How a Cover-Up Works

Discussion in '9/11' started by Emmanuel_Goldstein, Dec 2, 2012.

You are viewing posts in the Conspiracy Theory forum. PF does not allow misinformation. However, please note that posts could occasionally contain content in violation of our policies prior to our staff intervening.

  1. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    are you for real?.....you actually think all they needed was 5 frames of film to prove a jet hit the pentagon?<eyeroll> truthers..
     
  2. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You're slinging so much of it around on this forum,I mean what exactly should he call it?
     
  3. Patriot911

    Patriot911 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    9,312
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    0
    OK, holston. You want to know why your bull(*)(*)(*)(*) is a lie? Money isn't missing. The transactions can't be fully accounted for due to numerous accounting systems in use by the DOD. Zakheim wasn't comptroller until May of 2001. In order for your total bull(*)(*)(*)(*) to be true (they stole 3+ trillion dollars), Zakheim would have to steal more than the entire defense budget for several years. THE ENTIRE BUDGET. Truthtards can't think worth a (*)(*)(*)(*). Not only that, they can't add. Take holston for example. Rumsfeld says 2.3 trillion dollars worth of transactions couldn't be accounted for to GAO standards. Zakheim, several years later, says a trillion dollars can't be accounted for. Dishonest people take 2.3 trillion reported in 2001 and add a trillion reported in 2003 and pretend it is 3+ trillion. The truth is as they were going through the records, they were able to account for more and more of the money. Instead of adding a trillion in 2003, holston should have subtracted 1.3 trillion from the original 2.3 trillion. But hey. That would be honest and have integrity. We know truthers can't do THAT!

    So. Now to prove my points which prove holston is a liar.

    First claim; Zakheim would have to steal several years worth of the entire DOD budget
    [​IMG]
    In 2000, the DOD's entire budget was 300 billion dollars. In 2001, the budget was just over 300 billion dollars. 3+ trillion supposedly stolen in 2001 and 2003 would mean over a decade of the entire DOD budget would have to go missing. Hmmmm. What is the possibility the entire defense department went a decade without a dime funding them? Answer that one if you can, holston.

    Second claim; Money wasn't missing, but improperly documented according to GAO standards.
    Source

    Third claim; The 2.3 trillion dollar quote from 2001 and the 1 trillion dollar quote from 2003 should be subtracted, not added. And who do we turn to? Nobody else but the comptroller for the DOD at the time, Zakheim.
    Source

    Oh SNAP!!! The very guy holston is trying to claim stole the trillions is accounting for all the money! To anti-semites, Zakheim is bad because he is Jewish. To normal, rational people, Zakheim reconciled trillions of dollars worth of transactions.

    OK, holston. Your turn. Refute what I've written. Try not to use such blatantly anti-semitic sites this time. It gives away a person's true intentions when one posts from hate sites.
     
  4. Patriot911

    Patriot911 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    9,312
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    0
    When that is all you can bring up, yes. ;-) See, other, normal people read what I write about your bull(*)(*)(*)(*) and realize that I am applying the correct term to your pack of lies. Now let's see if you can actually respond to the lies you've already told.
     
  5. Patriot911

    Patriot911 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    9,312
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I love it when truthers look at a picture and pretend to be an expert while proclaiming this is the only evidence available. WOW! (*)(*)(*)(*)ing liars. How about this? You have over a hundred witnesses. Not one saw a missile. So who are we to believe? 100 people who were there? Or some anti-semite on the web pretending the Jews are evil and behind everything while pretending he can accurately tell what an object is from a security camera still through a fish eye lense. Hmmm. Boy, that

    And what were they suppose to do? Stand outside and shoot at the plane? :lol: Truthers are so stupid. The attack was in NYC, not Washington.

    Why should the Pentagon have cameras on a side of the Pentagon where there isn't even an entrance? Not only that, but why would said cameras be pointing up into the sky instead of at the ground?

    Um.... until I see proof otherwise, I am going to have to go with the all Putzes claim.

    So let's see you defend your attack on Zakheim. You made blatantly false claims. I backed up the fact you lied with sources.

    When one has to make up a bargeload of (*)(*)(*)(*) to make one's case that it is all the Jews, that is anti-semitism. That isn't opposition. That is bigotry and hatred.

    They released the footage already. Even truthers know that. Why don't you?

    Well, you can ASSume all you want. You know what they say happens when you ASSume. You make an ASS out of u and..... well, just you.

    Except your example was released to the public. That is what the FOIA is all about.
     
