Latest doubts about 911 commission: Former Vice President calls for "Phase 2"

[editor]

The person closing down the debate is the person putting out the charge. Its basic Orwell stuff.

Have I censored any of your posts?
Have I stopped you posting exactly what you like?
Have any of your 1,010 posts been edited in any way?
Have any of your threads been deleted off these boards?
Have any of your posts been deleted off these boards?

No? Then shut the fuck up with your idiotic 'poor-persecuted'-lil'-me' Big Brother paranoid bullshit. It's embarrassing.

 

[xes]

Have I censored any of your posts?
Have I stopped you posting exactly what you like?
Have any of your 1,010 posts been edited in any way?
Have any of your threads been deleted off these boards?
Have any of your posts been deleted off these boards?

No? Then shut the fuck up with your idiotic 'poor-persecuted'-lil'-me' Big Brother paranoid bullshit. It's embarrassing.

oi,wind yer neck in. I don't think taffy was on about you there

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

Have I censored any of your posts?
Have I stopped you posting exactly what you like?
Have any of your 1,010 posts been edited in any way?
Have any of your threads been deleted off these boards?
Have any of your posts been deleted off these boards?

No? Then shut the fuck up with your idiotic 'poor-persecuted'-lil'-me' Big Brother paranoid bullshit. It's embarrassing.

Sorry, wasnt referring to you personally - it was a general thing though it is your obfuscations that have consistently taken us away from the main theme and into areas which you will agree have been covered a squillion times and will not hope to satisfy everyone fully till a new commission is established.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

editor

Perhaps now is an appropiate time to ask if the evidence and analysis of qualified and experienced people mentioned in the OP have impacted on your assessment of the commissions credibility and the possible need for further formal investigations.

P.S Orwell is far from being merely about censorship and Big Brother. Bonjour encore strawman. As someone who was happy to summon up the Chomsky card earlier Id have thunk youd know that.

 

[Jazzz]

But that surely means that you would NEVER be happy with the story, no matter how much evidence was produced.

xes' logic didn't mean that in the slightest.

 

[MikeMcc]

xes' logic didn't mean that in the slightest.

You obviously missed his agreement! Even if both off our comments were a bit tongue in cheek.

that's quite possible with me
...

 

[8den]

So if I have this clear, the current smoking guns are?

A woman who claims she has damning evidence of a 911 cover-up, despite having only worked in the FBI for six months. She's yet, in five years failed to name a specific person who she accuses of involvement in 911.

That and the fact the US haven't offically in a court of law announced that Osama is behind 911, despite what has been quoted in previous thread on this subject matter.

 

[MikeMcc]

So if I have this clear, the current smoking guns are?

A woman who claims she has damning evidence of a 911 cover-up, despite having only worked in the FBI for six months. She's yet, in five years failed to name a specific person who she accuses of involvement in 911.

That and the fact the US haven't offically in a court of law announced that Osama is behind 911, despite what has been quoted in previous thread on this subject matter.

In fact the US have accused (and charged) Khalid Sheikh Mohammed over planning 9/11.

I don't think there's any of us here who don't believe taht there has been a cover up, just a cover-up of what? Nor do I beleive that ANY subsequent investigation will please all of the critics. This arguement will still be going on in 50 years time the same way that the Kennedy assassination keeps getting dredged up.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

So if I have this clear, the current smoking guns are?

A woman who claims she has damning evidence of a 911 cover-up, despite having only worked in the FBI for six months. She's yet, in five years failed to name a specific person who she accuses of involvement in 911.

That and the fact the US haven't offically in a court of law announced that Osama is behind 911, despite what has been quoted in previous thread on this subject matter.

Thus far this thread has not been a collation of "smoking guns".

It regards the credibility of the commission which the sources in the OP links speak to.

 

[8den]

Thus far this thread has not been a collation of "smoking guns".

It regards the credibility of the commission which the sources in the OP links speak to.

Why don't you give us a list of what you feel this commission got wrong? If you don't think it's credible. Instead of ad homien-ing it to death. Jazzz here cannot tell us what evidence could be provided to satisfy him that he is wrong.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

8den

Ive answered that already. And guess who asked? 147 is the post you're after, with references to 129.

 

[8den]

8den

Ive answered that already. And guess who asked? 147 is the post you're after, with references to 129.

Full White House and Cheney phone logs from the day;

Why? How fucking retarded do you think your conspiracy is? "why yes lets stage 911 and keep a detailed log of our actions just so we can incriminate ourselves in 8 years time!"

Individual public questioning under oath of Bush and Cheney about what warnings they knew and when (when this pair are no longer in power it will be less likely they are soft balled)

If you suspect them of mass murder why do you think having them under oath will matter?

and any relationship with funders of the attacks;

Who funded the attack, and where is your proof? AND DON'T BOTHER CITING A TIMES OF FUCKING INDIA ARTICLE FROM SIX YEARS AGO THAT MAKES UNSUBSTANTIATED ACCUSATIONS USING AN UNAMED SOURCE.

After over half a fucking decade later, thats all conspialoonies have, and frankly, thats just fecking embarrassing

full public inquirey into funding of the attacks;

Why does the financing matter so much?

full investigation of why avenues of investigation into hijackers by people like John O Neil were blocked;

Proof of the above, please.

Questioning of people who recieved warnings not to fly on 9/11 including Mayor Willie Brown of Chicago and Salman Rushdie.

Why does an author and the Mayor of San Fransciso matter?

Full research into who gave these warnings;

How would you do this?

full research into who was making "put" options.

Oh FOR FUCKS SAKE.

Despite the views expressed by the popular media, leading academics, and option market professionals, there is reason to question the decisiveness of the evidence that terrorists traded in the option market ahead of the September 11 attacks. One event that casts doubt on the evidence is the crash of an American Airlines plane in New York City on November 12. According to the OCC Web site, three trading days before, on November 7, the put-call ratio for options on AMR stock was 7.74. On the basis of the statements made about the links between option market activity and terrorism shortly after September 11, it would have been tempting to infer from this put-call ratio that terrorism probably was the cause of the November 12 crash. Subsequently, however, terrorism was all but ruled out. While it might be the case that an abnormally large AMR put-call ratio was observed by chance on November 7, this event certainly raises the question of whether put-call ratios as large as 7.74 are, in fact, unusual. Beyond the November 12 plane crash, an article published in Barron’s on October 8 (Arvedlund 2001) offers several additional grounds for being skeptical about the claims that it is likely that terrorists or their associates traded AMR and UAL options ahead of the September 11 attacks. For starters, the article notes that the heaviest trading in the AMR options did not occur in the cheapest, shortest-dated puts, which would have provided the largest profits to someone who knew of the coming attacks. Furthermore, an analyst had issued a “sell” recommendation on AMR during the previous week, which may have led investors to buy AMR puts. Similarly, the stock price of UAL had recently declined enough to concern technical traders who may have increased their put buying, and UAL options are heavily traded by institutions hedging their stock positions. Finally, traders making markets in the options did not raise the ask price at the time the orders arrived as they would have if they believed that the orders were based on adverse nonpublic information: the market makers did not appear to find the trading to be out of the ordinary at the time that it occurred.

More here

Why don't you just fuck off and read the 911 commission report, and get back to me when you find out where they went wrong.

Any communications between state operatives and hijackers.

Wheres your proof that there was any in the first place?

It would be also be helpful to know why the FBI still dont feel they can attribute responsibility for the attacks to OBL on their website. Is it becuase they feel that to attribute such guilt to him is conjecture?

Oh fucking hell deja fucking vu.

In order to be listed on the FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitive list, the suspect must have been indicted for the crime. To indict Bin Laden formally for the 9/11 attacks would require presenting evidence in a court of law; such evidence linking Bin Laden to 9/11 would include intelligence sources, and Al-Qaeda detainees. Making such sources (and methods) publicly known, perhaps isn't advised.

l-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden is a longtime and prominent member of the FBI's "Ten Most Wanted" list, which notes his role as the suspected mastermind of the deadly U.S. embassy bombings in East Africa on Aug. 7, 1998.

But another more infamous date -- Sept. 11, 2001 -- is nowhere to be found on the same FBI notice.

The curious omission underscores the Justice Department's decision, so far, to not seek formal criminal charges against bin Laden for approving al-Qaeda's most notorious and successful terrorist attack. The notice says bin Laden is "a suspect in other terrorist attacks throughout the world" but does not provide details.

Exhaustive government and independent investigations have concluded otherwise, of course, and bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders have proudly taken responsibility for the hijackings. FBI officials say the wanted poster merely reflects the government's long-standing practice of relying on actual criminal charges in the notices.

"There's no mystery here," said FBI spokesman Rex Tomb. "They could add 9/11 on there, but they have not because they don't need to at this point. . . . There is a logic to it."

David N. Kelley, the former U.S. attorney in New York who oversaw terrorism cases when bin Laden was indicted for the embassy bombings there in 1998, said he is not at all surprised by the lack of a reference to Sept. 11 on the official wanted poster. Kelley said the issue is a matter of legal restrictions and the need to be fair to any defendant.

"It might seem a little strange from the outside, but it makes sense from a legal point of view," said Kelley, now in private practice. "If I were in government, I'd be troubled if I were asked to put up a wanted picture where no formal charges had been filed, no matter who it was."

Bin Laden was placed on the Ten Most Wanted list in June 1999 after being indicted for murder, conspiracy and other charges in connection with the embassy bombings, and a $5 million reward was put on his head at that time. The listing was updated after Sept. 11, 2001, to include a higher reward of $25 million, but no mention of the attacks was added.

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

Thats it Taffy, thats all you've got? The same old tired weak ass fucktwitology that been regurgitated and vomited back up by truthers for over half a decade?

Pathetic.

 

[MikeMcc]

Might also consider when and where Mondale made his comments. I wonder if he would be so keen in November if a Democrat is elected to be President? Especially if it's Hillary, since some of the campaigners have a few questions for her hubby too with regards to supposed links to AQ.

 

[editor]

Questioning of people who recieved warnings not to fly on 9/11 including Mayor Willie Brown of Chicago and Salman Rushdie.

