I just did. The more you ignore it and the more you troll this forum with your nonsense the less credibility and the worse reputation you will have. Obviously these are not important for you, which means you are taking the same path many truthers have taken when they know they are beaten; banning due to childish behaviour.
You think cheering dishonest quoting does anything? It only helps show how desperate you guys become when you can't handle the facts.
What.... you mean like when you run from evidence you can't address? Or when you whine about posts from a week or so ago that you complain were misquotes when in reality the buttkicking you got would have been the same regardless? Or when you childishly ask the same questions over and over and over and over again when you are given the answer every time or asked to clarify? Yeah. You're desperate alright. Most truthers just crawl back under their rock when they reach your level of exposure.
You very clearly stated that you don't read his posts. You have also made it clear that you don't read reports or look at evidence. You are trying to twist out of it, and that is being dishonest. Stop it.
Already have. We can go in circles until you are bluer in the face. The truth is the truth. You've been presented with the evidence. You've rejected the evidence. You've been asked what evidence you would take. You've ignored that request. At this point there should be no question in anyone's mind that you are just spamming which is a TOS violation.
Keep being dishonest........ If you wanted to be honest you would not have gone to the trouble of editing my post to fit your idiotic agenda.
The next time you ask anyone to prove anything all they have to do is link Bing. Right? We all know a Report as large as the Commission's cannot be blanket linked. Common sense says the evidence in the report must be cited. But let's not get crazy and too far ahead. We are still trying to teach you to honestly quote posts.
You were given specific passages and chapters, as well as sources for further evidence. Do you need someone to read it to you, as well?
I didn't change the meaning of what you wrote in any way. Your agenda keeps tripping you up. Stop that.
So you want to dishonestly try and pretend the 9/11 commission report, a report SPECIFICALLY about the attackers, what happened on 9/11 and how to prevent future attacks, is the same as a search engine that encompasses the entirety of the World Wide Web...... And you wonder why people don't believe a word you say? REALLY? All you have to do is look at the table of contents to quickly find what you're looking for. Let's see. OOH! Chapter 7! All about the terrorists! Imagine that! OMG! The chapter goes into detail on each hijacker! They're receiving orders from KSM, the planner of 9/11! Imagine that! It takes an honest person less than a minute to read the table of contents and see where the 9/11 commission talks specifically about the hijackers, how they were recruited, and the evidence that was compiled. It takes a dishonest person pages and pages of denial, pretending he was never given the link, pretending that because the report doesn't contain every last shred of evidence that none of the evidence is good, and pretending the 9/11 commission report is the same as a search engine designed to disseminate the entire WWW to pretend there is no evidence the hijackers were associated with Al Qaeda.
You did change the meaning but keep dishonestly quoting my posts. It helps show what desperation your camp has to reach just to have an excuse to post at all.
The next time you make a claim you should be prepared to cite the evidence and after asking at least ten times you still refuse to cite the evidence all the hijackers were in al qaeda. Thanks for showing what a joke it is to try and defend the OCT.
I've cited the evidence. You've rejected the evidence. And what hypocricy from you! You NEVER show evidence to back up your bull(*)(*)(*)(*) claims no matter HOW many times you're asked! And I don't have to pretend that is true like you do. The only joke here is you. Unfortunately the joke is neither funny nor worthwhile.
Still incapable of anything but spamming I see. The response hasn't changed. I've cited the evidence. You've rejected the evidence. And what hypocricy from you! You NEVER show evidence to back up your bull(*)(*)(*)(*) claims no matter HOW many times you're asked! And I don't have to pretend that is true like you do. Do you deny you've been given the link several times for the 9/11 commission report? Do you deny the 9/11 commission report contains evidence of who the hijackers were and what their affiliations were? You are not doing yourself any favors by playing dumb.
Let's play it your way. There is insufficient evidence that proves all hijackers were in al qaeda. Here is the link that proves my claim correct: http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report.pdf
There is a veritable treasure trove of information there. How can you claim it is insufficient? Read chapter 7. It details each of the hijackers, their movements, their recruitment, and their involvement on 9/11. How is that not enough evidence they were members of Al Qaeda?
And I am refuting your claim using your own link. Have you read chapter 7? How can you claim there isn't enough evidence there to link every hijacker to 9/11? Better yet, can you name the hijacker you thought was not sufficiently linked to Al Qaeda? The difference is I've actually read the document in question and am operating in good faith. The information is there in chapter 7 and there is so much one cannot repost it all into a thread. Now, if you have specific hijackers you don't believe were covered by the 9/11 commission report or you have actual evidence that the 9/11 commission got it wrong, please feel free to present it and we can discuss. If all you're going to do is pretend you haven't been presented with the evidence, well, all you're doing is showing your posts are not worth the bandwidth necessary to download your crap.
