9/11 Truth ( redone)

[Shaggytheclown17]

Ok, i had a lil trouble with my last post so ive decided to do it the right way this time so i wont get in trouble again.
On my account page there are alot of posts from a site about 9/11, there really is tons of stuff there n im gona post more later.
Make sure to check it out n comment there. And visit the 911truth website.
Ill be checking on this post too so i put somthing here for u to read.

........................................
...........

Tuesday, October 23 2007 - 9/11 Consequences
This failure should sound the alarms

"The lesson of 9/11 for civilians and first responders can be stated simply: in the new age of terror, they--we--are the primary targets. ... A rededication to preparedness is perhaps the best way to honor the memories of those we lost that day." Page 323, "9/11 Commission Report"

And how are we doing at preparedness? Not very well, according to a recent TSA testing report, that showed screeners missed fake bombs 60%-75% of the time at LAX and O'Hare. A 2001 report by the GAO found that screeners in the 1970's found all but 13% of objects during compliance tests, performing significantly better than those working for the TSA now. And this does not address the fact that we still do not inspect the cargo loaded on passenger planes or coming into the country through our ports. If we were serious about honestly enhancing security, we would be doing more to protect our chemical and nuclear plants, railways, and refineries, instead of tapping Americans' phones and feeling up airline travelers in political t-shirts.

- Ed.

by Mitch Albom
Free Press Columnist
October 21, 2007

This should make you angrier than you have been over almost anything since Sept. 11 -- and that includes the war in Iraq.

A recent report showed that 75% of fake bombs or bomb parts got past Transportation Security Administration security at Los Angeles International Airport and 60% got past TSA screeners at Chicago's O'Hare.

Those are two of the busiest airports in the world. Those are two of the juiciest targets a terrorist could desire.

Seventy-five percent? Three out of four times? We are constantly hearing the tired and misguided phrase "fight 'em over there so we don't have to fight 'em here."

They needn't bother with us over there. With a 75% chance of success, why would they go anywhere BUT here?

The heart of the matter

Now, the reason this news should have you outraged -- and more importantly, why our president and his national security team should be outraged -- is this failure draws a straight line to the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and that field in Pennsylvania six years ago.

Unlike Iraq, which had nothing to do with the actual explosions of Sept. 11, airport security was at the heart of that tragedy. Tighter security, from passenger identity to spotting box cutters, could have thwarted that day.

Can you imagine how our lives would be different if those 19 hijackers had been stopped? Think about every security issue you now face in daily life, think about the economic drain on this nation, think about the war, the lives lost, the political hate, and all of it goes back to how those men got on those planes.

So you would think, before throwing hundreds of billions at a conflict in Iraq, the first, the biggest, the most obvious use of money and effort would be at the real ground zero of the Sept. 11 terrorism plan -- the airports.

Instead, six years after the fact, we still have disinterested agents. We still have inferior equipment when better equipment is available. We still have more emphasis on stuff rather than on interrogating people. And we still have federal officials making excuses. The latest comes from TSA chief Kip Hawley, who, in response to previous bad results, blamed harder tests.

According to USA Today, Hawley told a House committee this week: "We moved from testing of completely assembled bombs ... to the small component parts."

Yeah? So? You expect terrorists to put a completely assembled bomb in an empty briefcase and slide it on the belt?

A very flawed system

Don't laugh. That, in fact, is actually how examiners used to test agents, by putting fake bombs in empty suitcases. You know what? There were still failures.

Now, examiners pack things like detonators or batteries inside a toiletry kit, or they hide watch-timers in carved-out books. And because of that, our TSA chief is justifying these unacceptable numbers? This is like a kid saying, "Well, of course I failed the math test. You wanted me to add AND subtract!"

The fact is, there is no excuse. None. And President George W. Bush, who vows to keep this nation safe, should be the loudest and harshest critic.

After all, it was the government that insisted on taking over airport security after 9/11, saying we couldn't trust such critical work to lowly paid private screeners. So the TSA was formed, and we doubled or tripled the pay, and what do we get? We get 75% at LAX and 60% at O'Hare. Meanwhile, the same tests showed that the San Francisco airport -- which employs private screeners -- allowed only 20% of the fake bomb equipment through.

And private screeners are what we had before the TSA. We're going backward.