Got a credible source for this please?

Exactly who was warned not to fly and by whom?

*edit to add - a quick bit of research proves the Rushdie claim to be utter bollocks. He was not banned specifically on 9/11.

 

[editor]

Oh, and the Willie Brown one is bollocks too. He got a "low key warning" - nothing unusual about that considering his job - and his flight wasn't due to take off until way after the towers had been hit anyway.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/09/12/MN229389.DTL

 

[8den]

Got a credible source for this please?

Exactly who was warned not to fly and by whom?

See Editor get this Willie Brown, received a nebulous and vague warning, from somewhere and someone, and then, get this decided to go on his flight away, a flight I hasten to add, departed from San Fransciso at 8am, and would not have put him in harms way in any way shape or form.

Our first reaction is -- why? Brown wasn't due to fly out until 8am, San Francisco time, and was in no danger. Whoever called him plainly did not have detailed knowledge of the attacks.

Still, it's true, he did receive a call, some say by Condoleeza Rice (although no evidence is ever offered to support this beyond a claim that “Pacifica Radio said...”). If that were true then you might imagine it would have a serious effect, because it would be such an unprecedented event. And yet, Brown completely ignored it and decided to fly anyway.

...Brown didn't think about [the warning] again until he was up, dressed and waiting for his ride to the airport for an 8 a.m. flight to New York
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/09/12/MN229389.DTL

This suggests to us that the call to Brown was nothing out of the ordinary, which, in fact, is exactly what he said:

The mayor, who was booked to fly to New York yesterday morning from San Francisco International Airport, said the call "didn't come in any alarming fashion, which is why I'm hesitant to make an alarming statement."

In fact, at the time, he didn't pay it much mind.

"It was not an abnormal call. I'm always concerned if my flight is going to be on time, and they always alert me when I ought to be careful."

Exactly where the call came from is a bit of a mystery. The mayor would say only that it came from "my security people at the airport."
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/09/12/MN229389.DTL

Okay, maybe we can still grab onto that last part, or maybe ask why anyone should warn Brown at all. Could that indicate some kind of foreknowledge? Well, there is an alternative explanation.

"Former U.S. Secretary of State George Shultz said yesterday that he was "startled" by a little-noticed State Department memo that was issued a week ago and warned that Americans "may be the target of a terrorist threat."

The memo, issued just four days before the attacks on New York and Washington, identified the threat as coming from "extremist groups with links to Osama bin Ladin's al Qaeda organization."

"I have not idea what intelligence lies behind the warning," Shultz said, ''but they put this out because they had some sort of intelligence."

Shultz, who served as secretary of state under President Reagan, said he received a copy of the Sept. 7 "worldwide warning" in his San Francisco office on the day before the fatal attacks. The memo addressed concerns for Americans overseas and made no mention of any possible attack on U.S. soil...

Officials at San Francisco International Airport said they weren't aware of the State Department warning - but someone in the airport security section knew of it and passed word of the warning onto Mayor Willie Brown when he called to check on the status of flight he was planning to take to New York.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/artic...archive/2001/09/14/MN92245.DTL&type=printable

So there was an earlier warning, nothing specific to an attack within the US, but people like Schultz were aware of it so there's no particular reason to be surprised that Brown was, too. Especially because, as we said, he was in no danger. Whoever warned him clearly didn't know what was going to happen, therefore it's difficult to see any significance to this event at all.

Update: September 2006 saw Brown commenting on his “warning”. The biggest change here is that he’s saying he called the airport, not the other way around:

Brown's warning: In the five years since 9/11, the question of how then-San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown got a warning about flying that day continues to live on in the blogosphere -- and conspiracy theories abound.

"The latest version is that Condoleezza Rice alerted me personally,'' Brown said this week. "It's all part of the ongoing myth."

The "myth" has its origins in the night before the attacks, when Brown called "my security people at the airport'' to check on his flight to New York the next morning.

What the mayor got from his source was a warning that Americans should be concerned about traveling.

Willie being Willie, he paid no attention -- and was actually waiting for his ride to the airport when he turned on the TV and, like millions of other Americans, watched as the World Trade Center crumbled.

Exactly how the warning popped up remains a mystery to this day.

It might have had something to do with a little-noticed State Department memo issued a week before that went out in a routine press briefing -- and that former Secretary of State George Shultz himself received -- warning that Americans may be the target of an attack from extremist groups "with links to Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda organization."

The warning, however, dealt primarily with U.S. military bases in Japan and South Korea -- clearly the wrong targets.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/09/13/BAGG9L4KI81.DTL

From 911 myths

As to Rushdie well;

One previously deleted section showed, for instance, that flights carrying the author Salman Rushdie were subjected to heightened security in the summer of 2001 because of a fatwa of violence against him, while a previously deleted footnote showed that "sewing scissors" would be allowed in the hands of a woman with sewing equipment, but prohibited "in the possession of a man who possessed no other sewing equipment."

Source NY times

It says nothing specific about Rushdie on 911 just in the months following it, flights carrying Rushdie were subjected to heighted security. Why? