Do
>>>> >> you believe everything you read?
Well?
>>>>
>>>> Well?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> >> alt.politics.republicans
>>>> >>
>>>> >> "But reviewers also found many factual errors, omissions or
>>>> >> misleading statements: 162 and 123 in Wikipedia and Britannica,
>>>> >> respectively."
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Quite a difference in errors with each having four reviewed. I bet
>>>> >> the numbers would be more appalling if they were broken down by
>>>> >> factual errors, omissions or misleading statements.
Do you disagree?
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> > The study demonstrates that Wikipedia is just as accurate as the
>>>> > Encyclopedia Britannica.
>>>>
>>>> You say this but haven't provided this fact.
>>>>
>>>> The research covered a variety of scientific
>>>> > disciplines.
>>>>
>>>> Yet they remain a secret.
Do they not remain secret?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The conclusion is that the on-line reference can be regarded
>>>> > as reliable, equally as authoritative as Britannica itself.
>>>>
>>>> You've provided no information that says this to be the case.
You don't disagree do you?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It did not say
>>>> > there weren't any errors. Any body of text that comprehensive will
>>>> > contain
>>>> > flaws.
>>>>
>>>> And the type of errors are what's important here.
Are they not?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> >>> Accuracy of Wikipedia matches Britannica, review shows
>>>> >>> http://www.cbc.ca/story/science/national/2005/12/15/Wikipedia-review051215.html
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Once again Dave backs himself into the corner. Don't let your knee
>>>> >>> hit
>>>> >>> the desk, Dave.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Dave has stated a well known fact. You on the other hand might as
>>>> >> well post the link to the 9/11 Commissions work as the end all on
>>>> >> 9/11.
>>>> >
>>>> > He suggested using anecdotal references in support of the comments
>>>> > from an
>>>> > obviously flawed and deranged Stubblebine .
>>>>
>>>> The only deranged one here is the person who refutes what was said
>>>> with a secret scientific
>>>> and totally flawed paper.
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks, but I'll take the conclusions of the Encyclopedia Britannica
>>> over yours.
>>
>>
>> My you are very confused. This is why you can't answer the simplest
>> questions.
>
> Confused enough to believe the rantings of a 'spoon bender'?
A spoon bender writes for wikipedia? This shouldn't surprise anyone.
>
> I'm not obliged to respond to your questions that are put forth in an
> interrogator fashion.
Excuses excuses.
Answers to questions which you likely already know
> the answer.
And do you. But then you'd need to carry on about some half-baked secret
study about wiki and Britannica.
I suspect the facts are irrelevant in any case as it has
> always been for those who advocate the 911 nonsense.
what facts?
Having said that, you
> might find the following links relating to the Encyclopedia Britannica
> study informative:
Will they answer my interrogating questions?
BDK
I noticed you failed to add anything to the above list.
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Result: Failure.
> >>
> >> Yes you do fail.
> >
> > LOL, like you would know.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> > No matter how much you insist otherwise.
> >>
> >>
> >> I'd say it was the other way around, buckwheat.
> >
> > Sure Cocky, sure.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Our logic:
> >> >
> >> > Hijackers take planes + slam into buildings + fires + real experts such
> >> > as engineers = logical causes for what happened.
> >>
> >>
> >> Yes your stated logic is known. Why you don't mention why these guys were
> >> allowed to enter or remain in the continental US, some very openly and
> >> others at informant abodes, after they were on watch lists is why I state
> >> for good reason you're here defending the government.
> >
> > LOL, the govt missed the boat, and that proves a plot?
>
> Defending the government! It should be well known to you, government
> apologist, there was complicit behaviors within the intelligence and FBI
> Counter-Intelligence agencies.
>
> Nobody dropped the ball or missed the boat.
Sorry, but lots of people did.
>
>
> >
> > LOL, you must not have ever dealt with any govt agencies before.
> >
> >> These repeated actions
> >> along with blocking and/or obstructing investigations are why your logic
> >> is
> >> flawed.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Blocking and obstructing? Who? Where?
>
> Defending the government! It should be well known to you, government
> apologist, there was complicit behaviors within the intelligence and FBI
> Counter-Intelligence agencies.
>
> Nobody dropped the ball or missed the boat. Google is your friend.
I see nothing but notes that show people missed or dismissed a lot of
hints about what sort of thing was going to happen, but there's nothing
that shows any "complicity" between agencies.
I know how desperately you want it to be there, after all, it's your
whole life..
>
>
> >
> >> >
> >> > Result= It pretty much fits. Something you can't claim at all.
> >>
> >> That you're here defending the government pretty much fits.
> >
> > You know what I meant, Cocky.
>
> That you're STILL here defending the government pretty much fits.
I defend the "official" findings because they, now please try to
understand this, because they are the ONLY ONES I'VE EVER SEEN THAT MAKE
ANY SENSE. Got it. That's it. No Bushloving, etc, just that one fact.
Thousands of engineers and experts have no problems with it either.
>
> >
> >>
> >> > THOUSANDS of real experts, that aren't selling books, videos, etc, have
> >> > no problems with the "official" findings on what happened, Bush or no
> >> > Bush.
> >>
> >> Yet your bible (9/11 Commission) was sold.
> >
> > ???????Please translate?
>
> Dumbing down when a point showing your hypocrisy is drilled home are you?
When you post nonsense, I have to have it explained.
>
> Your bible, "the commission created by congressional legislation, chartered
> to prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the
> September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks", was also sold. With this fact being
> known, what's your point?
>
Known by who? Kooks? Oh, never mind..
>
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> > And Bush, etc aren't even in the picture until afterwards anyway.
> >>
> >> More facts which show there was some type of complicity in the US
> >> Government. When undoubtedly known there was an attack... he was told to
> >> continue with his phony photo op.
> >
> > LOL,
>
> Makes you giggle does it?
It does because it's so fucking meaningless. What did you want him to
do, jump up, say "OH SHIT, OH SHIT!!" over and over again, and run
around and pull his hair out?
AS loopy as you are, you might.
>
> I'm glad you aren't in charge of homicide or arson investigations,
> > you'd be putting all kinds of people in jail for doing "something" you
> > thought proved them guilty.
>
>
>
> Huh. Your logic is so twisted I can't believe you can function on any level.
> Do you not think Bush being told to wait to take action and then listeneing
> to this isn't displaying some form of complicity?
Nope. Not at all. What action would he, or could he have taken at that
point that would have made the slightest bit of difference?
>
>
> >> > He may be the worst president ever, but there's no reason to believe he
> >> > had anything to do with 911 at all.
> >>
> >> Bush isn't part of the attack. He wasn't part of the attack or its
> >> execution.
> >
> > Oh, let's hear the "real story"....
>
>
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> > And you guys consistently refuse to talk to an engineer about your
> >> > theories about the WTC or pentagon.
> >>
> >> Don't need to talk to an engineer when they talk to you, kook.
> >>
> >> http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/WhoAreWe.html
> >
> > LOL, you link to a damn kooksite? WTF is wrong with you?
>
> Now it has to be a certain type of engineer...one who believes in the
> official version.
No, just a couple without a book, website, DVD, etc to plug. WTF is so
hard for you to figure out as to why other "experts" are suspect?
> WTF is wrong with you. You asked and I replied. You want to qualify your
> "kooksite" label?
It's funny as hell that kooks never recognizes a kooksite when they see
one. You crack me up.
>
>
> > Still scared to talk to someone without a motive to lie/exaggerate, huh?
>
> Would that motive you're again referring too be money? I've already shown it
> to be a flaw in your logic.
> >
No, as usual, you haven't shown anything, except a strange belief in
what is posted on kooksites, even though there's no logic or proof
behind pretty much any of the claims, and no matter how insane they are.
> >>
> >>
> >> Only logical reason I can come up
> >> > with is that you are scared you will be embarrassed or ridiculed.
> >> > If there is another reason, let's hear it..
> >> >
> >> > BDK
> >>
> >> You just heard it, moron.]
No, you danced, as usual.
> >
> > You haven't said anything worth a shit yet, assclown.
>
> The record will speak for itself.
What record is that, "Tears of an Assclown"?
LOL, you crazy fuck.
BDK
>
>
> >
> > Rave on Cocky!
> >
> > BDK
>
>
>
mindarea
Not sure what your talking about here. Seems like you might be confused
about the subject matter in discussion.
>> I'm not obliged to respond to your questions that are put forth in an
>> interrogator fashion.
>
> Excuses excuses.
>
>
I have more than sufficiently responded to your inquiry.
> Answers to questions which you likely already know
>> the answer.
>
> And do you. But then you'd need to carry on about some half-baked secret
> study about wiki and Britannica.
>
>
A study done in secret? If it were secret how are we discussing it?
> I suspect the facts are irrelevant in any case as it has
>> always been for those who advocate the 911 nonsense.
>
> what facts?
>
>
> Having said that, you
>> might find the following links relating to the Encyclopedia Britannica
>> study informative:
>
> Will they answer my interrogating questions?
>
>
>
>
>> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/extref/438900a-s1.doc
>> http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051212/multimedia/438900a_m1.html
>> http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051212/full/438900a.html
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_peer_review/Nature_December_2005/Errors
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_peer_review
I can only conclude, by the tenor of your questions, that you don't really
have a complete grasp of our discussion. Are you really interested in
pursuing a line of inquiry where it is obvious you have lost on both
points? Stubblebine is a tinfoil-hat loony, verified not only on Wikipedia's
site but from any number of websites easily accessible by anyone.
And Wikipedia is nearly or equally accurate as the Encyclopedia Britannica.
The peer review study done by Nature is more than sufficient to suggest this.
Wikipedia is certainly is not riddled with errors and wholly unreliable as you
and others might suggest.
You are wrong on both these issues. Why you continue to kick this dead horse
is a mystery, but I'll continue to demonstrate your flaws as long as you'd like
to talk about them.
Vandar
I see you offered no cites of anything showing complicity.
Dogchain
You've seen them apologist. Now go look them up!
Dogchain
You've been ignoring these forerver. Why should anyone repost them?
Do a search.
>
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Result: Failure.
>> >>
>> >> Yes you do fail.
>> >
>> > LOL, like you would know.
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > No matter how much you insist otherwise.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I'd say it was the other way around, buckwheat.
>> >
>> > Sure Cocky, sure.
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Our logic:
>> >> >
>> >> > Hijackers take planes + slam into buildings + fires + real experts
>> >> > such
>> >> > as engineers = logical causes for what happened.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Yes your stated logic is known. Why you don't mention why these guys
>> >> were
>> >> allowed to enter or remain in the continental US, some very openly and
>> >> others at informant abodes, after they were on watch lists is why I
>> >> state
>> >> for good reason you're here defending the government.
>> >
>> > LOL, the govt missed the boat, and that proves a plot?
>>
>> Defending the government! It should be well known to you, government
>> apologist, there was complicit behaviors within the intelligence and FBI
>> Counter-Intelligence agencies.
>>
>> Nobody dropped the ball or missed the boat.
>
> Sorry, but lots of people did.
Too bad it has been easily proven that not to be true.
>
>>
>>
>> >
>> > LOL, you must not have ever dealt with any govt agencies before.
>> >
>> >> These repeated actions
>> >> along with blocking and/or obstructing investigations are why your
>> >> logic
>> >> is
>> >> flawed.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> > Blocking and obstructing? Who? Where?
>>
>> Defending the government! It should be well known to you, government
>> apologist, there was complicit behaviors within the intelligence and FBI
>> Counter-Intelligence agencies.
>>
>> Nobody dropped the ball or missed the boat. Google is your friend.
>
> I see nothing but notes that show people missed or dismissed a lot of
> hints about what sort of thing was going to happen, but there's nothing
> that shows any "complicity" between agencies.
Between agencies is your strawman. Their was complicity in most known
alphabet intelligence agencies and law enforcement.
>
> I know how desperately you want it to be there, after all, it's your
> whole life..
<snicker>
>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Result= It pretty much fits. Something you can't claim at all.
>> >>
>> >> That you're here defending the government pretty much fits.
>> >
>> > You know what I meant, Cocky.
>>
>> That you're STILL here defending the government pretty much fits.
>
> I defend the "official" findings because they, now please try to
> understand this, because they are the ONLY ONES I'VE EVER SEEN THAT MAKE
> ANY SENSE. Got it. That's it. No Bushloving, etc, just that one fact.
The official findings were concocted by a bushman therefore you don't make
sense.
>
> Thousands of engineers and experts have no problems with it either.
Where's the list of this treasonous filth?
>
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> > THOUSANDS of real experts, that aren't selling books, videos, etc,
>> >> > have
>> >> > no problems with the "official" findings on what happened, Bush or
>> >> > no
>> >> > Bush.
>> >>
>> >> Yet your bible (9/11 Commission) was sold.
>> >
>> > ???????Please translate?
>>
>> Dumbing down when a point showing your hypocrisy is drilled home are you?
>
> When you post nonsense, I have to have it explained.
<snicker>
Facts are nonsense to government apologists, I know.
>> Your bible, "the commission created by congressional legislation,
>> chartered
>> to prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding
>> the
>> September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks", was also sold. With this fact
>> being
>> known, what's your point?
>>
>
> Known by who? Kooks? Oh, never mind..
So you still wish to avoid having to admit that your slight on selling
something surrounding the 9/11 attack is bogus and hypocritical. You're weak
and pathetic.
>
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > And Bush, etc aren't even in the picture until afterwards anyway.
>> >>
>> >> More facts which show there was some type of complicity in the US
>> >> Government. When undoubtedly known there was an attack... he was told
>> >> to
>> >> continue with his phony photo op.
>> >
>> > LOL,
>>
>> Makes you giggle does it?
>
> It does because it's so fucking meaningless. What did you want him to
> do, jump up, say "OH SHIT, OH SHIT!!" over and over again, and run
> around and pull his hair out?
You are the true kook. You needn't ask this question if you had half a
brain.
>
> AS loopy as you are, you might.
<snicker>
Yes, Bush should have done exactly this you retarded apologist.
>
>>
>> I'm glad you aren't in charge of homicide or arson investigations,
>> > you'd be putting all kinds of people in jail for doing "something" you
>> > thought proved them guilty.
>>
>>
>>
>> Huh. Your logic is so twisted I can't believe you can function on any
>> level.
>> Do you not think Bush being told to wait to take action and then
>> listeneing
>> to this isn't displaying some form of complicity?
>
> Nope. Not at all. What action would he, or could he have taken at that
> point that would have made the slightest bit of difference?
<snicker>
>
>>
>>
>> >> > He may be the worst president ever, but there's no reason to believe
>> >> > he
>> >> > had anything to do with 911 at all.
>> >>
>> >> Bush isn't part of the attack. He wasn't part of the attack or its
>> >> execution.
>> >
>> > Oh, let's hear the "real story"....
>>
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > And you guys consistently refuse to talk to an engineer about your
>> >> > theories about the WTC or pentagon.
>> >>
>> >> Don't need to talk to an engineer when they talk to you, kook.
>> >>
>> >> http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/WhoAreWe.html
>> >
>> > LOL, you link to a damn kooksite? WTF is wrong with you?
>>
>> Now it has to be a certain type of engineer...one who believes in the
>> official version.
>
> No, just a couple without a book, website, DVD, etc to plug. WTF is so
> hard for you to figure out as to why other "experts" are suspect?
Your bible, "the commission created by congressional legislation, chartered
to prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the
September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks", was also sold. What's your point?
>
>> WTF is wrong with you. You asked and I replied. You want to qualify your
>> "kooksite" label?
>
> It's funny as hell that kooks never recognizes a kooksite when they see
> one. You crack me up.
Qualify your label, retard.
>
>>
>>
>> > Still scared to talk to someone without a motive to lie/exaggerate,
>> > huh?
>>
" Would that motive you're again referring too be money? I've already shown
it
to be a flaw in your logic."
>
> No, as usual, you haven't shown anything,
<snicker>
Your bible, "the commission created by congressional legislation, chartered
to prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the
September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks", was also sold. You were saying,
retard?
except a strange belief in
> what is posted on kooksites,
You have a strange belief in the commission created by congressional
legislation.
>> >> Only logical reason I can come up
>> >> > with is that you are scared you will be embarrassed or ridiculed.
>> >> > If there is another reason, let's hear it..
>> >> >
>> >> > BDK
>> >>
>> >> You just heard it, moron.]
>
> No, you danced, as usual.
Yep, danced on that pea of yours you call a brain.
Dogchain
"John P." <Admir...@neveragainvolunteeryourself.com> wrote in message
news:BrqdncWHVaEjuFXZ...@comcast.com...
> "Dogchain" wrote in a message
>
>>> And you guys consistently refuse to talk to an engineer about your
>>> theories about the WTC or pentagon.
>
>> Don't need to talk to an engineer when they talk to you, kook.
>> http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/WhoAreWe.html
>
> Dogbrain... do you know how many engineers there are in the Scholars for
> 911 truth?
>
> Let me help you out here ... I'll go slow, since it involves math.
Yes you should go slow<er> since you cannot count, retard.
John P.
>> Dogbrain... do you know how many engineers there are in the Scholars for
>> 911 truth?
>> Let me help you out here ... I'll go slow, since it involves math.
> Yes you should go slow<er> since you cannot count, retard.
OK... I'll go slower for you...
Z................E......................R........................O
Does that help?
Were you able to come up with some other number?
BDK
Why shouldn't I ignore them? They are totally nonsensical!
>
> >
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Result: Failure.
> >> >>
> >> >> Yes you do fail.
> >> >
> >> > LOL, like you would know.
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > No matter how much you insist otherwise.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> I'd say it was the other way around, buckwheat.
> >> >
> >> > Sure Cocky, sure.
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Our logic:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Hijackers take planes + slam into buildings + fires + real experts
> >> >> > such
> >> >> > as engineers = logical causes for what happened.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Yes your stated logic is known. Why you don't mention why these guys
> >> >> were
> >> >> allowed to enter or remain in the continental US, some very openly and
> >> >> others at informant abodes, after they were on watch lists is why I
> >> >> state
> >> >> for good reason you're here defending the government.
> >> >
> >> > LOL, the govt missed the boat, and that proves a plot?
> >>
> >> Defending the government! It should be well known to you, government
> >> apologist, there was complicit behaviors within the intelligence and FBI
> >> Counter-Intelligence agencies.
> >>
> >> Nobody dropped the ball or missed the boat.
> >
> > Sorry, but lots of people did.
>
> Too bad it has been easily proven that not to be true.
Where's the proof? Let me guess, one of your beloved kookpages perhaps?
LOL.
>
>
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> > LOL, you must not have ever dealt with any govt agencies before.
> >> >
> >> >> These repeated actions
> >> >> along with blocking and/or obstructing investigations are why your
> >> >> logic
> >> >> is
> >> >> flawed.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Blocking and obstructing? Who? Where?
> >>
> >> Defending the government! It should be well known to you, government
> >> apologist, there was complicit behaviors within the intelligence and FBI
> >> Counter-Intelligence agencies.
> >>
> >> Nobody dropped the ball or missed the boat. Google is your friend.
> >
> > I see nothing but notes that show people missed or dismissed a lot of
> > hints about what sort of thing was going to happen, but there's nothing
> > that shows any "complicity" between agencies.
>
> Between agencies is your strawman. Their was complicity in most known
> alphabet intelligence agencies and law enforcement.
Says who?? Kooks on Kookpages?
>
> >
> > I know how desperately you want it to be there, after all, it's your
> > whole life..
>
> <snicker>
>
It's true, sadly.
>
>
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Result= It pretty much fits. Something you can't claim at all.
> >> >>
> >> >> That you're here defending the government pretty much fits.
> >> >
> >> > You know what I meant, Cocky.
> >>
> >> That you're STILL here defending the government pretty much fits.
> >
> > I defend the "official" findings because they, now please try to
> > understand this, because they are the ONLY ONES I'VE EVER SEEN THAT MAKE
> > ANY SENSE. Got it. That's it. No Bushloving, etc, just that one fact.
>
> The official findings were concocted by a bushman therefore you don't make
> sense.
>
What that kooky mind of your doesn't seem to get is that the official
version is the only one that makes sense, regardless of who wrote it.
>
> >
> > Thousands of engineers and experts have no problems with it either.
>
> Where's the list of this treasonous filth?
You mean a list of sane people, people not trying to make money off 911
by selling tapes/DVDs, inventing a reward that can't be won, etc, etc?
Easy, take a list of engineers and other recognized experts, and cross
the half dozen or so kooks that have lost their minds and/or cashing in
on gullibles like yourself.
>
>
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> > THOUSANDS of real experts, that aren't selling books, videos, etc,
> >> >> > have
> >> >> > no problems with the "official" findings on what happened, Bush or
> >> >> > no
> >> >> > Bush.
> >> >>
> >> >> Yet your bible (9/11 Commission) was sold.
> >> >
> >> > ???????Please translate?
> >>
> >> Dumbing down when a point showing your hypocrisy is drilled home are you?
> >
> > When you post nonsense, I have to have it explained.
>
> <snicker>
> Facts are nonsense to government apologists, I know.
>
> >> Your bible, "the commission created by congressional legislation,
> >> chartered
> >> to prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding
> >> the
> >> September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks", was also sold. With this fact
> >> being
> >> known, what's your point?
You are really out there..aren't you?
Amazing.
>
>
>
>
> >>
> >
> > Known by who? Kooks? Oh, never mind..
>
> So you still wish to avoid having to admit that your slight on selling
> something surrounding the 9/11 attack is bogus and hypocritical. You're weak
> and pathetic.
You're delusional, so I guess it's a draw...LOL.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > And Bush, etc aren't even in the picture until afterwards anyway.
> >> >>
> >> >> More facts which show there was some type of complicity in the US
> >> >> Government. When undoubtedly known there was an attack... he was told
> >> >> to
> >> >> continue with his phony photo op.
> >> >
> >> > LOL,
> >>
> >> Makes you giggle does it?
> >
> > It does because it's so fucking meaningless. What did you want him to
> > do, jump up, say "OH SHIT, OH SHIT!!" over and over again, and run
> > around and pull his hair out?
>
> You are the true kook. You needn't ask this question if you had half a
> brain.
And yet you didn't answer it. No surprise there.
>
>
> >
> > AS loopy as you are, you might.
>
> <snicker>
>
> Yes, Bush should have done exactly this you retarded apologist.
This? This what?
>
>
> >
> >>
> >> I'm glad you aren't in charge of homicide or arson investigations,
> >> > you'd be putting all kinds of people in jail for doing "something" you
> >> > thought proved them guilty.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Huh. Your logic is so twisted I can't believe you can function on any
> >> level.
> >> Do you not think Bush being told to wait to take action and then
> >> listeneing
> >> to this isn't displaying some form of complicity?
> >
> > Nope. Not at all. What action would he, or could he have taken at that
> > point that would have made the slightest bit of difference?
>
> <snicker>
>
And yet you don't seem to have any suggestion as to what he should have
done...
Dance away.
>
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> >> > He may be the worst president ever, but there's no reason to believe
> >> >> > he
> >> >> > had anything to do with 911 at all.
> >> >>
> >> >> Bush isn't part of the attack. He wasn't part of the attack or its
> >> >> execution.
> >> >
> >> > Oh, let's hear the "real story"....
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > And you guys consistently refuse to talk to an engineer about your
> >> >> > theories about the WTC or pentagon.
> >> >>
> >> >> Don't need to talk to an engineer when they talk to you, kook.
> >> >>
> >> >> http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/WhoAreWe.html
> >> >
> >> > LOL, you link to a damn kooksite? WTF is wrong with you?
> >>
> >> Now it has to be a certain type of engineer...one who believes in the
> >> official version.
> >
> > No, just a couple without a book, website, DVD, etc to plug. WTF is so
> > hard for you to figure out as to why other "experts" are suspect?
>
> Your bible, "the commission created by congressional legislation, chartered
> to prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the
> September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks", was also sold. What's your point?
And what individual got paid out of those sales?
Jeez..
>
>
>
> >
> >> WTF is wrong with you. You asked and I replied. You want to qualify your
> >> "kooksite" label?
> >
> > It's funny as hell that kooks never recognizes a kooksite when they see
> > one. You crack me up.
>
> Qualify your label, retard.
I guess you're "kook-blind", like some people are tone deaf, or face
blind.
But we already knew you had some kind of handicap.
>
>
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> > Still scared to talk to someone without a motive to lie/exaggerate,
> >> > huh?
> >>
>
>
> " Would that motive you're again referring too be money? I've already shown
> it
> to be a flaw in your logic."
>
> >
> > No, as usual, you haven't shown anything,
>
> <snicker>
>
> Your bible, "the commission created by congressional legislation, chartered
> to prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the
> September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks", was also sold. You were saying,
> retard?
>
>
>
>
> except a strange belief in
> > what is posted on kooksites,
>
> You have a strange belief in the commission created by congressional
> legislation.
I believe it when it's the only thing so far that makes any sense, and
fits the science and the motives, etc.
>
>
> >> >> Only logical reason I can come up
> >> >> > with is that you are scared you will be embarrassed or ridiculed.
> >> >> > If there is another reason, let's hear it..
> >> >> >
> >> >> > BDK
> >> >>
> >> >> You just heard it, moron.]
> >
> > No, you danced, as usual.
>
> Yep, danced on that pea of yours you call a brain.
So why won't you guys talk to an engineer?
Fear of ridicule.
Fear your "religion" will be proven false.
Fear your main purpose in life will be proven a joke.
Fear all your foaming at the mouth will have been a waste of good foam!'
Greetings from Crazy Alice..
Arevaderci, cocksucker!
Bye Cocky...
BDK
Vandar
And you've seen them thoroughly debunked by known facts, so what's your
point?
mellstrrr
dogchain and puked some more circular arguments...
<yawn>
> http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=90542
> TOP U.S. GENERAL: "9/11 WAS FALSE FLAG."
> Posted By: michaeldonovan
> Date: Wednesday, 12 July 2006, 8:04 p.m.
>
> http://www.undersiegemovie.com/moreinfo.html
>
> -----Forwarded Message-----
> Sent: Jul 11, 2006 9:09 PM
> Subject: "It's all over"?
>
> Major General Albert Stubblebine III, as I mentioned in an earlier post,
> is
> the latest in a long line of high-ranking US military officers to openly
> challenge the official LIE about 9/11.
>
> Stubblebine was in charge of Imagery Interpretation for Scientific and
> Technical Intelligence Â- a highly specialized area that certainly
> qualifies
> him as an expert in the field of electronic intelligence gathering,
> especially imaging.
>
> A friend and colleague who was an officer in US Army Intelligence just
> informed me that he had served directly under General Stubblebine for
> many years. So high is my friend's esteem of the General,he had only
> this to say:
>
> If Stubblebine is standing up to be counted, it's all over".
>
> A brief clip of the General's interview is attached.
>
> http://www.undersiegemovie.com/moreinfo.html
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Click these links and scare the shit out of a shillfly:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com
http://www.blackboxvoting.org
mellstrrr
dogchain and puked some more circular arguments...
<yawn>
> http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=90542
> TOP U.S. GENERAL: "9/11 WAS FALSE FLAG."
> Posted By: michaeldonovan
> Date: Wednesday, 12 July 2006, 8:04 p.m.
>
> http://www.undersiegemovie.com/moreinfo.html
>
> -----Forwarded Message-----
> Sent: Jul 11, 2006 9:09 PM
> Subject: "It's all over"?
>
> Major General Albert Stubblebine III, as I mentioned in an earlier post,
> is
> the latest in a long line of high-ranking US military officers to openly
> challenge the official LIE about 9/11.
>
> Stubblebine was in charge of Imagery Interpretation for Scientific and
> Technical Intelligence Â- a highly specialized area that certainly
> qualifies
> him as an expert in the field of electronic intelligence gathering,
> especially imaging.
>
> A friend and colleague who was an officer in US Army Intelligence just
> informed me that he had served directly under General Stubblebine for
> many years. So high is my friend's esteem of the General,he had only
> this to say:
>
> If Stubblebine is standing up to be counted, it's all over".
>
mellstrrr
dogchain and puked some more circular arguments...
<yawn>
> http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=90542
> TOP U.S. GENERAL: "9/11 WAS FALSE FLAG."
> Posted By: michaeldonovan
> Date: Wednesday, 12 July 2006, 8:04 p.m.
>
> http://www.undersiegemovie.com/moreinfo.html
>
> -----Forwarded Message-----
> Sent: Jul 11, 2006 9:09 PM
> Subject: "It's all over"?
>
> Major General Albert Stubblebine III, as I mentioned in an earlier post,
> is
> the latest in a long line of high-ranking US military officers to openly
> challenge the official LIE about 9/11.
>
> Stubblebine was in charge of Imagery Interpretation for Scientific and
> Technical Intelligence Â- a highly specialized area that certainly
> qualifies
> him as an expert in the field of electronic intelligence gathering,
> especially imaging.
>
> A friend and colleague who was an officer in US Army Intelligence just
> informed me that he had served directly under General Stubblebine for
> many years. So high is my friend's esteem of the General,he had only
> this to say:
>
> If Stubblebine is standing up to be counted, it's all over".
>
mellstrrr
dogchain and puked some more circular arguments...
<yawn>
> http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=90542
> TOP U.S. GENERAL: "9/11 WAS FALSE FLAG."
> Posted By: michaeldonovan
> Date: Wednesday, 12 July 2006, 8:04 p.m.
>
> http://www.undersiegemovie.com/moreinfo.html
>
> -----Forwarded Message-----
> Sent: Jul 11, 2006 9:09 PM
> Subject: "It's all over"?
>
> Major General Albert Stubblebine III, as I mentioned in an earlier post,
> is
> the latest in a long line of high-ranking US military officers to openly
> challenge the official LIE about 9/11.
>
> Stubblebine was in charge of Imagery Interpretation for Scientific and
> Technical Intelligence Â- a highly specialized area that certainly
> qualifies
> him as an expert in the field of electronic intelligence gathering,
> especially imaging.
>
> A friend and colleague who was an officer in US Army Intelligence just
> informed me that he had served directly under General Stubblebine for
> many years. So high is my friend's esteem of the General,he had only
> this to say:
>
> If Stubblebine is standing up to be counted, it's all over".
>
mellstrrr
dogchain and puked some more circular arguments...
<yawn>
> http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=90542
> TOP U.S. GENERAL: "9/11 WAS FALSE FLAG."
> Posted By: michaeldonovan
> Date: Wednesday, 12 July 2006, 8:04 p.m.
>
> http://www.undersiegemovie.com/moreinfo.html
>
> -----Forwarded Message-----
> Sent: Jul 11, 2006 9:09 PM
> Subject: "It's all over"?
>
> Major General Albert Stubblebine III, as I mentioned in an earlier post,
> is
> the latest in a long line of high-ranking US military officers to openly
> challenge the official LIE about 9/11.
>
> Stubblebine was in charge of Imagery Interpretation for Scientific and
> Technical Intelligence Â- a highly specialized area that certainly
> qualifies
> him as an expert in the field of electronic intelligence gathering,
> especially imaging.
>
> A friend and colleague who was an officer in US Army Intelligence just
> informed me that he had served directly under General Stubblebine for
> many years. So high is my friend's esteem of the General,he had only
> this to say:
>
> If Stubblebine is standing up to be counted, it's all over".
>
Mein Führer Bush
>Click these links and scare the shit out of a shillfly:
>
>http://www.whatreallyhappened.com
>http://www.blackboxvoting.org
>
Bush admitted to flying one of the airplanes into the WTC himself and
parachuting out just before impact to be picked up by a limo in an alleyway
off of Times Square, but quickly recanted and had everyone who over heard his
slip of the tounge brainwashed.
If you don't believe me, you must be another Bush loving goose-stepper!!!
Vandar
Gotta stop that. It wastes electricity.
BDK
says...
> Alright... Who went out and left the Melly on?
>
> Gotta stop that. It wastes electricity.
>
She's convinced it gets her ahead in the race to be the #1 conspirokook.
Maybe she's in the top 10, but #1?
No f'in way!!!
BDK
Dogchain
You like to talk out both sides of your mouth.
Dogchain
> "Dogchain" wrote in a message
>
>>> Dogbrain... do you know how many engineers there are in the Scholars for
>>> 911 truth?
>
>>> Let me help you out here ... I'll go slow, since it involves math.
>
>> Yes you should go slow<er> since you cannot count, retard.
>
> OK... I'll go slower for you...
Not slow enough, retard.
Dogchain
>> > I defend the "official" findings because they, now please try to
>> > understand this, because they are the ONLY ONES I'VE EVER SEEN THAT
>> > MAKE
>> > ANY SENSE. Got it. That's it. No Bushloving, etc, just that one fact.
>>
>> The official findings were concocted by a bushman therefore you don't
>> make
>> sense.
>>
>
> What that kooky mind of your doesn't seem to get is that the official
> version is the only one that makes sense, regardless of who wrote it.
...concocted by a bushman to make sense from all its omissions and
distortions.
>
>
>
>>
>> >
>> > Thousands of engineers and experts have no problems with it either.
>>
>> Where's the list of this treasonous filth?
>
> You mean a list of sane people, people not trying to make money off 911
> by selling tapes/DVDs, inventing a reward that can't be won, etc, etc?
So you have no list of "Thousands of engineers and experts [that] have no
problems with it.."
>
> Easy, take a list of engineers and other recognized experts, and cross
> the half dozen or so kooks that have lost their minds and/or cashing in
> on gullibles like yourself.
If it's so easy where's your list?
Why you keep repeating the sale of 9/11 info. to carry integrity problems to
the gullible has already
been fully refuted by factually stating that the bushman 9/11 commission was
sold.
>> >>
>> >> >> > THOUSANDS of real experts, that aren't selling books, videos,
>> >> >> > etc,
>> >> >> > have
>> >> >> > no problems with the "official" findings on what happened, Bush
>> >> >> > or
>> >> >> > no
>> >> >> > Bush.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Yet your bible (9/11 Commission) was sold.
>> >> >
>> >> > ???????Please translate?
>> >>
>> >> Dumbing down when a point showing your hypocrisy is drilled home are
>> >> you?
>> >
>> > When you post nonsense, I have to have it explained.
>>
>> <snicker>
>> Facts are nonsense to government apologists, I know.
>>
>> >> Your bible, "the commission created by congressional legislation,
>> >> chartered
>> >> to prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances
>> >> surrounding
>> >> the
>> >> September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks", was also sold. With this fact
>> >> being
>> >> known, what's your point?
>
> You are really out there..aren't you?
>
> Amazing.
Yes you are, retarded one.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >>
>> >
>> > Known by who? Kooks? Oh, never mind..
>>
>> So you still wish to avoid having to admit that your slight on selling
>> something surrounding the 9/11 attack is bogus and hypocritical. You're
>> weak
>> and pathetic.
>
> You're delusional, so I guess it's a draw...LOL.
Bwahahahahahah
Jackhole.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > And Bush, etc aren't even in the picture until afterwards anyway.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> More facts which show there was some type of complicity in the US
>> >> >> Government. When undoubtedly known there was an attack... he was
>> >> >> told
>> >> >> to
>> >> >> continue with his phony photo op.
>> >> >
>> >> > LOL,
>> >>
>> >> Makes you giggle does it?
>> >
>> > It does because it's so fucking meaningless. What did you want him to
>> > do, jump up, say "OH SHIT, OH SHIT!!" over and over again, and run
>> > around and pull his hair out?
>>
>> You are the true kook. You needn't ask this question if you had half a
>> brain.
>
> And yet you didn't answer it. No surprise there.
Oh, I answered it alright.
>
>>
>>
>> >
>> > AS loopy as you are, you might.
>>
>> <snicker>
>>
>> Yes, Bush should have done exactly this you retarded apologist.
>
> This? This what?
The thing you can't grasp by clearly asking your peabrained question,
retarded kook.
>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> I'm glad you aren't in charge of homicide or arson investigations,
>> >> > you'd be putting all kinds of people in jail for doing "something"
>> >> > you
>> >> > thought proved them guilty.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Huh. Your logic is so twisted I can't believe you can function on any
>> >> level.
>> >> Do you not think Bush being told to wait to take action and then
>> >> listeneing
>> >> to this isn't displaying some form of complicity?
>> >
>> > Nope. Not at all. What action would he, or could he have taken at that
>> > point that would have made the slightest bit of difference?
>>
>> <snicker>
>>
>
> And yet you don't seem to have any suggestion as to what he should have
> done...
>
> Dance away.
The thing you can't grasp by clearly asking your peabrained question,
retarded kook.
>
>
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >> > He may be the worst president ever, but there's no reason to
>> >> >> > believe
>> >> >> > he
>> >> >> > had anything to do with 911 at all.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Bush isn't part of the attack. He wasn't part of the attack or its
>> >> >> execution.
>> >> >
>> >> > Oh, let's hear the "real story"....
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > And you guys consistently refuse to talk to an engineer about
>> >> >> > your
>> >> >> > theories about the WTC or pentagon.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Don't need to talk to an engineer when they talk to you, kook.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/WhoAreWe.html
>> >> >
>> >> > LOL, you link to a damn kooksite? WTF is wrong with you?
>> >>
>> >> Now it has to be a certain type of engineer...one who believes in the
>> >> official version.
>> >
>> > No, just a couple without a book, website, DVD, etc to plug. WTF is so
>> > hard for you to figure out as to why other "experts" are suspect?
>>
>> Your bible, "the commission created by congressional legislation,
>> chartered
>> to prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding
>> the
>> September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks", was also sold. What's your point?
>
> And what individual got paid out of those sales?
>
> Jeez..
...jeez.
>
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >> WTF is wrong with you. You asked and I replied. You want to qualify
>> >> your
>> >> "kooksite" label?
>> >
>> > It's funny as hell that kooks never recognizes a kooksite when they see
>> > one. You crack me up.
>>
>> Qualify your label, retard.
>
> I guess you're "kook-blind", like some people are tone deaf, or face
> blind.
>
> But we already knew you had some kind of handicap.
Qualify your label, retard.
>>
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > Still scared to talk to someone without a motive to lie/exaggerate,
>> >> > huh?
>> >>
>>
>>
>> " Would that motive you're again referring too be money? I've already
>> shown
>> it
>> to be a flaw in your logic."
>>
>> >
>> > No, as usual, you haven't shown anything,
>>
>> <snicker>
>>
>> Your bible, "the commission created by congressional legislation,
>> chartered
>> to prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding
>> the
>> September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks", was also sold. You were saying,
>> retard?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> except a strange belief in
>> > what is posted on kooksites,
>>
>> You have a strange belief in the commission created by congressional
>> legislation.
>
> I believe it when it's the only thing so far that makes any sense, and
> fits the science and the motives, etc.
It fits perfectly from its bushman molding that omitted and distorted.
>
>>
>>
>> >> >> Only logical reason I can come up
>> >> >> > with is that you are scared you will be embarrassed or ridiculed.
>> >> >> > If there is another reason, let's hear it..
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > BDK
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You just heard it, moron.]
>> >
>> > No, you danced, as usual.
>>
>> Yep, danced on that pea of yours you call a brain.
>
> So why won't you guys talk to an engineer?
been through this already, shittard.
> Bye Cocky...
> BDK
BDK
>
> "BDK" <king...@buckeye-express.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1f348f508...@news.buckeye-express.com...
>
>
> >> > I defend the "official" findings because they, now please try to
> >> > understand this, because they are the ONLY ONES I'VE EVER SEEN THAT
> >> > MAKE
> >> > ANY SENSE. Got it. That's it. No Bushloving, etc, just that one fact.
> >>
> >> The official findings were concocted by a bushman therefore you don't
> >> make
> >> sense.
> >>
> >
> > What that kooky mind of your doesn't seem to get is that the official
> > version is the only one that makes sense, regardless of who wrote it.
>
>
> ...concocted by a bushman to make sense from all its omissions and
> distortions.
>
>
When you kooks come up with something that makes any kind of sense, then
maybe people like me won't ridicule you..
I'm not expecting much..
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Thousands of engineers and experts have no problems with it either.
> >>
> >> Where's the list of this treasonous filth?
> >
> > You mean a list of sane people, people not trying to make money off 911
> > by selling tapes/DVDs, inventing a reward that can't be won, etc, etc?
>
> So you have no list of "Thousands of engineers and experts [that] have no
> problems with it.."
>
> >
> > Easy, take a list of engineers and other recognized experts, and cross
> > the half dozen or so kooks that have lost their minds and/or cashing in
> > on gullibles like yourself.
>
> If it's so easy where's your list?
You're the one looking, so you figure it out. All I need to do is see a
list of your supposed experts and figure pretty much everyone else is ok
with it.
> Why you keep repeating the sale of 9/11 info. to carry integrity problems to
> the gullible has already
> been fully refuted by factually stating that the bushman 9/11 commission was
> sold.
>
So what? It was "sold", as you put it, big deal..
Why don't you talk to an independent expert? You never really answer
that question....why?
I have a couple of good guesses.
>
>
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Known by who? Kooks? Oh, never mind..
> >>
> >> So you still wish to avoid having to admit that your slight on selling
> >> something surrounding the 9/11 attack is bogus and hypocritical. You're
> >> weak
> >> and pathetic.
> >
> > You're delusional, so I guess it's a draw...LOL.
>
> Bwahahahahahah
>
> Jackhole.
Pinhead.
>
>
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > And Bush, etc aren't even in the picture until afterwards anyway.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> More facts which show there was some type of complicity in the US
> >> >> >> Government. When undoubtedly known there was an attack... he was
> >> >> >> told
> >> >> >> to
> >> >> >> continue with his phony photo op.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > LOL,
> >> >>
> >> >> Makes you giggle does it?
Yeah, you do.
> >> >
> >> > It does because it's so fucking meaningless. What did you want him to
> >> > do, jump up, say "OH SHIT, OH SHIT!!" over and over again, and run
> >> > around and pull his hair out?
> >>
> >> You are the true kook. You needn't ask this question if you had half a
> >> brain.
> >
> > And yet you didn't answer it. No surprise there.
>
> Oh, I answered it alright.
No, you danced.
>
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> > AS loopy as you are, you might.
> >>
> >> <snicker>
> >>
> >> Yes, Bush should have done exactly this you retarded apologist.
> >
> > This? This what?
>
> The thing you can't grasp by clearly asking your peabrained question,
> retarded kook.
>
Ok, I'll do it slower...WHAT....SHOULD.....HE....HAVE....DONE?
Apologies to Rev Jim.
>
>
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> I'm glad you aren't in charge of homicide or arson investigations,
> >> >> > you'd be putting all kinds of people in jail for doing "something"
> >> >> > you
> >> >> > thought proved them guilty.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Huh. Your logic is so twisted I can't believe you can function on any
> >> >> level.
> >> >> Do you not think Bush being told to wait to take action and then
> >> >> listeneing
> >> >> to this isn't displaying some form of complicity?
> >> >
> >> > Nope. Not at all. What action would he, or could he have taken at that
> >> > point that would have made the slightest bit of difference?
> >>
> >> <snicker>
> >>
> >
> > And yet you don't seem to have any suggestion as to what he should have
> > done...
> >
> > Dance away.
>
> The thing you can't grasp by clearly asking your peabrained question,
> retarded kook.
Well, give me an answer...
And what individual was paid from the sales?
>
> >
>
>
>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >> WTF is wrong with you. You asked and I replied. You want to qualify
> >> >> your
> >> >> "kooksite" label?
> >> >
> >> > It's funny as hell that kooks never recognizes a kooksite when they see
> >> > one. You crack me up.
> >>
> >> Qualify your label, retard.
> >
> > I guess you're "kook-blind", like some people are tone deaf, or face
> > blind.
> >
> > But we already knew you had some kind of handicap.
>
> Qualify your label, retard.
You do it yourself, every time you post.
>
>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> > Still scared to talk to someone without a motive to lie/exaggerate,
> >> >> > huh?
> >> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> " Would that motive you're again referring too be money? I've already
> >> shown
> >> it
> >> to be a flaw in your logic."
> >>
> >> >
> >> > No, as usual, you haven't shown anything,
> >>
> >> <snicker>
Giggle.
> >>
> >> Your bible, "the commission created by congressional legislation,
> >> chartered
> >> to prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding
> >> the
> >> September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks", was also sold. You were saying,
> >> retard?
> >>
> >>
And yet you can't really come up with anything close to it, can you?
> >>
> >>
> >> except a strange belief in
> >> > what is posted on kooksites,
> >>
> >> You have a strange belief in the commission created by congressional
> >> legislation.
> >
> > I believe it when it's the only thing so far that makes any sense, and
> > fits the science and the motives, etc.
>
> It fits perfectly from its bushman molding that omitted and distorted.
Oh...that's it, huh?
And you kooks still can't even come close to it..
LOL.
>
>
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> >> >> Only logical reason I can come up
> >> >> >> > with is that you are scared you will be embarrassed or ridiculed.
> >> >> >> > If there is another reason, let's hear it..
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > BDK
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> You just heard it, moron.]
> >> >
> >> > No, you danced, as usual.
> >>
> >> Yep, danced on that pea of yours you call a brain.
> >
> > So why won't you guys talk to an engineer?
>
> been through this already, shittard.
Then go see an INDEPENDENT engineer with no agenda and shut me up..
I won't hold my breath...
Later, Dogcock..
BDK
John P.
>> OK... I'll go slower for you...
> Not slow enough, retard.
I have to admit, Dogbrain, it would be impossible for me to get all the way
down to your level. Any chance you might be able to fire up a second brain
cell and see if you can work this out for yourself?
Dogchain
> "Dogchain" wrote in a message
>
>>> OK... I'll go slower for you...
>
>> Not slow enough, retard.
>
> I have to admit, Dogbrain,
...you never will.
>it would be impossible for me to get all the way down
... try a prostitute, pathetic man.
Dogchain
> In article <sg8zg.10793$%Z1....@fe09.lga>, dchai...@dc.net says...
>>
>> "BDK" <king...@buckeye-express.com> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.1f348f508...@news.buckeye-express.com...
>>
>>
>> >> > I defend the "official" findings because they, now please try to
>> >> > understand this, because they are the ONLY ONES I'VE EVER SEEN THAT
>> >> > MAKE
>> >> > ANY SENSE. Got it. That's it. No Bushloving, etc, just that one
>> >> > fact.
>> >>
>> >> The official findings were concocted by a bushman therefore you don't
>> >> make
>> >> sense.
>> >>
>> >
>> > What that kooky mind of your doesn't seem to get is that the official
>> > version is the only one that makes sense, regardless of who wrote it.
>>
>>
>> ...concocted by a bushman to make sense from all its omissions and
>> distortions.
>>
>>
>
> When you
...ever learn to read you'd possibly be dangerous.
> maybe people like me won't ridicule you..
You are very irrelevant.
>> >> > Thousands of engineers and experts have no problems with it either.
>> >>
>> >> Where's the list of this treasonous filth?
>> >
>> > You mean a list of sane people, people not trying to make money off 911
>> > by selling tapes/DVDs, inventing a reward that can't be won, etc, etc?
>>
>> So you have no list of "Thousands of engineers and experts [that] have no
>> problems with it.."
What, no list...again? You really are irrelevant.
>> > Easy, take a list of engineers and other recognized experts, and cross
>> > the half dozen or so kooks that have lost their minds and/or cashing in
>> > on gullibles like yourself.
>>
>> If it's so easy where's your list?
>>> Why you keep repeating the sale of 9/11 info. to carry integrity
>>> problems to
>> the gullible has already
>> been fully refuted by factually stating that the bushman 9/11 commission
>> was
>> sold.
>>
>
> So what? It was "sold", as you put it, big deal..
Bwahahahahah
Give me a list of independent experts, retard.
>
> I have a couple of good guesses.
Name one, retard.
>> >> >
>> >> > Known by who? Kooks? Oh, never mind..
>> >>
>> >> So you still wish to avoid having to admit that your slight on selling
>> >> something surrounding the 9/11 attack is bogus and hypocritical.
>> >> You're
>> >> weak
>> >> and pathetic.
>> >
>> > You're delusional, so I guess it's a draw...LOL.
>>
>> Bwahahahahahah
>>
>> Jackhole.
>
> Pinhead.
You're delusional.
>> >> >> >> > And Bush, etc aren't even in the picture until afterwards
>> >> >> >> > anyway.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> More facts which show there was some type of complicity in the
>> >> >> >> US
>> >> >> >> Government. When undoubtedly known there was an attack... he was
>> >> >> >> told
>> >> >> >> to
>> >> >> >> continue with his phony photo op.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > LOL,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Makes you giggle does it?
>
> Yeah, you do.
Sober up.
>
>> >> >
>> >> > It does because it's so fucking meaningless. What did you want him
>> >> > to
>> >> > do, jump up, say "OH SHIT, OH SHIT!!" over and over again, and run
>> >> > around and pull his hair out?
>> >>
>> >> You are the true kook. You needn't ask this question if you had half a
>> >> brain.
>> >
>> > And yet you didn't answer it. No surprise there.
>>
>> Oh, I answered it alright.
>
> No, you danced.
You needn't have asked the question if you had half a brain.
Rant on, moron.
>> >> <snicker>
>> >>
>> >> Yes, Bush should have done exactly this you retarded apologist.
>> >
>> > This? This what?
>>
>> The thing you can't grasp by clearly asking your peabrained question,
>> retarded kook.
>>
>
> Ok, I'll do it slower...WHAT....SHOULD.....HE....HAVE....DONE?
I know you can't grasp it, retard.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I'm glad you aren't in charge of homicide or arson investigations,
>> >> >> > you'd be putting all kinds of people in jail for doing
>> >> >> > "something"
>> >> >> > you
>> >> >> > thought proved them guilty.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Huh. Your logic is so twisted I can't believe you can function on
>> >> >> any
>> >> >> level.
>> >> >> Do you not think Bush being told to wait to take action and then
>> >> >> listeneing
>> >> >> to this isn't displaying some form of complicity?
>> >> >
>> >> > Nope. Not at all. What action would he, or could he have taken at
>> >> > that
>> >> > point that would have made the slightest bit of difference?
>> >>
>> >> <snicker>
>> >>
>> >
>> > And yet you don't seem to have any suggestion as to what he should have
>> > done...
>> >
>> > Dance away.
>>
>> The thing you can't grasp by clearly asking your peabrained question,
>> retarded kook.
>
> Well, give me an answer...
If you need to ask, you cannot grasp it.
Why? The shit is being sold.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >> WTF is wrong with you. You asked and I replied. You want to qualify
>> >> >> your
>> >> >> "kooksite" label?
>> >> >
>> >> > It's funny as hell that kooks never recognizes a kooksite when they
>> >> > see
>> >> > one. You crack me up.
>> >>
>> >> Qualify your label, retard.
>> >
>> > I guess you're "kook-blind", like some people are tone deaf, or face
>> > blind.
>> >
>> > But we already knew you had some kind of handicap.
>>
>> Qualify your label, retard.
>
> You do it yourself, every time you post.
It was already known you can't qualify your label, retard.
>
>>
>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > Still scared to talk to someone without a motive to
>> >> >> > lie/exaggerate,
>> >> >> > huh?
>> >> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> " Would that motive you're again referring too be money? I've already
>> >> shown
>> >> it
>> >> to be a flaw in your logic."
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > No, as usual, you haven't shown anything,
>> >>
>> >> <snicker>
>
> Giggle.
Getting jizz in your face is funny?
>
>> >>
>> >> Your bible, "the commission created by congressional legislation,
>> >> chartered
>> >> to prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances
>> >> surrounding
>> >> the
>> >> September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks", was also sold. You were
>> >> saying,
>> >> retard?
>> >>
>> >>
>
> And yet you can't really come up with anything close to it, can you?
Don't need to. It's been done.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> except a strange belief in
>> >> > what is posted on kooksites,
>> >>
>> >> You have a strange belief in the commission created by congressional
>> >> legislation.
>> >
>> > I believe it when it's the only thing so far that makes any sense, and
>> > fits the science and the motives, etc.
>>
>> It fits perfectly from its bushman molding that omitted and distorted.
>
> Oh...that's it, huh?
Yep... retarded American.
>
> And you kooks still can't even come close to it..
>
> LOL.
Bwahahahahah
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >> >> Only logical reason I can come up
>> >> >> >> > with is that you are scared you will be embarrassed or
>> >> >> >> > ridiculed.
>> >> >> >> > If there is another reason, let's hear it..
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > BDK
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> You just heard it, moron.]
>
>> >> >
>> >> > No, you danced, as usual.
>> >>
>> >> Yep, danced on that pea of yours you call a brain.
>> >
>> > So why won't you guys talk to an engineer?
>>
>> been through this already, shittard.
>
> Then go see an INDEPENDENT engineer with no agenda and shut me up..
Give me a list faggot.
>
> I won't hold my breath...
You do whatever you want, bigboy.
>
> Later, Dogcock..
>
> BDK
You will keep sucking undoubtedly.
John P.
>>>> OK... I'll go slower for you...
>>> Not slow enough, retard.
>> I have to admit, Dogbrain, I'll never understand how you get your head so
>> far up your ass
> ...you never will.
>> it would be impossible for me to get all the way down to your level
> ... try a prostitute like I do, pathetic man. There are a lot of cute boys
> in my neighborhood.
Cute Dogbrain... you made a funny!
That would seem to be a sign that your brain is starting to function.
Maybe soon, you'll be speaking in complete sentences!
BDK
>
> "BDK" <king...@buckeye-express.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1f3712b41...@news.buckeye-express.com...
> > In article <sg8zg.10793$%Z1....@fe09.lga>, dchai...@dc.net says...
> >>
> >> "BDK" <king...@buckeye-express.com> wrote in message
> >> news:MPG.1f348f508...@news.buckeye-express.com...
> >>
> >>
> >> >> > I defend the "official" findings because they, now please try to
> >> >> > understand this, because they are the ONLY ONES I'VE EVER SEEN THAT
> >> >> > MAKE
> >> >> > ANY SENSE. Got it. That's it. No Bushloving, etc, just that one
> >> >> > fact.
> >> >>
> >> >> The official findings were concocted by a bushman therefore you don't
> >> >> make
> >> >> sense.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > What that kooky mind of your doesn't seem to get is that the official
> >> > version is the only one that makes sense, regardless of who wrote it.
> >>
> >>
> >> ...concocted by a bushman to make sense from all its omissions and
> >> distortions.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > When you
>
> ...ever learn to read you'd possibly be dangerous.
And if you would ask a sane question, maybe people wouldn't laugh at
you...
>
>
>
>
> > maybe people like me won't ridicule you..
>
> You are very irrelevant.
Yet you keep replying.
>
>
> >> >> > Thousands of engineers and experts have no problems with it either.
> >> >>
> >> >> Where's the list of this treasonous filth?
> >> >
> >> > You mean a list of sane people, people not trying to make money off 911
> >> > by selling tapes/DVDs, inventing a reward that can't be won, etc, etc?
> >>
> >> So you have no list of "Thousands of engineers and experts [that] have no
> >> problems with it.."
>
> What, no list...again? You really are irrelevant.
Look in your phone book, I'm sure you can find the first page with the
listings that begin with the letter E and start from there,
E..N...G... got it?
Assclown.
>
>
>
> >> > Easy, take a list of engineers and other recognized experts, and cross
> >> > the half dozen or so kooks that have lost their minds and/or cashing in
> >> > on gullibles like yourself.
> >>
> >> If it's so easy where's your list?
LOL, it's everyone but your few chosen heroes...
What a joke you are.
> >>> Why you keep repeating the sale of 9/11 info. to carry integrity
> >>> problems to
> >> the gullible has already
> >> been fully refuted by factually stating that the bushman 9/11 commission
> >> was
> >> sold.
> >>
> >
> > So what? It was "sold", as you put it, big deal..
>
> Bwahahahahah
Laugh assclown, laugh..
Look in the phone book, assclown pinhead.
>
>
> >
> > I have a couple of good guesses.
>
> Name one, retard.
More than one...
You're afraid someone will ridicule your beliefs.
You're dancing because you don't want you current "hobby" (911
conspiracy) spoiled.
You don't want to have to admit to the group you have no f'ing clues.
(Not that you would ever admit it anyway, you're not that kind of guy)
You're just a chickenshit in general, who lets his politics affect every
part of his life.
>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Known by who? Kooks? Oh, never mind..
> >> >>
> >> >> So you still wish to avoid having to admit that your slight on selling
> >> >> something surrounding the 9/11 attack is bogus and hypocritical.
> >> >> You're
> >> >> weak
> >> >> and pathetic.
> >> >
> >> > You're delusional, so I guess it's a draw...LOL.
> >>
> >> Bwahahahahahah
> >>
> >> Jackhole.
> >
> > Pinhead.
>
> You're delusional.
You wish.
>
>
> >> >> >> >> > And Bush, etc aren't even in the picture until afterwards
> >> >> >> >> > anyway.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> More facts which show there was some type of complicity in the
> >> >> >> >> US
> >> >> >> >> Government. When undoubtedly known there was an attack... he was
> >> >> >> >> told
> >> >> >> >> to
> >> >> >> >> continue with his phony photo op.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > LOL,
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Makes you giggle does it?
> >
> > Yeah, you do.
>
> Sober up.
Get off the drugs, maybe you can get help.
>
>
> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > It does because it's so fucking meaningless. What did you want him
> >> >> > to
> >> >> > do, jump up, say "OH SHIT, OH SHIT!!" over and over again, and run
> >> >> > around and pull his hair out?
> >> >>
> >> >> You are the true kook. You needn't ask this question if you had half a
> >> >> brain.
> >> >
> >> > And yet you didn't answer it. No surprise there.
> >>
> >> Oh, I answered it alright.
> >
> > No, you danced.
>
> You needn't have asked the question if you had half a brain.
>
> Rant on, moron.
>
> >> >> <snicker>
> >> >>
> >> >> Yes, Bush should have done exactly this you retarded apologist.
> >> >
> >> > This? This what?
> >>
> >> The thing you can't grasp by clearly asking your peabrained question,
> >> retarded kook.
> >>
> >
> > Ok, I'll do it slower...WHAT....SHOULD.....HE....HAVE....DONE?
>
>
> I know you can't grasp it, retard.
Hmm, and why are you still not answering the question?
>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I'm glad you aren't in charge of homicide or arson investigations,
> >> >> >> > you'd be putting all kinds of people in jail for doing
> >> >> >> > "something"
> >> >> >> > you
> >> >> >> > thought proved them guilty.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Huh. Your logic is so twisted I can't believe you can function on
> >> >> >> any
> >> >> >> level.
> >> >> >> Do you not think Bush being told to wait to take action and then
> >> >> >> listeneing
> >> >> >> to this isn't displaying some form of complicity?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Nope. Not at all. What action would he, or could he have taken at
> >> >> > that
> >> >> > point that would have made the slightest bit of difference?
> >> >>
> >> >> <snicker>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > And yet you don't seem to have any suggestion as to what he should have
> >> > done...
> >> >
> >> > Dance away.
> >>
> >> The thing you can't grasp by clearly asking your peabrained question,
> >> retarded kook.
> >
> > Well, give me an answer...
>
> If you need to ask, you cannot grasp it.
And yet you still won't/can't answer.....
>
> >> >> >> >> > He may be the worst president ever, but there's no reason to
> >> >> >> >> > believe
> >> >> >> >> > he
> >> >> >> >> > had anything to do with 911 at all.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Bush isn't part of the attack. He wasn't part of the attack or
> >> >> >> >> its
> >> >> >> >> execution.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Oh, let's hear the "real story"....
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
And nothing...why am I not shocked?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > And you guys consistently refuse to talk to an engineer about
> >> >> >> >> > your
> >> >> >> >> > theories about the WTC or pentagon.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Don't need to talk to an engineer when they talk to you, kook.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/WhoAreWe.html
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > LOL, you link to a damn kooksite? WTF is wrong with you?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Now it has to be a certain type of engineer...one who believes in
> >> >> >> the
> >> >> >> official version.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > No, just a couple without a book, website, DVD, etc to plug. WTF is
> >> >> > so
> >> >> > hard for you to figure out as to why other "experts" are suspect?
> >> >>
> >> >> Your bible, "the commission created by congressional legislation,
> >> >> chartered
> >> >> to prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances
> >> >> surrounding
> >> >> the
> >> >> September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks", was also sold. What's your
> >> >> point?
> >> >
> >> > And what individual got paid out of those sales?
> >> >
> >> > Jeez..
> >>
> >> ...jeez.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > And what individual was paid from the sales?
>
> Why? The shit is being sold.
Talk about not getting it...
>
>
>
>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> WTF is wrong with you. You asked and I replied. You want to qualify
> >> >> >> your
> >> >> >> "kooksite" label?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > It's funny as hell that kooks never recognizes a kooksite when they
> >> >> > see
> >> >> > one. You crack me up.
> >> >>
> >> >> Qualify your label, retard.
> >> >
> >> > I guess you're "kook-blind", like some people are tone deaf, or face
> >> > blind.
> >> >
> >> > But we already knew you had some kind of handicap.
> >>
> >> Qualify your label, retard.
> >
> > You do it yourself, every time you post.
>
> It was already known you can't qualify your label, retard.
LOL, keep raving, assclown..
>
>
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > Still scared to talk to someone without a motive to
> >> >> >> > lie/exaggerate,
> >> >> >> > huh?
> >> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> " Would that motive you're again referring too be money? I've already
> >> >> shown
> >> >> it
> >> >> to be a flaw in your logic."
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > No, as usual, you haven't shown anything,
> >> >>
> >> >> <snicker>
> >
> > Giggle.
>
> Getting jizz in your face is funny?
LOL, I like women, sorry.
I know that might kill your little scenario, but too bad..
I guess you'll have to cruise some restrooms, and hope you get lucky.
Cocky goes cruisin'...
>
>
> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Your bible, "the commission created by congressional legislation,
> >> >> chartered
> >> >> to prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances
> >> >> surrounding
> >> >> the
> >> >> September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks", was also sold. You were
> >> >> saying,
> >> >> retard?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >
> > And yet you can't really come up with anything close to it, can you?
>
> Don't need to. It's been done.
Again, only in kookland, and on kooksites.
Dream on, Cocky.
>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> except a strange belief in
> >> >> > what is posted on kooksites,
> >> >>
> >> >> You have a strange belief in the commission created by congressional
> >> >> legislation.
> >> >
> >> > I believe it when it's the only thing so far that makes any sense, and
> >> > fits the science and the motives, etc.
> >>
> >> It fits perfectly from its bushman molding that omitted and distorted.
> >
> > Oh...that's it, huh?
>
> Yep... retarded American.
Poor Cocky the assclown, doesn't have anything.
Like the rest of the kooks.
>
>
> >
> > And you kooks still can't even come close to it..
> >
> > LOL.
>
> Bwahahahahah
>
>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Only logical reason I can come up
> >> >> >> >> > with is that you are scared you will be embarrassed or
> >> >> >> >> > ridiculed.
> >> >> >> >> > If there is another reason, let's hear it..
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > BDK
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> You just heard it, moron.]
> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > No, you danced, as usual.
> >> >>
> >> >> Yep, danced on that pea of yours you call a brain.
> >> >
> >> > So why won't you guys talk to an engineer?
> >>
> >> been through this already, shittard.
> >
> > Then go see an INDEPENDENT engineer with no agenda and shut me up..
>
> Give me a list faggot.
One more time, look in the phone book..
>
>
> >
> > I won't hold my breath...
>
> You do whatever you want, bigboy.
>
>
>
> >
> > Later, Dogcock..
> >
> > BDK
>
> You will keep sucking undoubtedly.
Please, leave me out of your dreams.
I get sucked by my GF, not by anyone else, and not by any guy.
BDK
Dogchain
Laughter from you means only that you haven't taken your meds, kook.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > maybe people like me won't ridicule you..
>>
>> You are very irrelevant.
>
> Yet you keep replying.
If you weren't such a kook you'd realize you're the one that's ridiculed.
>
>>
>>
>> >> >> > Thousands of engineers and experts have no problems with it
>> either.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Where's the list of this treasonous filth?
>> >> >
>> >> > You mean a list of sane people, people not trying to make money off
>> >> > 911
>> >> > by selling tapes/DVDs, inventing a reward that can't be won, etc,
>> >> > etc?
>> >>
>> >> So you have no list of "Thousands of engineers and experts [that] have
>> >> no
>> >> problems with it.."
>>
>> What, no list...again? You really are irrelevant.
>
> Look in your phone book,
Who' did you speak with, kook?
I'm sure you can find the first page with the
> listings that begin with the letter E and start from there,
>
> E..N...G... got it?
>
> Assclown.
Bwah bwah
bwah bwah bwah.
>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> > Easy, take a list of engineers and other recognized experts, and
>> >> > cross
>> >> > the half dozen or so kooks that have lost their minds and/or cashing
>> >> > in
>> >> > on gullibles like yourself.
>> >>
>> >> If it's so easy where's your list?
>
> LOL, it's everyone but your few chosen heroes...
Kook.
>
> What a joke you are.
Your Momma's the joke, retarded boy.
>
>
>> >>> Why you keep repeating the sale of 9/11 info. to carry integrity
>> >>> problems to
>> >> the gullible has already
>> >> been fully refuted by factually stating that the bushman 9/11
>> >> commission
>> >> was
>> >> sold.
>> >>
>> >
>> > So what? It was "sold", as you put it, big deal..
>>
>> Bwahahahahah
>
>
> Laugh assclown, laugh..
Bwah bwah
bwah bwah bwah.
Is that where you get all your independent experts, retarded boy?
>>
>>
>> >
>> > I have a couple of good guesses.
>>
>> Name one, retard.
>
> More than one...
Yet you can't name one. Bwahahah
>
> You're afraid someone will ridicule your beliefs.
LOL
>
> You're dancing because you don't want you current "hobby" (911
> conspiracy) spoiled.
Bwah Bwah
Bwah bwah bwah
>
> You don't want to have to admit to the group you have no f'ing clues.
The group in your head is as relevant as you, kook.
> (Not that you would ever admit it anyway, you're not that kind of guy)
Admit what, kook?
>
> You're just a chickenshit in general, who lets his politics affect every
> part of his life.
Bwah bwah
bwah bwah bwah.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Known by who? Kooks? Oh, never mind..
>> >> >>
>> >> >> So you still wish to avoid having to admit that your slight on
>> >> >> selling
>> >> >> something surrounding the 9/11 attack is bogus and hypocritical.
>> >> >> You're
>> >> >> weak
>> >> >> and pathetic.
>> >> >
>> >> > You're delusional, so I guess it's a draw...LOL.
>> >>
>> >> Bwahahahahahah
>> >>
>> >> Jackhole.
>> >
>> > Pinhead.
>>
>> You're delusional.
>
> You wish.
... you weren't delusional.
>
>>
>>
>> >> >> >> >> > And Bush, etc aren't even in the picture until afterwards
>> >> >> >> >> > anyway.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> More facts which show there was some type of complicity in
>> >> >> >> >> the
>> >> >> >> >> US
>> >> >> >> >> Government. When undoubtedly known there was an attack... he
>> >> >> >> >> was
>> >> >> >> >> told
>> >> >> >> >> to
>> >> >> >> >> continue with his phony photo op.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > LOL,
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Makes you giggle does it?
>> >
>> > Yeah, you do.
>>
>> Sober up.
>
> Get off the drugs, maybe you can get help.
Get on your drugs, kook.
>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > It does because it's so fucking meaningless. What did you want
>> >> >> > him
>> >> >> > to
>> >> >> > do, jump up, say "OH SHIT, OH SHIT!!" over and over again, and
>> >> >> > run
>> >> >> > around and pull his hair out?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You are the true kook. You needn't ask this question if you had
>> >> >> half a
>> >> >> brain.
>> >> >
>> >> > And yet you didn't answer it. No surprise there.
>> >>
>> >> Oh, I answered it alright.
>> >
>> > No, you danced.
>>
>> You needn't have asked the question if you had half a brain.
>>
>> Rant on, moron.
That's how you like it, shittard.
>>
>> >> >> <snicker>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Yes, Bush should have done exactly this you retarded apologist.
>> >> >
>> >> > This? This what?
>> >>
>> >> The thing you can't grasp by clearly asking your peabrained question,
>> >> retarded kook.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Ok, I'll do it slower...WHAT....SHOULD.....HE....HAVE....DONE?
>>
>>
>> I know you can't grasp it, retard.
>
> Hmm, and why are you still not answering the question?
The answer is obvious, why ask why, retarded moron?
So you think with your 6yr old mental capacity.
>
>>
>> >> >> >> >> > He may be the worst president ever, but there's no reason
>> >> >> >> >> > to
>> >> >> >> >> > believe
>> >> >> >> >> > he
>> >> >> >> >> > had anything to do with 911 at all.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Bush isn't part of the attack. He wasn't part of the attack
>> >> >> >> >> or
>> >> >> >> >> its
>> >> >> >> >> execution.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Oh, let's hear the "real story"....
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>
>
> And nothing...why am I not shocked?
You should have gotten shock therapy long ago kook.
Yep...logic isn't availabvle to you, retard.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> WTF is wrong with you. You asked and I replied. You want to
>> >> >> >> qualify
>> >> >> >> your
>> >> >> >> "kooksite" label?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > It's funny as hell that kooks never recognizes a kooksite when
>> >> >> > they
>> >> >> > see
>> >> >> > one. You crack me up.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Qualify your label, retard.
>> >> >
>> >> > I guess you're "kook-blind", like some people are tone deaf, or face
>> >> > blind.
>> >> >
>> >> > But we already knew you had some kind of handicap.
>> >>
>> >> Qualify your label, retard.
>> >
>> > You do it yourself, every time you post.
>>
>> It was already known you can't qualify your label, retard.
>
> LOL, keep raving, assclown..
Yes...you don't deny it.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > Still scared to talk to someone without a motive to
>> >> >> >> > lie/exaggerate,
>> >> >> >> > huh?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> " Would that motive you're again referring too be money? I've
>> >> >> already
>> >> >> shown
>> >> >> it
>> >> >> to be a flaw in your logic."
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > No, as usual, you haven't shown anything,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> <snicker>
>> >
>> > Giggle.
>>
>> Getting jizz in your face is funny?
>
> LOL, I like women, sorry.
I bet you do. The problem is... they need to like you, moron.
>
> I know that might kill your little scenario, but too bad..
...too bad they don't like you.
>
> I guess you'll have to cruise some restrooms, and hope you get lucky.
Is that how you try to get it done? I hope you're at a truck stop, retard.
>
> Cocky goes cruisin'...
>
>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Your bible, "the commission created by congressional legislation,
>> >> >> chartered
>> >> >> to prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances
>> >> >> surrounding
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks", was also sold. You were
>> >> >> saying,
>> >> >> retard?
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >
>> > And yet you can't really come up with anything close to it, can you?
>>
>> Don't need to. It's been done.
>
> Again, only in kookland, and on kooksites.
>
> Dream on, Cocky.
\
More statements you cannot qualify.
>
>>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> except a strange belief in
>> >> >> > what is posted on kooksites,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You have a strange belief in the commission created by
>> >> >> congressional
>> >> >> legislation.
>> >> >
>> >> > I believe it when it's the only thing so far that makes any sense,
>> >> > and
>> >> > fits the science and the motives, etc.
>> >>
>> >> It fits perfectly from its bushman molding that omitted and distorted.
>> >
>> > Oh...that's it, huh?
>>
>> Yep... retarded American.
>
> Poor Cocky the assclown, doesn't have anything.
It's very clear I have you. I also have the fact that your bible was molded
by a bushman.
>>
>>
>> >
>> > And you kooks still can't even come close to it..
>> >
>> > LOL.
>>
>> Bwahahahahah
>>
>>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Only logical reason I can come up
>> >> >> >> >> > with is that you are scared you will be embarrassed or
>> >> >> >> >> > ridiculed.
>> >> >> >> >> > If there is another reason, let's hear it..
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> > BDK
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> You just heard it, moron.]
>> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > No, you danced, as usual.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Yep, danced on that pea of yours you call a brain.
>> >> >
>> >> > So why won't you guys talk to an engineer?
>> >>
>> >> been through this already, shittard.
>> >
>> > Then go see an INDEPENDENT engineer with no agenda and shut me up..
>>
>> Give me a list faggot.
>
> One more time, look in the phone book..
One more time. I don't find experts in a phone book.
>> >
>> > I won't hold my breath...
>>
>> You do whatever you want, bigboy.
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>> > Later, Dogcock..
>> >
>> > BDK
>>
>> You will keep sucking undoubtedly.
>
> Please, leave me out of your dreams.
Sucking still.
>
> I get sucked by my GF<Gay Friend>, not by anyone else, and not by any guy.
well if he's playing the bitch how could it be any other way, fagboy?
Dogchain
> "Dogchain" wrote in a message
>
>>>>> OK... I'll go slower for you...
>
>>>> Not slow enough, retard.
>
>>> I have to admit, Dogbrain, I'll never understand how you get your head
>>> so far up your ass
>
>> ...you never will.
>
>> ... try a prostitute, pathetic man.
>
> Cute Dogbrain... you made a funny!
>
> That would seem to be a sign that your brain is starting to function.
>
> Maybe soon, you'll be speaking in complete sentences!
After you learn to read, jackhole.
BDK
You're the expert on kooks, a self taught one...
>
>
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > maybe people like me won't ridicule you..
> >>
> >> You are very irrelevant.
> >
> > Yet you keep replying.
>
> If you weren't such a kook you'd realize you're the one that's ridiculed.
Only in your little group of kooks..
Not by anyone significant...
>
>
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> >> >> > Thousands of engineers and experts have no problems with it
> >> either.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Where's the list of this treasonous filth?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > You mean a list of sane people, people not trying to make money off
> >> >> > 911
> >> >> > by selling tapes/DVDs, inventing a reward that can't be won, etc,
> >> >> > etc?
> >> >>
> >> >> So you have no list of "Thousands of engineers and experts [that] have
> >> >> no
> >> >> problems with it.."
> >>
> >> What, no list...again? You really are irrelevant.
> >
> > Look in your phone book,
>
> Who' did you speak with, kook?
I'm not the one looking for a clue..
>
>
>
> I'm sure you can find the first page with the
> > listings that begin with the letter E and start from there,
> >
> > E..N...G... got it?
> >
> > Assclown.
>
> Bwah bwah
> bwah bwah bwah.
And yet you still won't talk to one.
>
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >> > Easy, take a list of engineers and other recognized experts, and
> >> >> > cross
> >> >> > the half dozen or so kooks that have lost their minds and/or cashing
> >> >> > in
> >> >> > on gullibles like yourself.
> >> >>
> >> >> If it's so easy where's your list?
> >
> > LOL, it's everyone but your few chosen heroes...
>
> Kook.
You really need help, loon. You can get it for little or no cost you
know...
>
>
>
> >
> > What a joke you are.
>
> Your Momma's the joke, retarded boy.
Another of your pitiful zingers...yawn...
>
>
> >
> >
> >> >>> Why you keep repeating the sale of 9/11 info. to carry integrity
> >> >>> problems to
> >> >> the gullible has already
> >> >> been fully refuted by factually stating that the bushman 9/11
> >> >> commission
> >> >> was
> >> >> sold.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > So what? It was "sold", as you put it, big deal..
> >>
> >> Bwahahahahah
> >
> >
> > Laugh assclown, laugh..
>
> Bwah bwah
> bwah bwah bwah.
Yawn yawn yawn...
Better the phone book than a kooksite, insane one..
>
>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> > I have a couple of good guesses.
> >>
> >> Name one, retard.
> >
> > More than one...
>
> Yet you can't name one. Bwahahah
I'm not the one looking kookboy.
>
>
>
> >
> > You're afraid someone will ridicule your beliefs.
>
> LOL
>
>
> >
> > You're dancing because you don't want you current "hobby" (911
> > conspiracy) spoiled.
>
> Bwah Bwah
> Bwah bwah bwah
Tears of an assclown...snif!
>
>
>
> >
> > You don't want to have to admit to the group you have no f'ing clues.
>
> The group in your head is as relevant as you, kook.
>
>
>
> > (Not that you would ever admit it anyway, you're not that kind of guy)
>
> Admit what, kook?
>
>
> >
> > You're just a chickenshit in general, who lets his politics affect every
> > part of his life.
>
> Bwah bwah
> bwah bwah bwah.
>
Laughing to hide the pain?
You're boring me..
>
> >>
> >> >> >> <snicker>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Yes, Bush should have done exactly this you retarded apologist.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > This? This what?
> >> >>
> >> >> The thing you can't grasp by clearly asking your peabrained question,
> >> >> retarded kook.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Ok, I'll do it slower...WHAT....SHOULD.....HE....HAVE....DONE?
> >>
> >>
> >> I know you can't grasp it, retard.
> >
> > Hmm, and why are you still not answering the question?
>
> The answer is obvious, why ask why, retarded moron?
Than answer it kook...
So answer it, kook.
>
>
>
>
> >
> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> > He may be the worst president ever, but there's no reason
> >> >> >> >> >> > to
> >> >> >> >> >> > believe
> >> >> >> >> >> > he
> >> >> >> >> >> > had anything to do with 911 at all.
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> Bush isn't part of the attack. He wasn't part of the attack
> >> >> >> >> >> or
> >> >> >> >> >> its
> >> >> >> >> >> execution.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > Oh, let's hear the "real story"....
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >
> >
> > And nothing...why am I not shocked?
>
> You should have gotten shock therapy long ago kook.
Yawn..
Yawn.
>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> WTF is wrong with you. You asked and I replied. You want to
> >> >> >> >> qualify
> >> >> >> >> your
> >> >> >> >> "kooksite" label?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > It's funny as hell that kooks never recognizes a kooksite when
> >> >> >> > they
> >> >> >> > see
> >> >> >> > one. You crack me up.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Qualify your label, retard.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I guess you're "kook-blind", like some people are tone deaf, or face
> >> >> > blind.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > But we already knew you had some kind of handicap.
> >> >>
> >> >> Qualify your label, retard.
> >> >
> >> > You do it yourself, every time you post.
> >>
> >> It was already known you can't qualify your label, retard.
> >
> > LOL, keep raving, assclown..
>
> Yes...you don't deny it.
You prove with nearly every post.
LOL
No, you find them on KOOKSITES!
Amazing.
>
>
> >> >
> >> > I won't hold my breath...
> >>
> >> You do whatever you want, bigboy.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Later, Dogcock..
> >> >
> >> > BDK
> >>
> >> You will keep sucking undoubtedly.
> >
> > Please, leave me out of your dreams.
>
> Sucking still.
Dreaming on and on..
>
>
> >
> > I get sucked by my GF<Gay Friend>, not by anyone else, and not by any guy.
>
> well if he's playing the bitch how could it be any other way, fagboy?
>
>
Is this the best you can do?
Pitiful. I think it's time to end this, as it's not worth the effort vs
the laughs I get from you.
Later Cocky..
BDK
Dogchain
yes and it's clear you need your meds....
>> > What a joke you are.
>>
>> Your Momma's the joke, retarded boy.
>
> Another of your pitiful zingers...yawn...
You do need rest, kook.
>> >> > Why don't you talk to an independent expert? You never really answer
>> >> > that question....why?
>> >>
>> >> Give me a list of independent experts, retard.
>> >
>> > Look in the phone book, assclown pinhead.
>> >
>>
>> Is that where you get all your independent experts, retarded boy?
>
> Better the phone book than a kooksite, insane one..
Umm...if you say so.<snicker>
>> >> >
>> >> > I have a couple of good guesses.
>> >>
>> >> Name one, retard.
>> >
>> > More than one...
>>
>> Yet you can't name one. Bwahahah
>
> I'm not the one looking kookboy.
Yes you are.
>> >
>> > You're afraid someone will ridicule your beliefs.
>>
>> LOL
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> >
>> > You're dancing because you don't want you current "hobby" (911
>> > conspiracy) spoiled.
>>
>> Bwah Bwah
>> Bwah bwah bwah
>
> Tears of an assclown...snif!
A kook doesn't know when it is thoroughly ridiculed.
>> >
>> > You don't want to have to admit to the group you have no f'ing clues.
>>
>> The group in your head is as relevant as you, kook.
>>
>>
>>
>> > (Not that you would ever admit it anyway, you're not that kind of guy)
>>
>> Admit what, kook?
>>
>>
>> >
>> > You're just a chickenshit in general, who lets his politics affect
>> > every
>> > part of his life.
>>
>> Bwah bwah
>> bwah bwah bwah.
>>
>
> Laughing to hide the pain?
Huh, you still here?
You're so hard right now it's pathetic.
>
>>
>> >>
>> >> >> >> <snicker>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Yes, Bush should have done exactly this you retarded apologist.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > This? This what?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The thing you can't grasp by clearly asking your peabrained
>> >> >> question,
>> >> >> retarded kook.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Ok, I'll do it slower...WHAT....SHOULD.....HE....HAVE....DONE?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I know you can't grasp it, retard.
>> >
>> > Hmm, and why are you still not answering the question?
>>
>> The answer is obvious, why ask why, retarded moron?
>
> Than answer it kook...
Than?
Kooks need to ask the question on what "he should have done".
>> >> >> >> >> >> > He may be the worst president ever, but there's no
>> >> >> >> >> >> > reason
>> >> >> >> >> >> > to
>> >> >> >> >> >> > believe
>> >> >> >> >> >> > he
>> >> >> >> >> >> > had anything to do with 911 at all.
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> Bush isn't part of the attack. He wasn't part of the
>> >> >> >> >> >> attack
>> >> >> >> >> >> or
>> >> >> >> >> >> its
>> >> >> >> >> >> execution.
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> > Oh, let's hear the "real story"....
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > And nothing...why am I not shocked?
>>
>> You should have gotten shock therapy long ago kook.
>
> Yawn..
I'd like to wake your sorry ass up w/ a few volts.
You don't deny logic isn't available to you.
>
>
>>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> WTF is wrong with you. You asked and I replied. You want to
>> >> >> >> >> qualify
>> >> >> >> >> your
>> >> >> >> >> "kooksite" label?
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > It's funny as hell that kooks never recognizes a kooksite when
>> >> >> >> > they
>> >> >> >> > see
>> >> >> >> > one. You crack me up.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Qualify your label, retard.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I guess you're "kook-blind", like some people are tone deaf, or
>> >> >> > face
>> >> >> > blind.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > But we already knew you had some kind of handicap.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Qualify your label, retard.
>> >> >
>> >> > You do it yourself, every time you post.
>> >>
>> >> It was already known you can't qualify your label, retard.
>> >
>> > LOL, keep raving, assclown..
>>
>> Yes...you don't deny it.
>
> You prove with nearly every post.
That you can't qualify your weak pathetic statements, YES.
>
> LOL
Assfairy
There's that unqualified statement AGAIN.
>
> Amazing.
Yes you are.
>
>>
>>
>> >> >
>> >> > I won't hold my breath...
>> >>
>> >> You do whatever you want, bigboy.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Later, Dogcock..
>> >> >
>> >> > BDK
>> >>
>> >> You will keep sucking undoubtedly.
>> >
>> > Please, leave me out of your dreams.
>>
>> Sucking still.
>
> Dreaming on and on..
>
Yes you are.
>>
>>
>> >
>> > I get sucked by my GF<Gay Friend>, not by anyone else, and not by any
>> > guy.
>>
>> well if he's playing the bitch how could it be any other way, fagboy?
>>
>>
>
> Is this the best you can do?
What do you think?
>
> Pitiful.
Yes you are, fagboy.
I think it's time to end this, as it's not worth the effort vs
> the laughs I get from you.
If you were having as much fun as I was you'd continue it, fairy.