Ah. Sorry. I thought you were done dancing and had posted some evidence. My bad. Sorry, but I'm not going to engage you in one of your silly side discussions that ultimately lead nowhere because they are nothing but you trying to prove your intellectual superiority and then failing miserably. The discussion here is that truthers have no evidence that backs up their theories. You claim you have evidence that backs up your theory. Now, if you wish to continue the discussion, explain your theory and then post your evidence. Otherwise you're just wasting everyone's time by spamming the boards with nonsense. The very fact you're so worried about the definition of evidence would lead the readers to believe that you're going to try and claim bull(*)(*)(*)(*) "evidence" is evidence based on some legal technicality. While that wouldn't surprise me, it still backs up my claim. So go ahead Koko. Dance and spam or post your evidence. Think anyone is fooled by your antics? Nope. Bull(*)(*)(*)(*) is bull(*)(*)(*)(*) and your claims are bull(*)(*)(*)(*).
thank you for making it perfectly clear that you are not remotely qualified to determine what is and is not evidence.
Thank you for making it perfectly clear you have no evidence regardless of the definition. Better luck next time. Anyone else think Koko is just dancing hoping nobody notices he has no evidence?
the omission commission did LOL the news did LOL the gub did LOL you sound like another one who is clueless to what the rules of evidence are. you choose to believe that well thats your problem maybe you prefer faux?
You can choose what you want to believe as well. Showing videos of what you like to pretend are squibs doesn't cut it. It is your OPINION that they are squibs and can be nothing else. I don't need to tell you what I think of your retarded opinion, nor do I need to explain to you that you lack any and all credibility needed to pretend you know what it is. Opinion is not evidence. Opinion from someone who has continually displayed a complete ignorance of what he claims he knows about is nothing but fodder to laugh at.
Wrong yet again. You want to pretend you have evidence. You can't actually present evidence so you present opinion. We both know that isn't evidence, so you try to pretend you can redefine evidence. I don't see anyone coming on here and defending your bull(*)(*)(*)(*). Can't say I blame them. Its not much fun being associated in any way with the kokos of the world.
I already told you but you simply do not seem to get it. there is no point in trying to debate with someone who has no clue what the rules of evidence are. I am just posting pertinent interesting documented events and we will let the audience decide for themselves. I cant make up my mind which one I like better... maybe that one. the way that plane goes in is just.... well.....precious!
Okay champ,explain how the plane SHOULD have gone in. One thing,the animated shorts of Chuck Jones are NOT a reference
the fact that you had to ask, proves you not capable of conceptualizing it. How about you telling us why you think that is physically correct
How about you telling us what is wrong with it? I don't expect you will though since you wouldn't post the "rules of evidence" after you went on and on about wanting someone else to define them and then used the fact that they weren't defined here as an excuse NOT to post evidence.
You implied there was something off with the plane going into the tower And I DID ask,YOU need to answer instead of running away...
The video was not conspiracy minded. Portraying it as such is a disservice and a lie. It just showed footage. And like I'm trying to get across to you, my only exposure to 9/11 before 9/11 was on 9/11. I watched it on TV at school with all of my classmates. I was the guy in psychology class that turned on the radio and heard everything going to hell in a handbag. My teacher was on the Internet and his facial expressions really did it in. We got ushered to other classes where we weren't taught anything but watched everything unfold LIVE. Then, we got to go home. I walked. And there on in, I never cared to see much of anything related to 9/11. I never watched the Nic Cage movie. Or any of the documentaries. I personally think, at age sixteen, watching it on television, that it gave me some type of PTSD. I mean, it emotionally wrecked a lot of people I know. And when I sat there some ten years later watching all of this footage of 9/11, crying my eyes, things just didn't look right. The footage. The actual events. They don't look right. Still don't. All three buildings collapsing the way they did. South Tower being hit second, but falling first. WTC 7 falling, and as well by not being hit by a plane. Orio Palmer and another fireman reaching the impact point and what he had to say, which the building fell not too long thereafter...which is of course weird because the South Tower was hit second and the way it collapsed. I had never been aware of those facts. I was blind to them because it was too painful to look at them, man. Well, when did you start trusting the government? I've been to that page before. Weird. It says nothing of the sort that you're wanting it to say. Mind quoting it? I cited things in the '11 years ago today' thread. Hannibal has not refuted it. You've shied away from the conversation altogether, instead, you just say it is speculative. Let's have a real conversation here, Patriot. Like I said, I might have been misinformed and presented information that I thought was valid, but we all do that. I happen to believe in a lot of cases that you simply refuse to acknowledge things because to do so would alter your worldview drastically, which in doing so, would alter you. You are afraid of the truth. You don't have to say, "Jango, I think you're evil," to say it. It bothers me greatly that you find what I am doing 'evil'. Morally questionable behavior. I guess I find we're at an impasse then, Patriot, because I find it morally questionable to defend the system when you know the system is doing morally questionable things. You clamor to this ideal of me being some "down with the US" American. I know it is against your conservative political views to speak against the military, business sector, or what have you, but the things I say, they're not baseless accusations. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R41677.pdf I mean, what can you say about that? You really don't think our behavior needs to change? It takes a lot of killing of foreign people to give Americans our standard of living, and how can there not be a moral issue with that? What, is the evidence not 'real' enough for you? 9/11 was the event that started "A Clean Break". Because without 9/11, how were we going to get into Iraq? Iraq was a US goal for years, neoconservative goal, and yes, for the oil. The PNAC document: "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event like a new Pearl Harbor." From Cheney's Defense Strategy: "The first major conflict of the post-Cold War era preserved our strategic position in one of the regions of the world critical to our interests. Our success in organizing an international coalition in the Persian Gulf against Saddam Hussein kept a critical region from the control of a ruthless dictator bent on developing nuclear, biological and chemical weapons and harming Western interests. Instead of a more radical Middle East/Persian Gulf region under Saddam’s influence, Saddam struggles to retain control in Iraq, Iraq’s dangerous military has been greatly damaged, our ties with moderate states are stronger, energy resources are secure, and significant progress has been made in the Arab-Israeli peace process." "Other countries -- some of them, like Iraq, especially hostile and irresponsible — threaten to acquire nuclear weapons. Some countries are also pursuing other highly-destructive systems, such as chemical and biological weapons. These developments require us to be able to deter use of such weapons, and to improve our defense capabilities." "In the Middle East and Persian Gulf, we should seek to foster regional stability, deter aggression against our friends and interests in the region, protect U.S. nationals and property, and safeguard our access to international air and seaways and to the region’s important sources of oil." "We must remain prepared to act decisively in the Middle East/Persian Gulf region as we did in Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm if our vital interests there are threatened anew." "To discourage the rise of a challenger hostile to our interests in the region, we must maintain a level of forward military presence adequate to reassure our friends and deter aggressors and present a credible crisis response capability. In consultation with our regional friends, we should increase our presence compared to the pre-Gulf War period. We will want to have the capability to return forces quickly to the region should that ever be necessary. We also should strengthen our bilateral security ties and encourage active regional collective defense." "The United States is committed to the security of Israel and to maintaining the qualitative edge that is critical to Israel’s security. Israel’s confidence in its security and U.S.-Israel strategic cooperation contribute to stability, as demonstrated once again during the Persian Gulf War. At the same time, our assistance to our Arab friends to defend themselves against aggression also strengthens security throughout the region, including for Israel." http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nukevault/ebb245/doc15.pdf His silence is telling nonetheless, and no, he did not take my argument apart - apparently you need to re-read, as well, comment in the '11 years ago today' thread. No, 9/11 had to happen for "A Clean Break" to happen, as well, all the things the neoconservatives had planned - Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Syria... When you stop and think about it Patriot, what ideological thought usually guides our foreign policy? Is it liberal thought? Or is it conservative thought?
How is it a lie? You never mentioned the name of the program, did you. You did mention it discussed WTC 7. The ONLY programs where I have seen them discuss WTC7 is a conspiracy theory show as it has very little to do with the terrorist attack itself. So you want us to believe you saw the collapse of WTC 7 and all the lights went on and you were suddenly a convert to Trutherism? WOW! Bull(*)(*)(*)(*). Yet when these things are explained to you and you can't refute the explanation, you go right on believing the lies and the conspiracy sites. Doesn't that tell you something? The south tower got hit second and collapsed first. It also got hit far lower which means you have a lot more weight bearing down on the weakened areas. WTC 7 didn't get hit by a plane, but a 110 story building collapsed near it and caused major damage. It also burned for numerous hours and was showing signs of collapse for hours before it actually collapsed. Why are you surprised it collapsed? The collapses looked exactly like one with any kind of knowledge of physics would expect them to look. Truthers whine that the towers should have fallen to the side, yet this is nearly impossible, especially on a building that size. They ignore physics to go with "gut instinct" even when that instinct is proven wrong. In all seriousness, have you thought about therapy to discuss these issues with a professional? You obviously had emotional trauma and it is likely you are now trying to rationalize this trauma through redirecting the hard to accept fact that terrorists hurt us and put it into a context you are more comfortable with which is the government did it to us. I NEVER trust the government. How many times do I have to explain this to you just to see you lie your truther ass off about it? If you want respect, you have to give respect. Ignoring what someone says just to insult them is not respect. I followed the evidence. I also looked at what the truthers were claiming and THAT made no sense. It was pseudo science designed to fool the retarded into believing something fantastic in order to milk them for money. I would be interested to know how many millions of dollars truthers have been suckered out of. Just look at the table of contents: Where in there does it say anything about conspiracies? Explosives? No planes? Mannequins being thrown out of windows? Faked plane crashes? It doesn't. It talks about the hijackers. It talks about Al Qaeda. It talks about the history. It is ABSOLUTELY speculative. You have zero evidence that ties the PNAC to the two wars. Isn't that the definition of speculation? Hannibal pointed out how the two wars did not fit the PNAC defintion and you had to make excuses as to why it did. The excuses did not fit. Once again you lie your truther ass off. Where is the guy who was trying to pretend he doesn't lie? You lied then. You're lying now. You believe in bull(*)(*)(*)(*) and lies and I believe in the truth as presented by the evidence. I have asked you for evidence that proves your theories are correct. You cannot present such evidence. No other truther has been able to present evidence. Truthers routinely dismiss evidence and the truth in order to pursue their lies while trying to be self righteous in their crusade against the government. For that truthers are despised and rightly so. If it bothers you so much, why do you insist on pushing known lies in order to try and foment rebellion against the government? In your book, is it evil for a person to lie in order to hurt other people? It sure is in my book. That is why I demand evidence. You like to pretend this is all some kind of game, but it isn't. Except once again you insist on lying. I am not defending the government. Our government does plenty that is wrong and I am fighting on almost a daily basis to change that. What I am defending is the truth. That is what you cannot comprehend. Then where is the evidence you are telling the truth? Come on. If you're actually telling the truth there should be all kinds of evidence. Evidence that can't be refuted without outright dismissing of the evidence like you always do. This has nothing to do with 9/11 and everything to do with your overwhelming irrational hatred of the US. Do things need to change? Absolutely. Does one need to blame the government for every conspiracy just because they aren't mature enough to look at the truth? No. That isn't evidence. It is your decidedly RETARDED opinion that there is a connection. Your paranoia is not evidence. I just did. Your retarded opinion of a connection between the document and 9/11 as the impetus for war is just that. Your retarded opinion. It is not evidence. Evidence is finding a plan made prior to 9/11 showing 9/11 as the reason. See the difference? One is actionable and one is not. We can't take you in front of a DA and pretend your opinion is evidence enough to get an indictment. Your opinion. Nothing more. Nothing less. Fortunately it is not truther thought or the lack thereof or we would all be well and truly (*)(*)(*)(*)ed. Right now liberal thought is guiding our foreign policy. Where is your outrage at Obama? Why aren't you pissed off Obama hasn't exposed 9/11 as a conspiracy? You think of the world as black and white when reality is all kinds of gray.
It may have been the 102 Minutes That Changed America and the one with DeNiro narrating sounds familiar too. http://www.usatoday.com/life/televi...mmemorates-10th-anniversary-of-911/50141574/1 Not exactly like that, no, but kind of, yes. I knew after seeing the collapse of the buildings that they weren't from the planes and fires, obviously, since there were three buildings felled that day. Proven wrong by whom? Experts that work for the government. I thought you didn't trust the government. Gee. Why are you so willing to accept everything the government has to offer? NIST did not test for explosives even though authority figures recorded explosions on 9/11 in and around the building. How did NIST know that al Qaeda hadn't planted explosives inside the building? Hmm... Well, since I have PTSD, among other things, I do attend therapy. I've had a hard life. I PM'd you the eulogy I wrote for my mother. That event, her death and prolonged suffering, has crippled me. Doesn't mean I'm not smart or can't figure things out. I wasn't insulting you. You said it wasn't long after the smoke cleared before the truthers started emerging. Well, since you don't trust the government, why weren't you among the curious to find out the truth? Oh wait, you were. But let me guess, your investigation was different and you were not a truther when you looked into 9/11? I haven't spent a dime. It doesn't say what it is that you claimed it did though. I know what the Terror Timeline tracks - I frequent the updated website. It was erroneous to state that the Terror Timeline states that the government didn't know anything about it because the website definitely reflects against that notion. I mean, unless there has been a drastic change... Am I lying though? I remember when I pushed an issue to the hilt, literally to the hilt - remember the "would you bet your life on it"? You wouldn't touch the 'Views' thread. Just as you are dismissing "A Clean Break" and the significance it has to 9/11. "A Clean Break" is a known 9/11 lie? Show me who else has presented this information here, or elsewhere for that matter (I now know History Commons has mentioned it). Why do you think I think this is only a game? Then defend the truth, but for God sake, pick the right truth to defend, man. And yes, you are defending the government you non-trusting government person you. I have presented it in threads and you have categorically rejected it, while at the same time labeled me all kinds of derogatory things. My "overwhelming irrational hatred of the US," gimme a break. You sound like a lot of older guys I know, cannot stand or handle an ounce of criticism. And you have the gall to speak about maturity and truth in the same sentence. Please. You wear some of the thickest and densest glasses, worse than SiliconMagician. Regulate your patriotism, man, it blinds you. Insults. What else you got? You mind looking at this thing objectively? Oh wait... More of the same. This is telling. Tell me what I've said that isn't true. Why are you allowed to make all of these descriptions about me, painting me with a brush, but the moment I do the same, you call me liar and the like? For your information though, I know the world isn't black and white. My concept of that type of world was unfortunately shattered long ago. I won't go ape(*)(*)(*)(*) and call you a liar though, but you are wrong about me, and in so many different ways.
How does the fact that 3 buildings collapsed in one day make it obvious that it was not because of planes or fires? No, but it could mean that your not thinking clearly. Sounds like you've had a lot to deal with and you're looking for a place to direct your anger. http://www.world-mysteries.com/newgw/gw_rmd1.htm I'm not trying to analyze you and please don't take what I posted as an insult. I hope someday you find peace. And I mean that sincerely, Jango.
The way you say it makes it sound odd, but when I watch the buildings collapse - all of them - they look like controlled demolitions. WTC 7 looks like a controlled demolition. WTC 1 and 2 look like controlled demolitions. Peace is not an option for me, Dave. I appreciate the thought. Though my brain is not 'normal', the education and time I put into it yields results just the same as any other brain. The medication I am on makes me think clearly. I am thinking the clearest I ever have, though because of the PTSD, I am the most scared I've ever been (though my doctors say rightfully so considering the world events around me). It scares me even more that they're scared themselves of what's happening in the world - that I'm not paranoid. Lol.
Would that be acceptable in your book? Is liberal bashing okay? I mean, Obama clearly doesn't have a perfect record, and I can cite things if you really want me to, but I don't want to be accused of being anti-American or some "down with America" punk like you like to do with me. His administration is following the agenda, Patriot, so why would he expose the conspiracy? "A Clean Break" is still in effect.
I think I've linked this for you before but, anyway. http://www.911myths.com/index.php/WTC_Not_A_Demolition Well, you still have a tight enough grip on reality that you didn't believe all of the Let's Roll crap. So there is still hope.