I travel more than most people, so I am not shocked. Sadly, many of the TSA people I see seem more interested in their next break than what or who is going through security. I often see dazed looks, bored postures, shared jokes between agents.

The TSA should be ashamed. And if -- or when -- there is another attack involving planes, and everyone, as always, goes looking to blame someone, we can go back to these pathetic results, we can go back to 75% and 60%.

And we can blame ourselves.

[SuperDeagle]

Your an idiot.
(Import 50 consecutive cases to disprove everything you copy pasta)

[SizZlE666]

At 11/4/07 02:56 PM, SuperDeagle wrote: Your an idiot.
(Import 50 consecutive cases to disprove everything you copy pasta)

I've heard that the air defence system took about 6 times longer to reply to the planes than their standard. I'm not sure if 9/11 was an inside job or not, but one thing is for sure: We need to scrap our defence system and make a better one.

[JakeHero]

Here's the real truth behind 9/11. A bunch of crazy ass Saudi muhammedans decided it would be awesome to hijack airplanes and crash them into American landmarks as an attempt to demoralize the American populace and administration(would of worked if either Al Gore or Clinton were still in control), and anyone who says otherwise should be sterilized for being mentally retarded.

[Shaggytheclown17]

At 11/4/07 03:08 PM, JakeHero wrote: Here's the real truth behind 9/11. A bunch of crazy ass Saudi muhammedans decided it would be awesome to hijack airplanes and crash them into American landmarks as an attempt to demoralize the American populace and administration(would of worked if either Al Gore or Clinton were still in control), and anyone who says otherwise should be sterilized for being mentally retarded.

Why wouldntve they jus all attacked the whitehouse then? Ive heard there wa sonce a suicide plane that crashed right ouside it, no i dont think terrorists got lucky that one time as they say in the 9/11 commission, they're definitely covering up somthing, and you have to be a mindless loser to not think so.

[Shaggytheclown17]

At 11/4/07 03:57 PM, chocolate-penguin wrote: I forgot to add that the main point the moron that wrote that made was that if we prevented 9/11 nothing would have ever happened.

Wrong.

It was a matter of time. Also, what makes him so sure that they wouldn't have tried again? Oh wait--they did. Most people haven't even heard OF THE 1993 WTC BOMBING. This article is so stupid it makes my head want to explode. I've lost some IQ points from listening already.

And really, people who are now in the Bush administration were the SAME ONES TRYING TO TIGHTEN SECURITY. Whenever they did though, no matter how effective their methods were, they were sued or stopped due to "ethnic profiling" and the fact that us happy rainbow Americans don't know shit about the world and how much nearly everybody wants us to die a horrible death so they didn't want more security.

The united states is less safe than it ever was, question is why arent terrorists tryiing again when our defence is its worst ever?
Its because the government knows were all scared n wont question it, go take some more perscription drugs n shove ur support our troops sticker up ur ass.

[Shaggytheclown17]

Friday, September 21 2007

9/11 - the big cover-up?
From the Guardian's online blog page: Even the chair of the 9/11 Commission now admits that the official evidence they were given was 'far from the truth'.

- Ed.

Peter Tatchell - The Guardian

Even the chair of the 9/11 Commission now admits that the official evidence they were given was 'far from the truth'.

September 12, 2007 10:30 AM

Six years after 9/11, the American public have still not been provided with a full and truthful account of the single greatest terror attack in US history.

What they got was a turkey. The 9/11 Commission was hamstrung by official obstruction. It never managed to ascertain the whole truth of what happened on September 11 2001.

The chair and vice chair of the 9/11 Commission, respectively Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, assert in their book, Without Precedent, that they were "set up to fail" and were starved of funds to do a proper investigation. They also confirm that they were denied access to the truth and misled by senior officials in the Pentagon and the federal aviation authority; and that this obstruction and deception led them to contemplate slapping officials with criminal charges.

Despite the many public statements by 9/11 commissioners and staff members acknowledging they were repeatedly lied to, not a single person has ever been charged, tried, or even reprimanded, for lying to the 9/11 Commission.

From the outset, the commission seemed to be hobbled. It did not start work until over a year after the attacks. Even then, its terms of reference were suspiciously narrow, its powers of investigation curiously limited and its time-frame for producing a report unhelpfully short - barely a year to sift through millions of pages of evidence and to interview hundreds of key witnesses.

The final report did not examine key evidence, and neglected serious anomalies in the various accounts of what happened. The commissioners admit their report was incomplete and flawed, and that many questions about the terror attacks remain unanswered. Nevertheless, the 9/11 Commission was swiftly closed down on August 21 2004.

I do not believe in conspiracy theories. I prefer rigorous, evidence-based analysis that sifts through the known facts and utilises expert opinion to draw conclusions that stand up to critical scrutiny. In other words, I believe in everything the 9/11 Commission was not.

The failings of the official investigation have fuelled too many half-baked conspiracy theories. Some of the 9/11 "truth" groups promote speculative hypotheses, ignore innocent explanations, cite non-expert sources and jump to conclusions that are not proven by the known facts. They convert mere coincidence and circumstantial evidence into cast-iron proof. This is no way to debunk the obfuscations and evasions of the 9/11 report.

But even amid the hype, some of these 9/11 groups raise valid and important questions that were never even considered, let alone answered, by the official investigation. The American public has not been told the complete truth about the events of that fateful autumn morning six years ago.

What happened on 9/11 is fundamentally important in its own right. But equally important is the way the 9/11 cover-up signifies an absence of democratic, transparent and accountable government. Establishing the truth is, in part, about restoring honesty, trust and confidence in American politics.

There are dozens of 9/11 "truth" websites and campaign groups. I cannot vouch for the veracity or credibility of any of them. But what I can say is that as well as making plenty of seemingly outrageous claims; a few of them raise legitimate questions that demand answers.

Four of these well known "tell the truth" 9/11 websites are:

1) Scholars for 911 Truth, which includes academics and intellectuals from many disciplines.

2) 250+ 9/11 'Smoking Guns' a website that cites over 250 pieces of evidence that allegedly contradict, or were omitted from, the 9/11 Commission report.

3) The 911 Truth Campaign that, as well as offering its own evidence and theories, includes links to more than 20 similar websites.

4) Patriots Question 9/11, perhaps the most plausible array of distinguished US citizens who question the official account of 9/11, including General Wesley Clark, former Nato commander in Europe, and seven members and staffers of the official 9/11 Commission, including the chair and vice chair. In all, this website documents the doubts of 110+ senior military, intelligence service, law enforcement and government officials; 200+ engineers and architects; 50+ pilots and aviation professionals; 150+ professors; 90+ entertainment and media people; and 190+ 9/11 survivors and family members. Although this is an impressive roll call, it doesn't necessarily mean that these expert professionals are right. Nevertheless, their scepticism of the official version of events is reason to pause and reflect.

More and more US citizens are critical of the official account. The respected Zogby polling organisation last week found that 51% of Americans want Congress to probe President Bush and Vice-President Cheney regarding the truth about the 9/11 attacks; 67% are also critical of the 9/11 Commission for not investigating the bizarre, unexplained collapse of the 47-storey World Trade Centre building 7 (WTC7). This building was not hit by any planes. Unlike WTC3, which was badly damaged by falling debris from the Twin Towers but which remained standing, WTC7 suffered minor damage but suddenly collapsed in a neat pile, as happens in a controlled demolition.

In a 2006 interview with anchorman Evan Soloman of CBC's Sunday programme, the vice chair of the 9/11 Commission, Lee Hamilton, was reminded that the commission report failed to even mention the collapse of WTC7 or the suspicious hurried removal of the building debris from the site - before there could be a proper forensic investigation of what was a crime scene. Hamilton could only offer the lame excuse that the commissioners did not have "unlimited time" and could not be expected to answer "every question" the public asks.

There are many, many more strange unexplained facts concerning the events of 9/11. You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to be puzzled and want an explanation, or to be sceptical concerning the official version of events.

Six years on from those terrible events, the survivors, and the friends and families of those who died, deserve to know the truth. Is honesty and transparency concerning 9/11 too much to ask of the president and Congress?

What is needed is a new and truly independent commission of inquiry to sort coincidence and conjecture from fact, and to provide answers to the unsolved anomalies in the evidence available concerning the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon. Unlike the often-stymied first investigation, this new commission should be granted wide-ranging subpoena powers and unfettered access to government files and officials. George Bush should be called to testify, without his minders at hand to brief and prompt him. America - and the world - has a right to know the truth.

Source URL httpcommentisfree.guardian.co.ukpeter_ta tchell200709911_the_big_coverup.html

[Shaggytheclown17]

Tuesday, July 17 2007

WTC INSURE 'WA$TE' -- $1B FUND SQUANDERS CASH SUIT
While tens of thousands suffer from the toxic fallout at Ground Zero, the WTC Captive Insurance Co., controlled by Mayor Bloomberg, drains the fund intended to be used for ill workers. For your convenience in reviewing the historical record stating the original mandate for this allocation, we have appended the press release from Governor Pataki and Mayor Bloomberg, issued March 21, 2003. In an amazing twist of irony, the Bloomberg appointed CEO and President of the WTC Captive Insurance Co. draws a salary of $350,000 and receives $20,000 annually in health benefits.
In another ironic twist of timing, this weekend the FealGood Foundation--which provides direct help to responders--is holding a doo-wop benefit concert to raise the desperately needed funds they can't get from the Bloomberg fund.

- Ed.

By Susan Edelman

NYPost, July 17, 2007

Ex-cop John Walcott, who worked at Ground Zero and now has leukemia, has joined a suit against a WTC insurance fund.

July 17, 2007 -- The $1 billion insurance fund set up for the World Trade Center cleanup has violated its congressional mandate to pay legitimate worker-injury claims and "squandered" millions on expenses, an explosive lawsuit is charging.

Controlled by Mayor Bloomberg, the WTC Captive Insurance Co. and its agents have "unethically profited" from the federal fund, draining money available for ill workers, alleges the suit, to be filed today in Manhattan Supreme Court.

The WTC insurance fund has spent close to $74 million on overhead and legal bills so far - but paid just $45,000 to one worker who fell off a ladder.

While letting the fund pay fat salaries and fees to its employees, consultants and lawyers, the mayor has wrongly exploited the unit to fight claims by thousands of workers with illnesses blamed on toxic exposure, the suit says.

"Congress gave Bloomberg a billion dollars to cover for the mistakes he and his predecessor, Mayor Giuliani, made in failing to protect tens of thousands of workers," lawyer David Worby said. "Now, adding insult to injury, he refuses to use the funds intended for that exact purpose - to help the sick and dying 9/11 heroes."

The suit will be filed by Worby Groner & Napoli Bern, a law firm already battling the city in a class-action negligence suit on behalf of nearly 10,000 ill WTC responders.

The plaintiffs in the new suit are former NYPD Detective John Walcott, who has leukemia, NYPD Detective Frank Maisano, who has severe lung disease, and Mary Bishop, a St. Vincent's Hospital worker with cancer, lung and digestive diseases.

"If it wasn't for the rescue workers and volunteers, our city would be in chaos," said Walcott, 42, whose daughter was an infant when he was diagnosed in 2003. "How can Mayor Bloomberg justify not releasing the funds Congress gave us when he could save lives and homes and families?"

Besides the fund and Bloomberg, the suit names the outfit's five-member board of directors - all appointed by Bloomberg - and Christine LaSala, the company's president and CEO.

LaSala rakes in a salary of $350,000 a year, plus $20,000 in health benefits.

Citing city records, the suit traces the firm back to its origin to prove its claim that Bloomberg has twisted its mission.

In May 2002, the city made a request to feds, saying "toxic chemicals emanating from the WTC debris site" made insurance "absolutely vital to protect the city and its contractors."

Congress appropriated $1 billion through FEMA.

Then-Gov. George Pataki pushed a bill to create the nonprofit firm to manage the fund. "This legislation is necessary for the city to expedite the payment of claims," Pataki and Giuliani said in a 2003 press release.

At a meeting in December 2004, minutes show, LaSala declared the firm's main purpose was to disburse the fund "in an equitable manner that maximizes compensation to those parties who suffered damages as a result of the WTC debris removal program."

Overall, the WTC fund has spent $73.8 million as of March 31, including $45.7 million on law firms, records show.

Much of the money has been poured into an ongoing court battle in which the city contends it has immunity from all WTC suits because it was responding to a terror attack.

Other expenses include $8.5 million paid to GAB Robbins, a risk-management firm, for "claims adjusting." But the firm has done little adjusting, the suit says - WTC Captive Insurance has refused to review the medical records of sick workers.

LaSala has said the firm has a "duty to defend" the city and its WTC contractors, and has "faithfully followed its mandate."

[e-mail]

Source URL: http://www.nypost.com/seven/07172007/new s/regionalnews/wtc_insure_wate_regionaln ews_susan_edelman.htm?page=0

PRESS RELEASE:

STATE OF NEW YORK

EXECUTIVE CHAMBER
GEORGE E. PATAKI, GOVERNOR

Press Office
518-474-8418
212-681-4640
http://www.state.ny.us

FOR RELEASE:
IMMEDIATE, Friday
March 21, 2003

GOVERNOR PATAKI, MAYOR BLOOMBERG UNVEIL NEW CAPTIVE INSURANCE LEGISLATION TO HELP NYC, STATE'S BUSINESS COMMUNITY

Bill Allows for Sponsored Captives for New York's Businesses and the Creation of NYC Captive for WTC Response Providing Important Coverages

Governor George E. Pataki and New York City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg today announced new legislation that will allow a wider range of businesses the opportunity to utilize captive insurance companies to retain, fund, and better manage some of their risk.

The proposed bill will also allow for the formation of a pure captive insurance company by New York City to provide coverages for liability relating to or arising out of activities in or near the World Trade Center site in response to the attacks of September 11, 2001.

"The new legislation will mean New York City will now have important insurance coverages it greatly needs relating to the tragedies of September 11th,"Governor Pataki said. "The Federal Emergency Management Agency specifically authorized the creation of a New York City captive and the City explored various options and decided that the formation of a captive insurance company was in its best interest for claims arising out of the clean-up effort at and near the World Trade Center.

"Our policies of cutting taxes, controlling spending, and eliminating red tape have strengthened the State's business climate. This bill reaffirms my commitment to pursuing policies that result in creating business opportunities and jobs in the State of New York," Governor Pataki said.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg said, "The City of New York, together with State officials and the New York Congressional delegation, has fought long and hard for federally-paid insurance to protect the City and its contractors for claims arising from the massive debris removal work done in the World Trade Center. This legislation is necessary for the City to expedite the payment of claims relating to this effort."

The new State captive legislation contains several provisions to help the State's business community. The bill provides a new risk transfer vehicle, known as a sponsored captive insurance company, which permits various participants to use the same vehicle to self-fund their risks. The bill in addition, creates additional flexibility by lowering the threshold for businesses to form single parent captives and to participate in a group captive. As well, public entities that meet appropriate standards will also be permitted to form captives.

The U.S. Congress recently passed legislation directing the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to provide the City of New York with up to $1 billion in coverage for the City and its contractors for claims arising from debris removal performed after the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings. The federal legislation also directs the City of New York to use such funds to establish a captive insurance company or other such appropriate insurance mechanism.

Superintendent of Insurance Gregory V. Serio said, "The new State captive legislation also creates greater flexibility and allows businesses and public entities new opportunities t

[Christopherr]

At 11/4/07 03:04 PM, SizZlE666 wrote: I've heard that the air defence system took about 6 times longer to reply to the planes than their standard. I'm not sure if 9/11 was an inside job or not, but one thing is for sure: We need to scrap our defence system and make a better one.

Our system took a while to target because it took a while to realize that the passenger planes had been hijacked. You think that the defense system just targets any plane that goes off-route?

[bluedemonspeedracer]

Borat said the Jews did 9/11 so it obviously means its true!!!!!!!

[Shaggytheclown17]

Im not here to fucking argue, im here to enlighten you guys that if 9/11 was caused by terrorists, Muslims er islams, we would not be over there.
The government has been lying to us and everyone knows it.
If they were lieing about building 7, about 10 hijackers who supposedly died but are alive, how the trade center collapsed, and all this other shit, how can we even be sure that the the government themselves didn't plane it?

[Shaggytheclown17]

Sunday, September 9 2007

bin Laden organized 9/11 attacks?

Osama bin Laden organized the 9/11 attacks right?
Not according to the FBI, or the White House, or the Justice Department.

What is implied on TV is very different from the actual actions the US government has taken in "pursuit" of the 9/11 conspirators.

Six years later, the US has filed no charges, presented no evidence and in fact is not even seeking Bin Laden in connection with the crime!

Courageous investigative reporting by KSLA TV in Shreveport, LA (search youtube.com for even more of this from KSLA!):

Youtube description: Original Link: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=
-6443576002087829136. The government has yet to properly explain why our generation's Pearl Harbor, 9/11, is never mentioned on the FBI's Most Wanted poster of suspected mastermind Usama (Osama) Bin Laden. Reporter Jeff Ferrell, who recently broke the story on Homeland Security's "Clergy Response Team" To Quell Public Dissent During Martial Law, investigates what on the surface seems to be a simple question: Why no mention of 9/11. The answers, or lack of them, are anything but simple. See for yourself: http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/ter binladen.htm. See also this article from Muckraker Report: FBI says, "No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11" http://www.teamliberty.net/id267.html

Source URL: http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/150.htm l

[animehater]

Hot damn it not another one....

[Shaggytheclown17]

Oh yea uh chocolate-penguin, your a 14 year old so i wouldnt listen to anything you say cuz you were like 6 er 7 when 9/11 happened and you know nothing of it. So fuck you up the ass with ur own keyboard,

[robattle]

if you have no defence at home but all offence over at the enemy's area the enemy will just aim at your home.

you have to have defence and offence to win anything.

[Shaggytheclown17]

EXACTLY! They say theres nothing to be afraid of cuz the terrorists got lucky, n the info from my main post on this thread, our country is a bare target, n if there were terrorists who want to kill us, they would have no problem getting through the security of airports, so what they tell us is a lie, were less safe then we were in 1970.

They ensure that were safe when the data clearly sais otherwise, then they must have something to hide.

[SolInvictus]

At 11/4/07 06:41 PM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote: Oh yea uh chocolate-penguin, your a 14 year old so i wouldnt listen to anything you say cuz you were like 6 er 7 when 9/11 happened and you know nothing of it. So fuck you up the ass with ur own keyboard,

and i guess you know more then him because you, at the age of 12, were an expert and were present throughout the 9/11 incident analyzing in detail every aspect of the attacks? fucking moron. no one on this site was present and capable of drawing information from what happened that day and the following days so don't get high and mighty on him because your 4 years older than he was. we all got our information from the same sources, some bad some good, the problem is you believe the wrong ones.

Shaggytheclown17, Job: Spreading the truth!
good job dipshit.

[Shaggytheclown17]

At 11/4/07 07:22 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 11/4/07 06:41 PM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote: Oh yea uh chocolate-penguin, your a 14 year old so i wouldnt listen to anything you say cuz you were like 6 er 7 when 9/11 happened and you know nothing of it. So fuck you up the ass with ur own keyboard,

and i guess you know more then him because you, at the age of 12, were an expert and were present throughout the 9/11 incident analyzing in detail every aspect of the attacks? fucking moron. no one on this site was present and capable of drawing information from what happened that day and the following days so don't get high and mighty on him because your 4 years older than he was. we all got our information from the same sources, some bad some good, the problem is you believe the wrong ones.

Shaggytheclown17, Job: Spreading the truth!
good job dipshit.

If ur so fuckign sure of urself then why do u have to make such an uninteligent comment about what ive said? Just facr it, you are inconfident about ur own beliefs n you think saying msome stupid shit will make it untrue, what a fucking loser.

[K-RadPie]

At 11/4/07 06:41 PM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote: Oh yea uh chocolate-penguin, your a 14 year old so i wouldnt listen to anything you say cuz you were like 6 er 7 when 9/11 happened and you know nothing of it. So fuck you up the ass with ur own keyboard,

My god... you can't even do simple math. It definitely says something about your credibility.

[SolInvictus]

At 11/4/07 07:28 PM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote: If ur so fuckign sure of urself then why do u have to make such an uninteligent comment about what ive said?

an unintelligent comment? coming from the person who used someone elses age at the time of the attacks (which is absolutley irrelevant) in an attempt to discredit that person without adressing the points he brought up?

Just facr it, you are inconfident about ur own beliefs n you think saying msome stupid shit will make it untrue, what a fucking loser.

i can say with confidence that i've seen more conspiracy theory sites and videos than you have and all have consitantly demonstrated the same ignorant arguments to make their points.

note: if you want to avoid sounding like an idiot and get people to realise the "truth" learn to spell jackass.

[Shaggytheclown17]

At 11/4/07 07:32 PM, K-RadPie wrote:

At 11/4/07 06:41 PM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote: Oh yea uh chocolate-penguin, your a 14 year old so i wouldnt listen to anything you say cuz you were like 6 er 7 when 9/11 happened and you know nothing of it. So fuck you up the ass with ur own keyboard,

My god... you can't even do simple math. It definitely says something about your credibility.

Wow, you have no sense whatsoever, plz go jump off a cliff cuz thats what ur gonna end up doing anyway.

[Shaggytheclown17]

Im done arguing, you guys can talk amongst urselves like retards but i know the truth, and obviously you guys are too brainwashed by ur parents to do so.
I personally feel sorry for all of you, and I will be laughing hysterically at all of you when the truth finally does come out.

[SolInvictus]

At 11/4/07 07:32 PM, K-RadPie wrote: My god... you can't even do simple math. It definitely says something about your credibility.

thats a bad sign, chances are i've just been baited.

[Shaggytheclown17]

Read em n weep motherfucker, read my current post on my account page or just as easily visit the site described below.

The National Lawyers Guild on Friday unanimously and enthusiastically passed a resolution supporting the impeachment of Bush and Cheney.

Resolution on Impeachment of Bush and Cheney

Whereas George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney:

1. deliberately misled the nation and doctored intelligence, as described in the Downing Street minutes, http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/memos.h tml about the threat from Iraq in order to justify a war of aggression and an occupation of Iraq, as further described in House resolution H.Res. 333: http://kucinich.house.gov/UploadedFiles/
int3.pdf
and as listed in House Resolution H. Res. 635: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext .xpd?bill=hr109-635

[Shaggytheclown17]

Errrr nvm you could jus easily go to http://www.911truth.org/ n find it urself.

[Shaggytheclown17]

I'd just shut up right now if I were you, you know you are wrong now, the info ive just found is from the 911truth.org website.
Your fucking wrong and you know it.

[SuperDeagle]

I'm getting tired of this idiot.
Yo shaggy why don't you tell us why were wrong?
Huh? Instead of just saying, "Your wrong because you insecure!"
Why not just tell us why? Hmm? Is it because deep down you know your wrong?
Oh of course not, your the enlightened one. Tell me have you ever once actually argued against people on this subject matter? Or did you just pitter patter around on conspiracy sites where those people agreed with everything you spout?
Face facts newb, everything you praise as truth is deluded idiocy.
Good day.

[fahrenheit]

At 11/4/07 08:13 PM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote: I'd just shut up right now if I were you, you know you are wrong now, the info ive just found is from the 911truth.org website.
Your fucking wrong and you know it.

denial at its finest

[Shaggytheclown17]

At 11/4/07 08:56 PM, SuperDeagle wrote: I'm getting tired of this idiot.
Yo shaggy why don't you tell us why were wrong?
Huh? Instead of just saying, "Your wrong because you insecure!"
Why not just tell us why? Hmm? Is it because deep down you know your wrong?
Oh of course not, your the enlightened one. Tell me have you ever once actually argued against people on this subject matter? Or did you just pitter patter around on conspiracy sites where those people agreed with everything you spout?
Face facts newb, everything you praise as truth is deluded idiocy.
Good day.

Youve got issues, the fact of the matter is I dont know if what i believe is true or not, however what i believe i think is alot better than the depraved ravings of an old senile man who voter frauded his way into presidency and was responsible for the deaths of thousands of people.
No sir, im not on ur side, and yes your opinion means nothing to me.

[SuperDeagle]

At 11/4/07 09:10 PM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote: Youve got issues

I mustn't be the only one.

the fact of the matter is I dont know if what i believe is true or not

I'm quite certain that I know what's the truth on this situation.

however what i believe i think is alot better than the depraved ravings of an old senile man who voter frauded his way into presidency and was responsible for the deaths of thousands of people.

So you think I get my info from who? Bush? Haha charade you are!
At least I don't get my info from a bunch of random people with 0 experience in any field relating to the incident. At least I use actual scientific facts to support my reasonings. At least I respond to every single part of your post instead of picking and choosing.

No sir, im not on ur side, and yes your opinion means nothing to me.

So your goal is to enlighten us to the truth eh? So uh... what makes you think that your opinions mean anything to any of us?