is it just me, or does it seem like maybe our two campaigns in the middle east...

[TastesLikeChicken]

At least, that's what he said.

How do you know he wasn't putting you on, though?

Inversely, how do you know he was? The facts align with what he stated and you have no valid facts that prove otherwise since you have been repeatedly asked to produce them in this thread and have completely failed to do so.

Just because the government and TV say so doesn't mean it's a "fact".

Riiiggghhhht. Instead I'm supposed to take the word of some anonymous paranoid on the internet who can't produce a shred of evidence to back up their claim?

The government and TV lies to you all the time. What makes you think this time is any different?

Once a liar always a liar?

If that's so, why do YOU align yourself with the side of the argument (Truthers) that has repeatedly shown itself to lie, distort facts, omit facts, ignore facts, and employ shoddy science, vague YouTube videos, and purely rhetorical retorts as their sole evidence?

Is there some reason I should believe that the U.S. government couldn't have been involved? Or should I just swallow whatever story they pump out?

You can believe whatever you want. I can believe your conclusion is based on nothing more than paranoia, vapid speculation, and the attitude of a willingly ignorant simpleton who doesn't really care to pursue any facts of the matter.

 

[Howard]

Shouldn't you still be in the hospital?

 

[Juror No. 8]

Where is your proof that they had an active role in it?

Where's your proof that they told the truth about what happened?

 

[Juror No. 8]

I don't need proof. You need to prove that anything they have said is wrong, idiot.

Yes you do. You need to prove that what they said was correct. You need to prove that they told the truth.

So where's your evidence?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

You mean, those were the reasons you were given by the U.S. government, but not necessarily the real reasons.

For all you know, the U.S. government was the chief architect and sponsor of the 9/11 attacks and the Iraq war was all about expanding U.S. hegemony and strategic control of the Middle East.

The universe this moment sprang into existence completely configured as we see it including what appear to be memories, but they never really happened. Quantum mechanics allows a non-zero probability for this.

Your physics tip of the day.

 

[Juror No. 8]

Inversely, how do you know he was?

I don't, and that's the whole point. There are interviews of Osama bin Laden both denying and claiming responsibility for the 9/11 attacks. In which interview was he telling the truth? Do you actually know? Also, you want me to believe he is some criminal terrorist mastermind. If that's the case, what makes him credible? If he's immoral enough to commit terrorist attacks, wouldn't he also be immoral enough to lie about them?

The facts align with what he stated and you have no valid facts that prove otherwise since you have been repeatedly asked to produce them in this thread and have completely failed to do so.

Only the facts that the government has allowed you to see and know about align with what Osama bin Laden stated.

How do you know they showed you all the facts pertaining to the attacks?

Riiiggghhhht. Instead I'm supposed to take the word of some anonymous paranoid on the internet who can't produce a shred of evidence to back up their claim?

Sure, why not? The U.S. government hasn't produced a shred of evidence proving that they told the truth about what happened on 9/11 and you believe that, so why not me?

If you'll believe the U.S. government, you'll believe anything.

Once a liar always a liar?

If that's so, why do YOU align yourself with the side of the argument (Truthers) that has repeatedly shown itself to lie, distort facts, omit facts, ignore facts, and employ shoddy science, vague YouTube videos, and purely rhetorical retorts as their sole evidence?

For the same reason you've aligned yourself with the U.S. government despite the fact that it has turned lying into an art form and has actually planned similar false flag attacks in the past.

You can believe whatever you want. I can believe your conclusion is based on nothing more than paranoia, vapid speculation, and the attitude of a willingly ignorant simpleton who doesn't really care to pursue any facts of the matter.

Likewise, you can believe and drink all the government Kool-Aid you want. If you want to religiously believe that they told you the truth and shared all relevant information pertaining to the attacks, who am I to stop you? I believe in freedom of religion. If you want to regard your government as a sort of truth-telling God, that's on you, pal.

 

[Juror No. 8]

The universe this moment sprang into existence completely configured as we see it including what appear to be memories, but they never really happened. Quantum mechanics allows a non-zero probability for this.

Your physics tip of the day.

Don't forget to mention the part about this only being true if the government says so. Because if the government doesn't say it's so, it's not so.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Yes you do. You need to prove that what they said was correct. You need to prove that they told the truth.

