How You Can Tell It's A 9-11 "Truth" Documentary
Because the first words said are a lie. 9-11 Mysteries has a weird opening sequence which looks like somebody changing the channels; from a Fox News opening to cartoon to a soap opera to a cooking show to professional wrestling. Then the movie really begins. About 17 seconds in, a bald-headed guy appears and says, "My name is Brad and I'm a conservative Republican."
Except that even the creator of the film admits that Brad is not a conservative Republican. In an interview on Air America Phoenix yesterday (MP3 file), Sophia, the director and (space cadet) narrator of the film, says at 1:50, "My friend Brad billed himself as a conservative Republican and I was considered the liberal, just because people like to have opposites...."
posted by Pat @ 10:08 AM
46 comments
46 Comments:
They can't even keep track of all the lies that they just fall out of their mouths like rain. Hilarious.
Looks like Do-Over Dylan has been hanging around the NWO crowd for too long. According to him, the "Final Cut" will include:
9/11/2006
Reichstag Fire
Pearl Harbor
Manhattan Project
Nuremberg Trials/Project Paperclip/MKULTRA/Fort Detrick
Northwoods
Gulf of Tonkin
'93 WTC Bombing
Payne Stewart (May or may not)
PNAC
Dov Zakheim, PNAC member and dual-israeli citizen, becomes Pentagon Financial Comptroller
DOD Memo
John O'Neill and W199I
Put Options
Pentagon Missing 2.3 Trillion Dollars
At least I only had to watch the first 90 seconds to get an idea of where he was coming from and how full of shit he is...
TAM
Good catch, Manny!
documentary, fiction, its all the same thing, right?
Dylan says it will be the final cut, but I know better.
LIHOP all but confirmed -
The Jersey Girls are lambasting the administration and the 9/11 Commission for failing to prevent 9/11 and then covering up what really happened.
Raw Story has the 9/11 Widow's statement:
"Statement Regarding al Qaeda Threats
October 5, 2006
Astonishingly, five years post 9/11 the public is made aware about an urgent July 10, 2001 meeting that took place between former CIA Director George Tenet and then, National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice. This information comes from Bob Woodward's newly released book, "State of Denial".
Despite this Administration's rhetoric that they had "no warnings" leading up to 9/11, it has become abundantly clear, that key Administration officials were made aware of the vast array of Al Qaeda threats and warnings that existed in years prior, and more importantly, in the weeks leading up to September 11, 2001.
When we add the July 10, 2001 meeting to the plethora of other clear warnings that our government had, a very concise view of the al Qaeda threat emerges. Those other warnings include, but are not limited to:
(More after the jump..)
• Warnings from leaders of other nations and foreign intelligence apparatus' of terrorist threats
• June 30, 2001 Senior Executive Intelligence Briefing (SEIB) entitled "bin Laden Threats Are Real"
• The threat of President Bush's assassination at the G-8 Summit by al Qaeda in July of 2001 – using aircraft to dive bomb the summit building
• July 2001 Phoenix memo, which told of potential terrorists taking flight lessons
• 52 FAA warnings – five of which mentioned al Qaeda's training for hijacking
• August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Brief entitled "bin Laden Determined to Strike in US"
• National Intelligence Estimate (NIE)entitled "Islamist Extremists Learn to Fly"
• Intelligence agency heads describing themselves with their "hair on fire" to characterize the imminent nature of the threats they were intercepting from Al Qaeda and their sense of urgency in relating them to the Bush Administration
• The arrest of Zacharias Moussaoui in August of 2001
• FBI Agent Harry Samit's 70 unsuccessful attempts to get a FISA Warrant to examine Moussaoui's belongings
Aside from scheduling a National Security Council meeting on September 4, 2001, two months after the July 10 "connect the dots" briefing from CIA director, George Tenet, the abundance of post 9/11 reports and commissions found no evidence of any action taken by appropriate officials. The 9/11 Commission itself concluded that in spite of an unprecedented attack threat in the months before 9/11, US "domestic agencies never mobilized in response to the threat. They did not have direction, and did not have a plan to institute. The borders were not hardened. Transportation systems were not fortified. Electronic surveillance was not targeted against a domestic threat. State and local law enforcement were not marshaled to augment the FBI's efforts. The public was not warned."
While certain members of the 9/11 Commission recalled a January 28, 2004 closed session meeting with former CIA Director, George Tenet, where this urgent July 10, 2001 meeting was discussed, this meeting was not referenced in the Commission's final report.
In the transcript testimony, the former CIA Director described the non-routine meeting that he and Cofer Black called for with then National Security Advisor, Condoleeza Rice as one of the "starkest warnings" ever given by the CIA to the White House on Al Qaeda.
To our continued dismay, both the Bush Administration and the 9/11 Commission have consistently failed to give a complete and honest accounting to the American public with regard to their actions and inactions leading up to the devastation of September 11, 2001.
The inexcusable result of this less than truthful accounting has resulted in America making important national security decisions and passing legislation using the 9/11 Commission's conclusions and recommendations. Chillingly, these decisions appear to be based upon an unclear combination of partial truths mixed with distortions and omissions of important facts.
Incredibly, five years post 9/11 we have come full circle. In spite of all the clear warnings that our government received, why did those in power fail to invoke any defensive measures to protect our nation from the attacks of September 11, 2001?
We demand the immediate declassification and release of these latest documents and transcripts. The American public has the right to know what their government did or did not do to protect us from terrorist actions.
Finally, instead of reorganizing an entire intelligence community because they "weren't sharing information", and rather than telling us that "9/11 was a failure of imagination", what we needed was for the 9/11 Commission to state the truth and hold those responsible to account. The most effective change for America would be to have a National Security Council that understands that it is their job to translate vital information into action."
More confirmation of LIHOP -
Former FBI Director Louis J. Freeh slammed the 9/11 Commission Thursday saying it ignored – or "summarily rejected" – the most critical piece of intelligence that could have prevented the horrific attacks of September 11, 2001.
Writing in the Wall Street Journal's opinion page, Freeh gave a blistering review of the Commission and says new revelations indicate it is "a good time for the country to make some assessments of the 9/11 Commission itself."
The former Bureau Director, who resigned his position just months before Sept. 11, 2001, points out that the U.S. government had learned of the identity of Mohammed Atta the year prior to the attacks. Atta was one of the ringleaders of the group, and piloted an American Airlines plane that slammed into one of the Twin Towers.
Freeh recounts that military intelligence operation code-named "Able Danger" concluded in February 2000 that military experts had identified Atta as an al-Qaida agent operating in the U.S.
"Subsequently, military officers assigned to Able Danger were prevented from sharing this critical information with FBI agents," Freeh writes. "Why?" he ponders, suggesting the failure to share such intelligence may be a smoking gun pointing at federal malfeasance in the case.
Freeh maintains that the Able Danger intelligence, if confirmed, is "undoubtedly the most relevant fact of the entire post-9/11 inquiry . . . Yet the 9/11 Commission inexplicably concluded that it "was not historically significant."
Two members of the House, Curt Weldon (R-Pa.) and Dan Burton (R-Ind.), have reported that shortly after the 9/11 attacks they provided then-Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley with a "chart" displaying pre-attack information about al-Qaida that had been collected by Able Danger.
But a spokesperson for the White House said that "a search of National Security Council files had failed to produce such a chart."
The final 9/11 Commission report, released on July 22, 2004, concluded that "American intelligence agencies were unaware of Mr. Atta until the day of the attacks."
Writes Freeh: "This now looks to be embarrassingly wrong."
fact, Freeh discloses that 10 days before the report was released, commission staffers met with a Navy officer who said that Able Danger had identified Atta as an al-Qaida member and told the Commission the unit "had identified Mohammed Atta to be a member of an al Qaeda cell located in Brooklyn."
But the commission determined that "the officer's account was not sufficiently reliable to warrant revision of the report or further investigation.
Said Freeh: "This dismissive and apparently unsupported conclusion would have us believe that a key piece of evidence was summarily rejected in less than 10 days without serious investigation . . . "No wonder the 9/11 families were outraged by these revelations and called for a ‘new' commission to investigate."
Though Freeh never blames any Clinton administration officials by name, responsibility for the intelligence failure would squarely fall on the Clinton administration as Able Danger's information was uncovered before George Bush became president.
Congressman Weldon, who has led Congressional efforts to shed light on the Able Danger claims, alleges that Jamie Gorelick, one of the Sept. 11 Commissioners, prevented the full committee from learning of Able Danger's crucial information. Gorelick has served as deputy attorney general during the Clinton administration.
"There's a cover up here," Weldon said. "It's clear and unequivocal." Freeh argues the Able Danger information requires a new inquiry. He also praised the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), for examining some of these matters.
Specter said at one hearing: "If Mr. Atta and other 9/11 terrorists were identified before the attacks, it would be a very serious breach not to have that information passed along ... We ought to get to the bottom of it."
Freeh writes in the Journal: "Indeed we should. "The Joint Intelligence Committees should reconvene and, in addition to Able Danger team members, we should have the 9/11 commissioners appear as witnesses so the families can hear their explanation why this doesn't matter."
And don't forget Mineta ...
Give it up debunkers, the cat is out of the bag!
Hey 9M -
A little late with your daily off-topic news item today. I was getting worried.
The article doesn't really say anything that the Bush administration hasn't already admitted. Not enough communication between intelligence sources pre-9/11, underestimation of Al-Qaeda, outdated defense doctrines, etc...
More LiHOP (this is the last point of Jersey's girls letter) -
Harry Samit is a Federal Bureau of Investigation Special Agent based out of the FBI Field Office in Minneapolis, Minnesota. He is a former United States Navy naval aviator, Naval Intelligence Officer, and a certified private pilot. He is most noted for arresting Zacarias Moussaoui on August 16, 2001.
Samit became aware of Moussaoui because of Clancy Prevost [1], a certified flight instructor at the Pan-Am International Flight Academy in Eagan, Minnesota. Moussaoui had enrolled for training in a 747-400 simulator at the school on August 13 but his behavior during instruction alarmed Prevost, who did not believe that Moussaoui was just a wealthy individual interested in flying jumbo jets. At Prevost's urging, the flight school contacted the Minneapolis FBI Field Office, and Samit was one of the special agents assigned to investigate Moussaoui.
Moussaoui was arrested by Samit for a visa violation on August 16 but, because the arrest was effected outside the Residence Inn where Moussaoui had been staying, Samit had no legal right to search the hotel room and its contents without Moussaoui's consent. Moussaoui denied consent, so Samit could only search Moussaoui and his car. Samit found a small knife in Moussaoui's left pocket and another knife in the car.[2]
As a certified private pilot himself, Samit was suspicious, suspecting that Moussaoui was plotting an act of international terrorism against the United States. He therefore sought permission to search Moussaoui's belongings which were known to include several bags and suitcases, and a laptop computer. The first application to obtain a criminal search warrant was denied by FBI Headquarters on the ground of insufficient evidence. A second application to search was made under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, but this was also denied. The FBI did obtain a search warrant for the belongings, but only after the September 11th attacks. The Minneapolis Field Office had received a report from Moussaoui's home government of France that linked him to Islamic terrorism, but the FBI Headquarters in Washington did not believe that evidence was sufficient to present to the FISA court for a search warrant. On the question of using foreign government intelligence to validate a request for a domestic search warrant through the FISA court, it is unclear if the Field Office could have appealed administratively to the White House National Security Council. Had the belongings been opened before September 11, knives, flight manuals, and other clues would have been found.[3] Whether these clues would have sparked a national emergency or simply been treated like the August 6 memo entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike US" is subject to debate.
When FBI Headquarters denied both Samit's application for search powers, he initiated a process to notify the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) of his suspicions of possible hijacking attempts, but FBI Headquarters censored the memo. Relying on personal contacts, Samit then met with a Minneapolis FAA official, but that official did not pursue Samit's leads.
"I am so desperate to get into his computer, I'll take anything,"[4] Samit wrote in an e-mail on September 10, 2001.
In March 2006, during Moussaoui's death sentence trial, Samit testified that he had spent the time between August 16 and September 11 trying to warn U.S. officials about the possibility of terrorist actions involving the hijacking of aircraft. Four such actions occurred in the United States on September 11, 2001. Samit testified under oath that "criminal negligence, obstruction and careerism" [5] by superiors at FBI Headquarters in Washington, DC thwarted an opportunity to prevent the September 11th attacks.
Hey 9M -
Hi Burke :)
A little late with your daily off-topic news item today. I was getting worried.
LOL yeah there is something called work! (unfortunately)
The article doesn't really say anything that the Bush administration hasn't already admitted.
My point exactly - this is damning enough!
Not enough communication between intelligence sources pre-9/11, underestimation of Al-Qaeda, outdated defense doctrines, etc...
How can you outright deny the CIA and FBI throwing this at your face ... Here's our ladder:
1. Taken by surprise
2. Incompetant
3. Negligent
4. LIHOP
5. MIHOP
No doubt we're past 3. The sheer volume of facts 'ignored' and covered-up (yes, this is fact now, after the Woodward book) points very strongly to LIHOP. Yes it's not 'beyond a shadow of a doubt' but I think it's 'beyond a reasonable doubt'
So how do I reconcile controlled demolition with LIHOP?
Does LIHOP allow that Islamic extremism does in fact exist and that 19 of those extremists carried out the attacks?
If so, who defeated the Zionist New World Order I've been hearing so much about?
I apologize for asking questions, but it's just so darn hard keeping track of what you guys believe in.
a Fox News opening to cartoon to a soap opera to a cooking show to professional wrestling
I wonder if they paid for the rights to use any of this.
1. Taken by surprise
2. Incompetant
3. Negligent
4. LIHOP
5. MIHOP
i dont think a "ladder" is the correct structure for this, from all the evidence its pretty clear 9/11 was a combination of 1-3
The sheer volume of facts 'ignored'
ah yes, if we put scare quotes around "ignored" it implies they were deliberately ignored, too bad we dont have any evidence of this
and covered-up (yes, this is fact now, after the Woodward book) points very strongly to LIHOP.
covered up doesnt imply LIHOP, it simply implies people wanted to cover their own incompetant asses
So how do I reconcile controlled demolition with LIHOP?
Well, my personal opinion is WTC7 is suspicious but there is not enough evidence to say anything. Hence I have abadoned this line of thought.
Does LIHOP allow that Islamic extremism does in fact exist and that 19 of those extremists carried out the attacks?
Sure. It def exists. But it can def be funded through unknown channels. Not saying that is what happened ... just saying it is a possibility.
If so, who defeated the Zionist New World Order I've been hearing so much about?
I would not say Zionist. If others do, ask the, NWO - yeah Bush's comment about the Iraq war being "just a comma" sends chills down my spine! Definately war hungry, I'm sure PNAC agrees with the policies.
I apologize for asking questions, but it's just so darn hard keeping track of what you guys believe
NP. It's hard for me too. LOL.
LIHOP all but confirmed -
Ahh yes, the logical flexibility of conspiracy theorists, the government is making up the threat of Islamic terrorism by attacking itself, while simultaneously ignoring this non-existent threat.
"covered up doesnt imply LIHOP, it simply implies people wanted to cover their own incompetant asses"
I would say this is true for most people. But at some point, incompetance does not cut it. How dumb to have to be to ignore these warnings? Did they think it was a joke? Did they think ALQ was planning to attack another country? [If so where did that intelligence come from] Even a ten year old would ask 'well what do we do?' Rice could easily have told Tenet - 'develop a contingency plan' Four words that all it would take. I mean really, how incompetqnt do you have to be to just walk away. And if they did do something, why not brag about it when challenged?
1. Taken by surprise
2. Incompetant
3. Negligent
4. LIHOP
5. MIHOP
I would change that to:
1. Couldn't have prevented it
2. Negligent/Incompetent
3. Criminally negligent (LIHOP, as you say)
4. Complicit (MIHOP)
Given the evidence you could make a strong argument for 2 and no more. Personally I think the Bush administration, and the preceding administrations, deserve the benefit of the doubt.
You can look at all the pre-9/11 intelligence and it's obvious now where it was all headed. You're working the problem from the back of the book, though.
You have to realize that they didn't see all of the facts you listed coherently. Because of breakdowns in communications they only saw the evidence of the attacks in isolation.
None of the intelligence indicated a possible date for the attacks, the exact nature of the attacks (using planes as human-guided missiles), the targets of the attacks, or the identities of the attackers.
In order to say that Bush let it happen you have to show that he knew all of that information. In fact, he didn't have any of that information - even according to the article you presented today. All you've proved so far is that we were close to figuring it out.
None of the intelligence indicated a possible date for the attacks, the exact nature of the attacks (using planes as human-guided missiles), the targets of the attacks, or the identities of the attackers.
The PDB mentioned using planes as missiles .... at the very least FAA should have been notified.
The PDB mentioned using planes as missiles .... at the very least FAA should have been notified.
Are you talking about the august 6 memo? Can you quote where it says that? I didn't see it anywhere, only vague warnings that Bin Laden was interested in hijackings.
actually you're right its not Aug 6th ... I could have sworn I read somewhere they knew but I'll let you know if I find it.
actually you're right its not Aug 6th ... I could have sworn I read somewhere they knew but I'll let you know if I find it.
possibly a post-911 interpretation/paraphrase of the aug 6 memo
I would say this is true for most people. But at some point, incompetance does not cut it. How dumb to have to be to ignore these warnings? Did they think it was a joke? Did they think ALQ was planning to attack another country? [If so where did that intelligence come from] Even a ten year old would ask 'well what do we do?' Rice could easily have told Tenet - 'develop a contingency plan' Four words that all it would take. I mean really, how incompetqnt do you have to be to just walk away. And if they did do something, why not brag about it when challenged?
something to consider is prioritization, did the intelligence community think use of unmodified commercial planes as missiles was a likely plan of attack? if not, it certainly would not have garnered the same amount of attention as warnings of other, more traditional, attacks, such as carbombs
for example, members of the truth movement, now more than ever, are talking of revolution, of overthrowing the bush administration and executing its members, and other punishments for shills (which would no doubt include people such as myself) so in essence, the warnings are there, at least as clear as any pre-911 warnings were, however, i dont think this is a very likely possibility, i think these truthers are full of a lot of hot air and delusions of grandeur, and as such, im not making any special plans for saving my ass when the "revolution" comes, because i dont think its ever coming
"for example, members of the truth movement, now more than ever, are talking of revolution, of overthrowing the bush administration and executing its members, and other punishments for shills (which would no doubt include people such as myself) so in essence, the warnings are there, at least as clear as any pre-911 warnings were, however, i dont think this is a very likely possibility, i think these truthers are full of a lot of hot air and delusions of grandeur, and as such, im not making any special plans for saving my ass when the "revolution" comes, because i dont think its ever coming"
dude, first of all, there might be some violent truthers but a majority are nonviolent. if bush does go out of power it will be due to mass protests and not any kind of "revolution"
also, can you point me to a link of calls for this "revolution"
secondly and more importantly you didn't really answer my question.
deflecting the blame to "truthers" is really lame and uncalled for.
truthers care for what's best for america and so executing you is just a delusional fantasy/nightmare of yours.
I don't know where this came from if was an honest attempt to "answer" what I asked or just a crude rebuttal.
In any case getting Bush out of power is very imp else we are going to have nuclear war with north korea. (much more probable than your 'revolution')
Sorry, but if Bush goes out of power, it will be at the end of his term. I'm sure even then the truthers will still claim victory.
another message to default -
if anyone is abusive, it's you guys. every post is mockery (a kind of abuse) of the truthers.
do we go up putting videos of yo guys and making fun of every action? I don't think so ...
if you really want to contribute something valuable, you would address the issue at hand and not insult the person your debating. people will never change their opinions if you do that ... you might rally your base but your never going to get converts. so in essense you're propagating a division instead of focusing on healthy disucssion.
this is the same mistake bush makes time and time again. if he wants to end the korea crisis all he has to do is lift sanctions. they will not do a nuclear test afterwards i will guarantee you. but i'll tell you what he'll do. some kind of military strike/intervention. guess what then, putting those nukes in terorists hands becomes all the more appealing.
"Sorry, but if Bush goes out of power, it will be at the end of his term"
that is stating the obvious. i was referring to the unlikely circumstance whereby truthers get bush out of power
You and your group are such arrogant pukes.
The amount of influence the "truth" movement will have on getting rid of the Republicans is Miniscule. You really think a few thousand internet freaks can take credit for getting them out. They have done more damage to themselves through pediphilia, incompetence, and ignorance, to get themselves out...you are just being silly if you really feel the "truth" movement had any real hand in getting them out...and they will be out come 2008.
TAM
9-11M -
If you don't have a sense of humor, you'll die at avery early age.
We don't need to do anything useful because we are satisfied with the evidence already presented.
And as for changing minds? When I see loud and obnoxious people worked into a frenzy, I tend to want to STAY AWAY, not join them. So, in fact, I feel much more comfortable with this crew.
Here's a few reasons why:
1> If you disagree with them, they don't BAN you from their forum.
2>They are level headed
3>They stay on topic and address all points.
4>They don't blindly cut and paste material from other sources that they themselves have not already read up on.
Sorry, man, your group is the one tasked with changing minds, not us.
Oh, yeah, and if you're going to put yourself on display for the public, be ready for mockery.
I don't see the people on here willfully posting ridiculous videos, so guess what? Cry somewhere else.
It's just like the pathetic souls on American Idol who are upset when their shitty, animal murdering voices are ridiculed. You're going on national television, you have it coming, just like truthers on tape.