  6. Patriot911

    Patriot911 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    9,312
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    0
    We can agree on that. Unfortunately for you, many people take the evidence available and come to conclusions instead of pretending they are completely ignorant.

    So you're going to pretend all the evidence had no chain of custody or independent verification of facts? Really? Yet a lot of the evidence was presented at Moussaoui's trial. You can't present evidence at trial without a chain of custody, thus proving one exists. The fact some people prefer to live in ignorance so they can preach their bull(*)(*)(*)(*) agendas isn't the rest of society's problem except when said people then pretend they are superior due to their ignorance.

    Well, like everything else, you're wrong here as well. But hey. If you really need to stroke your ego in such a fashion, knock yourself out. The rest of us know the real score. :lol:
     
  7. Patriot911

    Patriot911 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    9,312
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Wow. So you blast debunkers for believing information without a chain of custody and independent verification of facts, but you will swallow whole anything you want to believe without a second of hesitation.

    Keep bleeting. It makes it easier to count the truthers as they pretend sites full of known, proven lies are actually treasure troves of valid information.
     
  8. plague311

    plague311 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2012
    Messages:
    1,256
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    For the zillionth time Holston, the video information HAS been released. News flash, THERE ISN'T ANYTHING ON THEM. Google Penttbom, they released the footage forever ago, and everyone has seen them. For the love of all that is good, they're on (*)(*)(*)(*)ing youtube. For some reason you just cant' seem to comprehend that businesses don't buy security to monitor other buildings. The camera's were pointed at the buildings themselves, like the gas station.

    Stop being so lazy and do some research. You spend so much time on youtube you can't handle typing in "Penttbom pentagon". Are you seriously this inept at doing basic low level research?

    Also, I have shown you SEVERAL TIMES that there is a TON more evidence it was flight 77 than 5 stills from the camera. In fact, I would say that those 5 stills are the weakest of all the evidence. If you're going to keep trotting that out here, then practice what you preach and refute all of that evidence.

    I blast your regurgitated garbage every time you post it, so it's comical that you are telling others to refute your evidence. Which isn't evidence, it's all lies.
     
  9. plague311

    plague311 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2012
    Messages:
    1,256
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Oh, Pimptight. I don't have to "defend" my posting history. I post fact, and I back it up with proven evidence. If you have a problem, or if you think I'm wrong that why don't you step up and prove my evidence wrong.

    That's how pathetic the truth movement is, since they can't dispute anything they bring attention to my posting history. I said I'd put it in my sig and you ran like a little girl.
     
  10. pimptight

    pimptight Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2012
    Messages:
    5,513
    Likes Received:
    23
    Trophy Points:
    0
    LMAO!!!!

    And 1 week before Lehman Brothers went bankrupt, it was solvent, right?

    It's also just a coincidence that James Holmes father writes some of the most complicated anti-fraud algorithms in the world for FICO, and Adam Lanza's dad is head of GE financial services too, right?

    You sure you want to talk about accounting practices with me?

    This is what I blew you guys up with last time, on the short trades! You don't have the talking points to combat me!
     
  11. pimptight

    pimptight Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2012
    Messages:
    5,513
    Likes Received:
    23
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Sorry, I form my opinions from facts with 3rd party verification.

    You form your opinions on "trust me" sources!

    This is what you believe in, "We investigated all possibilities, but we will provide no chain of custody for evidence, or samples of evidence for 3rd party verification"!

    You are a child!


    Edit: BTW, where the hell did you say you would put anything in your sig, and what was this based on?

    Outing yourself as a propagandist again I see!
     
  12. pimptight

    pimptight Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2012
    Messages:
    5,513
    Likes Received:
    23
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You do realize how you out yourself, by claiming I believe this or that, when anyone can read back to the last page, and see I make no such claims.

    That I clearly stated, that I know enough to know I know nothing!
     
  13. Patriot911

    Patriot911 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    9,312
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Nice job of debunking what I wrote. Oh wait. You FAILED. You failed to point out a single fact I got wrong, and instead tried to bedazzle everyone with unrelated bull(*)(*)(*)(*) in the hopes someone might mistake your ignorance for intelligence. It didn't work. If you want to debunk what I wrote instead of pretending you are some kind of accounting genius who doesn't understand simple math, go for it, but so far all you've done is proven you're incapable of intelligent debate.
     
  14. Patriot911

    Patriot911 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    9,312
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yes. We agree you clearly know nothing, yet pretend to know everything. You claim holston's posts "sometimes their is great information in them", yet you claim to know nothing. If you know nothing, how do you know there is great information in them? In other words, you're talking out of both sides of your ass and everyone knows it. If you want to play word games, maybe you should go find a board where your games appear intelligent. The only people you fool here are people like holston or 9/11 was an inside job, and to do that all you have to do is agree Jews are evil or that the official story is wrong. Of course, your basis of "non-believing" is because you're too lazy to realize the evidence HAS been vetted, there IS a chain of custody, and it was enough to convict a man in a court of law of being part of the attacks on 9/11. Why did you run from that fact?
     
  15. pimptight

    pimptight Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2012
    Messages:
    5,513
    Likes Received:
    23
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That is a good way of putting it. You took the information available, and demanded nothing more.

    Way to honor your fellow fallen Americans!

    Is this like how he had a right to trial, or constitutional rights as well?

    You can't claim a person is a enemy combatant, and refuse him trial, to then claim he has a right to evidence in court that had a chain of custody!

    Here is your chance though, you provide me with evidence with a chain of custody, and 3rd party verification, and you can turn me back into a debunker, like I was 5 years ago!

    Weird how you won't take me up on this, also weird how I can predict the future, huh?


    I'm rubber, you're glue, whatever you say bounces off of me, and sticks to you!
     
  16. Patriot911

    Patriot911 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    9,312
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yet you, by your own admission, know nothing. How hard is it to get third party verification these days?

    No, those are truthtard sites truthers get their "information" from. They have nothing to back them up. In the mean time, you have to ignore tons of evidence in order to carry on your delusion of knowing nothing yet being an expert at everything.

    I've shown you twice now where that was done. Could you refute it? Nope. You just ignorantly keep repeating the same bull(*)(*)(*)(*) lies. Reminds me of those wind up monkeys that play the cymbals. All they can do is keep repeating the same actions time and time again.

    And your basis of this is what? Do you have third party verification of this fact? You pretend you know nothing, yet make blatantly false claims about a person's age based on what.... the fact you don't like the fact he is constantly making a fool out of you? Maybe you should examine why you feel the need to lash out at others. ;-)
     
  17. pimptight

    pimptight Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2012
    Messages:
    5,513
    Likes Received:
    23
    Trophy Points:
    0

    I'm rubber, you're glue, whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you.

    Question: Who can tell me which post has more substance to it?
     
  18. pimptight

    pimptight Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2012
    Messages:
    5,513
    Likes Received:
    23
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Show me a chain of custody for evidence, accompanied by 3rd party verification, and enough evidence to prove 9-11 occurred as you say it did.

    How many times do I have to ask for this?


    Amazing how I can state over and over, that I know enough to know I know nothing, and yet you continue to try and brand me with ideas I have made no claim to!

    Where?

    You can claim you can pull unicorns out your butt, but until I see it, you just look like a liar!


    Based on the fact that children believe in Santa Clause!
     
  19. Patriot911

    Patriot911 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    9,312
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No, this is your bull(*)(*)(*)(*) claim based on nothing but your pure ignorance. Who are you to say what I have and have not done? You know nothing, remember? That means you shouldn't make claims that are clearly false.

    You mean the way you truthers do as you use their deaths to push your bull(*)(*)(*)(*) agendas? Yeah, that is really patriotic. Your posts are nothing but the pitiful attempts of someone who really wants something to be true, knows it isn't, but instead of facing reality, hides behind excuses like knowing nothing and the evidence hasn't been vetted enough for you.

    So you're claiming Moussaoui didn't have a fair trial? Really? Wow. So the Eastern District Court of Virginia is now some rogue court that does not adhere to the standards for evidence every other court in the United States demands? Do you have EVIDENCE to back up this bull(*)(*)(*)(*) claim? Of course you don't. Here is the evidence used in the Moussaoui case. Both sides even. Now show us where the evidence does not meet up to the standards of a US courtroom.

    Go ahead, pimptight. Prove how the Eastern District Court of Virginia completely failed to adhere to the standards of evidence established for US courts. Either that or turn back into a debunker.

    Another blatant lie by you. He was not refused trial and was convicted in a court of law.

    You really should find a grade school board where you can debate with people who can truly appreciate your witty comebacks. :lol:
     
  20. pimptight

    pimptight Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2012
    Messages:
    5,513
    Likes Received:
    23
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'll take this as a no.

    You don't want to engage on financial issues with me, as you do remember what happened last time we talked about short trades.

    What my response did, was showed that your claim of a source in accounting has as much credibility as Lehman Brothers accounting did! You then showed your a$$ once again, with this response above where you claim I did nothing to refute your so called "facts".

    This is you: "I know my source has the credibility of Ted Bundy, but it is still a fact!", "I quoted accounting, which we know through history can never be manipulated.", FACTS FACTS FACTS FACTS FACTS FACTS FACTS FACTS FACTS FACTS FACTS FACTS!!!!!

    "Oh wait you asked for 3rd party verification, and yet I offered no 3rd party verification of the accounting!"

    Der, der, dur, der, derpa der!
     
  21. Patriot911

    Patriot911 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    9,312
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You keep asking. I keep delivering. Now, can you show where the Eastern District Court of Virginia is a court of law that does NOT adhere to the standards set up by this great nation for evidence? Because unless you can present valid evidence, nobody is going to believe your bull(*)(*)(*)(*) claim the evidence wasn't properly vetted.

    So you never claimed truther sites sometimes contain great information? I seem to recall you saying those exact words. How does one recognize great information if one knows nothing? If one cannot recognize this great information, then one obviously knows something. So either you are lying about knowing nothing or you are lying about truther sites sometimes containing great information. These are mutually exclusive claims you've made.

    Maybe if you spent more time trying to read other people's posts instead of just relying on insults you would see where I've mentioned Moussaoui several times. Of course, you've claimed Moussaoui never had a trial so it is clear your claim of knowing nothing goes far beyond the simple claim. Are you truly that ignorant of the events post 9/11 that you missed the entire trial? It would appear you didn't even understand the simple fact it was a criminal trial like any US citizen would receive and not a military trial.

    Yet another oh so witty comeback more suited to a grade school playground than a debate. Funny how the guy who claims to know nothing also seems to have the answer to everything. A shame he can't get anything right. ;-)
     
  22. Patriot911

    Patriot911 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    9,312
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The topic at hand is holston's blatant lies about DOD finances. The fact you failed to address the topic at hand by pretending other, unrelated issues are somehow relevant is only a means of derailing the thread and diverting everyone's attention away from the fact holston was lying out his ass.

    I showed sources that backed up my claims. Did you do anything to refute said sources? No. The failure is all yo

    So you don't have anything to disprove my post or my sources except some limp examples of other accounting failures? Wow. Nice. Better luck next time!

    The GAO is the government's version of third party verification. The GAO is the entity that came out with the 2.3 trillion dollar figure, yet nobody disputes that. The fact you want to pretend the Pentagon can just pretend the transactions were reconciled without the GAO stepping up and saying not so fast is hilarious!
     
  23. pimptight

    pimptight Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2012
    Messages:
    5,513
    Likes Received:
    23
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Logic is to say you have not demanded more. See, as we have never gotten any more 3rd party verified evidence with a chain of custody, this means that if you do not demand it today, then you never did, as nothing has occurred that could have met this demand!

    Of course logic isn't your friend is it?


    So, in the same post you are going to quote me saying I know enough to know I know nothing, and then call me a truther at the time!

    To quote Obama, "please go on, tell me more."


    Ok, here we go. Show me the chain of custody, and 3rd party verification this piece of evidence was never tampered with, and is reliable.

    Spin, spin, spin away!

    Yeah, well, again show me the release of the evidence against Moussaoui, and its chain of custody!



    The fact that you can't pick up on the similarity between my rubber/glue grade school comment, and the substance in your posts when you brand everything as truther, lies, and BS, while backing up these claims only when challenged speaks volumes!
     
  24. pimptight

    pimptight Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2012
    Messages:
    5,513
    Likes Received:
    23
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yes, because questioning accounting integrity after living through the GFC, and currently living through the European banking crisis is, "derailing to unrelated issues", right?


    I'm sorry, but did you really just ask me to source that Lehman brothers committed accounting fraud, and that no one has went to jail for it?

    Would you also like me to source that the sun rises in the east?


    Why would I have to prove anything when i have shown your proof to lack credibility?

    My assertion is that we know nothing, you are the one claiming I am wrong!

    Do you know the definition of 3rd party verification by any chance?

    Because if you do, and are claiming the GAO counts as 3rd party verification, you may want to go get tested for being retarded.
     
  25. pimptight

    pimptight Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2012
    Messages:
    5,513
    Likes Received:
    23
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Stopped reading as soon as I got to your link.

    It doesn't seem to work for me, you are going to have to show me the actual text, or else admit you can't provide it to me!
     

Share This Page