So where's your evidence?

There's no evidence that what they said is not the truth. No news outlet from any other country including from the arab nations say that it was US gov't behind it. So, STFU.

The sad pathetic thing is you can't even come up with single shred of evidence, so you need to act like a child.

Again, Ron Paul caused 9/11 b/c he's a friggin alien.

 

[Juror No. 8]

There's no evidence that what they said is not the truth.

There's also no evidence that what they said is the truth.

If I'm wrong, and you have some evidence, where is it?

No news outlet from any other country including from the arab nations say that it was US gov't behind it. So, STFU.

LOL, and there it is! I knew it wouldn't be long! According to Capt Schmuck, reality is based on what corporate or state-owned news outlets say it is. If government says X happened, and no news outlet contradicts them, then it must be true!

Ha, ha, ha, what a propaganda sponge you are! LOL!

 

[Capt Caveman]

There's also no evidence that what they said is the truth.

If I'm wrong, and you have some evidence, where is it?



LOL, and there it is! I knew it wouldn't be long! According to Capt Schmuck, reality is based on what corporate or state-owned news outlets say it is. If government says X happened, and no news outlet contradicts them, then it must be true!

Ha, ha, ha, what a propaganda sponge you are! LOL!

Yawn. The child or retard with the same old story. You can't even find a none gov't media outlet in the whole world that has evidence.

We have thousands of people in the twin towers that were able to escape, we have thousands of people(including friends of mine) that witnesses what happened in person. Guess what? Two planes crashed into the twin towers and took them down. My former CEO was one of those that died that day.

Seriously, you suck at trolling.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

I don't, and that's the whole point. There are interviews of Osama bin Laden both denying and claiming responsibility for the 9/11 attacks. In which interview was he telling the truth? Do you actually know? Also, you want me to believe he is some criminal terrorist mastermind. If that's the case, what makes him credible? If he's immoral enough to commit terrorist attacks, wouldn't he also be immoral enough to lie about them?

He initially denied involvement but subsequently admitted to it. That is no different from a murderer who initially denies his act but when presented with evidence that is beyond denial, admits involvement. Follow the timeline of when OBL denied and then admitted involvement and you might comprehend the truth of the matter. I'm not sure you have even that simple capacity for reasoning though because you, thus far, appear to be devoid of any such capability.

Only the facts that the government has allowed you to see and know about align with what Osama bin Laden stated.

Sure pal; the all powerful and secretive government that only allows the masses to see what they want them to see and only special people like you can see through the ruse.

Do you not see how completely paranoid, let alone assinine, that sounds?

How do you know they showed you all the facts pertaining to the attacks?

I know it because I am not under the idiotic illusion that the government controls all information output.

Sure, why not? The U.S. government hasn't produced a shred of evidence proving that they told the truth about what happened on 9/11 and you believe that, so why not me?

You have not provided a shred of evidence that the truth hasn't been told and that there is another valid explanation. Believe me, waaaay smarter people than you have tried to do that, still continue to try, and have failed to come up with anything concrete and valid.

And stow your vapid attempt to accuse everyone of simply towing the government line on the issue. It's the last resort of an idiot and a retort without merit because, once again, you have no such proof of the sort.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Yes you do. You need to prove that what they said was correct. You need to prove that they told the truth.

So where's your evidence?

I see the insidious alien anal probe mind control device has gotten to you again........

 

[Juror No. 8]

Yawn. The child or retard with the same old story. You can't even find a none gov't media outlet in the whole world that has evidence.

And all your evidence is dependent on what the government and corporate-controlled media says.

LOL, not very credible.

We have thousands of people in the twin towers that were able to escape, we have thousands of people(including friends of mine) that witnesses what happened in person. Guess what? Two planes crashed into the twin towers and took them down. My former CEO was one of those that died that day.

Seriously, you suck at trolling.

Planes crashing into the World Trade Center doesn't necessarily mean that the attack wasn't orchestrated by the U.S. government, moron.

That proves nothing by itself.

 

[PingviN]

there is obviously a huge muslim vs jew war going on behind the scenes (but we freakin read about that in the bible)

Remind me again when the Bible was written. Then remind me when Islam appeared. Then realise what a moron you are

 

[Juror No. 8]

He initially denied involvement but subsequently admitted to it.

So he basically lied and then changed his story? And that makes him credible how, exactly?

That is no different from a murderer who initially denies his act but when presented with evidence that is beyond denial, admits involvement.

Not really. There are people who take credit for crimes they didn't commit all the time. Police departments will receive calls from a dozen people claiming that they are the serial killer the police are looking for.

Just because a man takes credit for something doesn't necessarily mean he really did it.

Follow the timeline of when OBL denied and then admitted involvement and you might comprehend the truth of the matter.

What timeline? Show it to me. Explain how it proves your point.

I'm not sure you have even that simple capacity for reasoning though because you, thus far, appear to be devoid of any such capability.

Says the guy who believes whatever the government tells him without asking any questions whatsoever.

LOL.

Sure pal; the all powerful and secretive government that only allows the masses to see what they want them to see and only special people like you can see through the ruse.

Well, it is true that the government keeps thousands upon thousands of things secret from the American people, otherwise they wouldn't classify so many things they do. The U.S. government even classifies many things that took place during WW2, which was 70 years ago.

I wonder what the government has to hide? Hmmm?

Do you not see how completely paranoid, let alone assinine, that sounds?

No, not really. Maybe you can explain it? Maybe you can also explain why you believe the government always tells you the truth.

I know it because I am not under the idiotic illusion that the government controls all information output.

If the government doesn't control information output, how again is the government able to classify so much information from us? If the government didn't control information, wouldn't there be no such thing as Top Secret clearance?

You have not provided a shred of evidence that the truth hasn't been told and that there is another valid explanation. Believe me, waaaay smarter people than you have tried to do that, still continue to try, and have failed to come up with anything concrete and valid.

Likewise, you have not provided a shred of evidence that the truth has been told and that the official conspiracy theory regarding 9/11 is valid.

And stow your vapid attempt to accuse everyone of simply towing the government line on the issue. It's the last resort of an idiot and a retort without merit because, once again, you have no such proof of the sort.

No, I don't think I will. I think it fits, because the entire 9/11 narrative is based on what the government says, and you believe it without question. Anyone who believes what the government says without question can safely be accused of towing the government line.

Sorry, pal, if the shoe fits, wear it.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

So he basically lied and then changed his story? And that makes him credible how, exactly?

He doesn't have to be credible, fool. He's a criminal and criminals are rarely credible. That doesn't mean they can't eventually admit to a truth that is backed up by corroborating evidence.

Are you REALLY this obtuse or do you actually imagine your lame attempt to throw cold water on Bin Laden's admission has any merit whatsoever? 'Derp, he denied it and then admitted it. He can't be trusted, derp.' Foist that crap on your gullible pals. Don't waste that garbage on me.

Not really. There are people who take credit for crimes they didn't commit all the time. Police departments will receive calls from a dozen people claiming that they are the serial killer the police are looking for.

And then their admission gets disproven because their statements don't align with the evidence. You know, EVIDENCE! Something you refuse to provide?

Stop wasting my time with all your baseless speculation and bloviating drivel. Provide some evidence of your statements that the current explanation for 9/11 isnn't true or go away and troll elsewhere. And stop parsing my statements into a million pieces. I type in paragraphs for a reason. Capice?

 

[Howard]

He doesn't have to be credible, fool. He's a criminal and criminals are rarely credible. That doesn't mean they can't eventually admit to a truth that is backed up by corroborating evidence.

Are you REALLY this obtuse or do you actually imagine your lame attempt to throw cold water on Bin Laden's admission has any merit whatsoever? 'Derp, he denied it and then admitted it. He can't be trusted, derp.' Foist that crap on your gullible pals. Don't waste that garbage on me.


And then their admission gets disproven because their statements don't align with the evidence. You know, EVIDENCE! Something you refuse to provide?

Stop wasting my time with all your baseless speculation and bloviating drivel. Provide some evidence of your statements that the current explanation for 9/11 isnn't true or go away and troll elsewhere. And stop parsing my statements into a million pieces. I type in paragraphs for a reason. Capice?

He wins, you lose.

 

[Juror No. 8]

He doesn't have to be credible, fool. He's a criminal and criminals are rarely credible.

If criminals are rarely credible, why exactly do you believe this criminal is telling the truth? Because the evidence the government has allowed you to see conveniently fits his story?

That doesn't mean they can't eventually admit to a truth that is backed up by corroborating evidence.

What evidence? Even the FBI said they couldn't find enough evidence to conclude that Osama bin Laden was responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

Are you REALLY this obtuse or do you actually imagine your lame attempt to throw cold water on Bin Laden's admission has any merit whatsoever? 'Derp, he denied it and then admitted it. He can't be trusted, derp.' Foist that crap on your gullible pals. Don't waste that garbage on me.

Osama bin Laden both denied and claimed responsibility for the 9/11 attacks. That means he lied about one or the other. So how do you know which claim was the lie and which claim was the truth? We've already established that he's not credible and is known to lie.

Why are you so quick to believe a proven liar?

And then their admission gets disproven because their statements don't align with the evidence. You know, EVIDENCE! Something you refuse to provide?

Well, the U.S. government controlled the investigation into the 9/11 attacks, so of course they were all too happy to provide evidence that didn't incriminate them in any way.

This is the equivalent of allowing the Mafia to control the investigation into a local diamond heist. Do you honestly believe that if they were involved they'd release any evidence saying so? Of course not, they would try to frame someone else.

Stop wasting my time with all your baseless speculation and bloviating drivel. Provide some evidence of your statements that the current explanation for 9/11 isnn't true or go away and troll elsewhere.

Sure, just as soon as you stop wasting my time with all your baseless speculation that Osama bin Laden and the U.S. government told the truth about the 9/11 attacks. Provide some evidence for your statements that the current explanation for 9/11 is true. It's not my responsibility to disprove your claims, it's your responsibility to prove them.

And stop parsing my statements into a million pieces. I type in paragraphs for a reason. Capice?

I'll do anything I wish with your statements. If you don't want your statements to be parsed, don't make any. As long as they are on the record they are fair game, sweetie.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

If criminals are rarely credible, why exactly do you believe this criminal is telling the truth? Because the evidence the government has allowed you to see conveniently fits his story?

Are you claiming that criminals are always incapable of telling the truth? It's what you seem to be saying.

What evidence? Even the FBI said they couldn't find enough evidence to conclude that Osama bin Laden was responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/27/AR2006082700687.html

More twisting of the facts, something that is so common of truthers like yourself.

Osama bin Laden both denied and claimed responsibility for the 9/11 attacks. That means he lied about one or the other. So how do you know which claim was the lie and which claim was the truth? We've already established that he's not credible and is known to lie.

Why are you so quick to believe a proven liar?

It's called weighing the facts of the matter, something you seem incapable of doing to any degree whatsoever.

Well, the U.S. government controlled the investigation into the 9/11 attacks, so of course they were all too happy to provide evidence that didn't incriminate them in any way.

This is the equivalent of allowing the Mafia to control the investigation into a local diamond heist. Do you honestly believe that if they were involved they'd release any evidence saying so? Of course not, they would try to frame someone else.

So provide the evidence which you clearly are in possession of since your so thoroughly are convinced that the US government was involved. After all, no intelligent person makes a determination without solid facts. So provide the facts in your possession that back up your claim that it was the US government. We'll be waiting.

Sure, just as soon as you stop wasting my time with all your baseless speculation that Osama bin Laden and the U.S. government told the truth about the 9/11 attacks. Provide some evidence for your statements that the current explanation for 9/11 is true. It's not my responsibility to disprove your claims, it's your responsibility to prove them.

Many, many facts concerning 9/11 came from outside of government sources. Your ridiculous assertion that everything about 9/11 came from the government is you being a moronic troll and misrepresenting what the facts were and are. Nor do I need to prove that the known facts are indeed facts. The onus is on you to prove they are not. You have utterly failed to do so thus far. You would rather employ all kinds of logical fallacies instead, fallacies that are your sole and only argument.

I'll do anything I wish with your statements. If you don't want your statements to be parsed, don't make any. As long as they are on the record they are fair game, sweetie.

iow, you'll feel free to continue to be an ass, a twit, and provide responses devoid of any actual content. Well, I certainly agree that is the case. At least we agree on something.

 

[Juror No. 8]

Are you claiming that criminals are always incapable of telling the truth? It's what you seem to be saying.

Of course not. Criminals can both tell the truth and lie.

The question is, how do you know when someone lacking moral credibility is telling the truth or not? How do you know Osama bin Laden was telling the truth when he claimed responsibility for the attacks, after having claimed that he wasn't?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/27/AR2006082700687.html

More twisting of the facts, something that is so common of truthers like yourself.

I see no twisting of the facts. Here are Rex Tomb's own words:

"The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11."

http://www.globalresearch.ca/fbi-says-no-hard-evidence-connecting-bin-laden-to-9-11/2623

It's called weighing the facts of the matter, something you seem incapable of doing to any degree whatsoever.

What "facts"? I've asked you for facts and you can't seem to name any.

You don't have facts, you have only what the government told you, and those aren't necessarily facts.

So provide the evidence which you clearly are in possession of since your so thoroughly are convinced that the US government was involved. After all, no intelligent person makes a determination without solid facts. So provide the facts in your possession that back up your claim that it was the US government. We'll be waiting.

Sure, just as soon as you provide evidence that Al-Qaeda was and still is a legitimate, organic terrorist organization and not just a front for state-sponsored terrorism. You can start by proving where Al-Qaeda's funding comes from.

We'll be waiting.

Many, many facts concerning 9/11 came from outside of government sources.

Like what, for instance?

Your ridiculous assertion that everything about 9/11 came from the government is you being a moronic troll and misrepresenting what the facts were and are. Nor do I need to prove that the known facts are indeed facts.

How do you really know your facts truly are factual, though? What's "known" about them?

The onus is on you to prove they are not. You have utterly failed to do so thus far. You would rather employ all kinds of logical fallacies instead, fallacies that are your sole and only argument.

No, the onus is on you to prove your facts are truly factual. The onus is on you to prove the government-approved conspiracy theory you believe in. After all, you're the one who believes it.

It's not my responsibility to disprove your religious faith.

iow, you'll feel free to continue to be an ass, a twit, and provide responses devoid of any actual content. Well, I certainly agree that is the case. At least we agree on something.

LOL, my responses are so full of content you can't help but keep responding. You just know you're losing the debate and it's driving you bat-shit insane.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Of course not. Criminals can both tell the truth and lie.

The question is, how do you know when someone lacking moral credibility is telling the truth or not? How do you know Osama bin Laden was telling the truth when he claimed responsibility for the attacks, after having claimed that he wasn't?

The answer is simple. You look at the evidence. When Bin Laden claimed he wasn't behind 9/11 the available evidence did not support that claim. When he finally admitted it, after the preponderance of evidence pointed to OBL being behind it, he admitted it.

I see no twisting of the facts. Here are Rex Tomb's own words:

"The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11."

http://www.globalresearch.ca/fbi-says-no-hard-evidence-connecting-bin-laden-to-9-11/2623

"Hard evidence." That doesn't mean there was "no" evidence. That's where you are twisting the facts. The available evidence was that OBL was behind 9/11 and all your squirming around that doesn't change a thing.

What "facts"? I've asked you for facts and you can't seem to name any.

The facts that his associates have admitted to being behind 9/11, which we do have hard facts for, and admitting that OBL was their boss and was directing the operation. Are you going to continue to play stupid about all this?

You don't have facts, you have only what the government told you, and those aren't necessarily facts.

Pure speculation and rhetoric on your part. You don't have any idea whatsoever where I gleaned my information about 9/11. If you want to deal with facts, stick to them and stay away from your lame accusations.

Sure, just as soon as you provide evidence that Al-Qaeda was and still is a legitimate, organic terrorist organization and not just a front for state-sponsored terrorism. You can start by proving where Al-Qaeda's funding comes from.

Dodge and evade, dodge and evade. You are the one claiming that the government was involved. Prove it.

We'll be waiting.

We? Do you have a frog in your pocket?

Like what, for instance?

A good portion of the visual evidence came from news stations and personal videos. Much of the testimony came from private citizens and private/public businesses. Admission of involvement came from those in AQ who were directly involved.

How do you really know your facts truly are factual, though? What's "known" about them?

How do you know anything you believe is true? You do research and come to a conclusion. Let's see your research that the US government was behind it.

No, the onus is on you to prove your facts are truly factual. The onus is on you to prove the government-approved conspiracy theory you believe in. After all, you're the one who believes it.

It's not my responsibility to disprove your religious faith.

I don't have to prove squat. You are the one making the extraordinary claims. You claim the government was involved and haven't provided the first iota of evidence to prove that claim.

LOL, my responses are so full of content you can't help but keep responding. You just know you're losing the debate and it's driving you bat-shit insane.

Your responses are full of something. Content is not the word though. This isn't about losing a debate, it's about facts, and your claims are completely devoid of any facts. Prove your claim that the US government was behind 9/11. If you can't there is no debate at all. It's that simple.

 

[Juror No. 8]

The answer is simple. You look at the evidence. When Bin Laden claimed he wasn't behind 9/11 the available evidence did not support that claim. When he finally admitted it, after the preponderance of evidence pointed to OBL being behind it, he admitted it.

Problem for you is, there is no preponderance of evidence pointing to Osama bin Laden as the primary culprit behind the 9/11 attacks. You're spouting a myth.

The evidence is only good enough to speculate that he might have been involved, but nothing more.

"Hard evidence." That doesn't mean there was "no" evidence. That's where you are twisting the facts. The available evidence was that OBL was behind 9/11 and all your squirming around that doesn't change a thing.

Sorry, no. The available evidence isn't enough to conclude anything about who was truly behind the 9/11 attacks. I've looked at it up and down and find nothing convincing about it.

The facts that his associates have admitted to being behind 9/11, which we do have hard facts for, and admitting that OBL was their boss and was directing the operation. Are you going to continue to play stupid about all this?

That doesn't mean anything. For one thing, his associates could have been lying. Remember, you believe they are scumbag criminal terrorists. Lying wouldn't be too much of a stretch for them. Secondly, his associates could have been intelligence patsies who merely thought they were carrying out a terrorist attack on behalf of Al-Qaeda.

How would they know he was truly directing the operation?

Pure speculation and rhetoric on your part. You don't have any idea whatsoever where I gleaned my information about 9/11. If you want to deal with facts, stick to them and stay away from your lame accusations.

You gleaned your information from the same sources as most everyone else. You're not special. You only think you have the facts.

Dodge and evade, dodge and evade. You are the one claiming that the government was involved. Prove it.

You're the one claiming they had no involvement. How could you possibly know this?

A good portion of the visual evidence came from news stations and personal videos.

Inconclusive.

Much of the testimony came from private citizens and private/public businesses.

Also inconclusive.

Admission of involvement came from those in AQ who were directly involved.

This proves nothing. Since we don't know who, what, or how Al-Qaeda is funded and organized, these admissions mean nothing.

Again, for all you know, Al-Qaeda is a CIA creation whose only purpose is to carry out state-sponsored terrorist attacks so the United States will have a built-in excuse to meddle anywhere in the world it wants.

How do you know anything you believe is true? You do research and come to a conclusion. Let's see your research that the US government was behind it.

Sure, just as soon as we see your research that proves the U.S. government wasn't behind it.

I don't have to prove squat. You are the one making the extraordinary claims. You claim the government was involved and haven't provided the first iota of evidence to prove that claim.

Sure you do. You've made the extraordinary claim that Al-Qaeda was truly responsible. Where's your evidence for this claim?

Your responses are full of something. Content is not the word though. This isn't about losing a debate, it's about facts, and your claims are completely devoid of any facts. Prove your claim that the US government was behind 9/11. If you can't there is no debate at all. It's that simple.

We've already established that you don't have any facts, though. You claim you have facts, but when I press the issue you avoid share your "facts" at every turn.

Prove your claim that Al-Qaeda truly was the responsible party and that they are a legitimate, organically-created terrorist organization without state sponsorship.

We'll be waiting.

 

[Atreus21]

LOL. So you're one of those people who actually believes the U.S. government told the truth about 9/11?

What a fucking idiot. I honestly didn't think there were still people like you left.

I love it when conspiracy theorists start ridiculing sane people for their sanity.

 

[Atreus21]

Yeah, I can show you someone I know that died in one of those planes fucktard. If I give you the number, will you call his wife and children and tell them that he's still alive but under the witness protection agency?

Again, where's your fucking proof? Stop posting your stupidity if you're just going to act like an idiot.

Prove that you knew him.

Prove that he was who you think he was and not an undercover CIA agent.

Prove basically everything I demand you to prove to divert from the obvious fact that I'm an idiot.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Only an idiot can deny that they are an idiot.