"dude, first of all, there might be some violent truthers but a majority are nonviolent. if bush does go out of power it will be due to mass protests and not any kind of "revolution""
You mean like those mass protests yesterday? I hear they got 40 people to show up in Columbus, Ohio.
dude, first of all, there might be some violent truthers but a majority are nonviolent. if bush does go out of power it will be due to mass protests and not any kind of "revolution"
this is my point, many truther talk of revolution, but its all talk
also, can you point me to a link of calls for this "revolution"
jim fetzer, no link needed, he mentions almost every time he opens his mouth these days
secondly and more importantly you didn't really answer my question.
my whole point is that warnings of action do not already translate directly to a percieved threat
deflecting the blame to "truthers" is really lame and uncalled for.
how am i deflecting blame? im simply using an analogy to show that warnings and a the eprception of a threat are not always the same thing
truthers care for what's best for america and so executing you is just a delusional fantasy/nightmare of yours.
you dont read truth movement forums much do you?
should they
be hung or shot or what?
In any case getting Bush out of power is very imp else we are going to have nuclear war with north korea. (much more probable than your 'revolution')
this is my entire point, for all the talk of revolution going around in truther circles, it aint gonna happen
if anyone is abusive, it's you guys. every post is mockery (a kind of abuse) of the truthers.
do we go up putting videos of yo guys and making fun of every action? I don't think so ...
ok, if i tell you the sky is green, and you say "no, its blue, just look out the window" and i look out the window and continue to insist the sky is green, your probably goign to call me a retard arent you? (i would call me a retard)
same situation with the thruth movement, all their claims are debunked, and they still adhere to them, god himself could come down from heaven and say bush wasnt involved and dylan avery would call him a shill
you guys are so pathetic it ain't even worth responding to
and actually come to think of it banning you is the perfect idea
don't worry i wont be back you can have fun making fun of twoofers for the rest of your lives
and actually come to think of it banning you is the perfect idea
This is why we call you morons.
you guys are so pathetic it ain't even worth responding to
and we're the abusive ones
In any case getting Bush out of power is very imp else we are going to have nuclear war with north korea. (much more probable than your 'revolution')
WTF? Bush will be out of power in 2 years. Meanwhile North Korean missiles are so inaccurate they couldn't even hit Japan. Their range is nowhere near long enough to strike the US. Even assuming they iron out the bugs in the missiles, and get their nukes working too, it'll be MUCH longer than 2 years before they can pose a threat to the US. In other words, a nuclear war any time on Bush's watch would be rather one sided. And if you think that's likely to happen, you're right the fuck out of 'er.
if he wants to end the korea crisis all he has to do is lift sanctions. they will not do a nuclear test afterwards i will guarantee you.
You are a funny, funny man.
Frankly, I think the best solution would be to go to China and say "hey guys, either you tell North Korea to cool it, or we're giving Nukes to South Korea". THAT would be much more likely to end NK's nuclear testing.
I think we have proved that if you take the incredible volume of good intel, bad intel, and contradictory intel from the last several years, and using 20/20 hindsight carefully filter out all the bits that suggest something along the lines of 9/11, then you can make it look like all signs pointed to 9/11. Of course that's reverse engineering, but some people find that convincing.
Three posts within one minute by 9M:
"you guys are so pathetic it ain't even worth responding to"
"and actually come to think of it banning you is the perfect idea"
"don't worry i wont be back you can have fun making fun of twoofers for the rest of your lives"
All to get across his REAL message, which was, "I know I just had my ass handed to me so I'll slink out of here now and go back to the forums where nobody disagrees with me or makes me feel inferior and stupid when I can't refute facts and evidence".
Wow this is going to be a blockbuster. Just stick with the facts nobody can't debunk government lies. One thing skeptics won't ever talk about is the golf of tonkin,operation northwoods,operation ajax,etc.
Had I known that they were somehow related to 9/11, maybe I would have.
At least I talk about my cat, who designed the holographic World Trade Center.
Loose Change 3rd edition video now available (comic).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ab0R-aQ5_LQ
Give it a watch if you have time for some comic relief. :)
9/11 Mysteries is gone? I thought he'd never leave. That's the difference between us and them. Go over to their forums and they'll ban you for disagreeing. And when you write Dylan asking him why this happens he'll tell you that he didn't remove it his administrators did. That's bullshit. But when they come to a site like this we don't have to ban them. In fact, we make them realize that they are so full of shit that thay leave on their own accord because we're "mean" to them. Hilarious
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Reading up on 9/11 and truth I found a politician running for US Senate which believes that the first words were also lies, but goes deeper to try to explain why they were lies. Good read if your interested
Post a Comment
<< Home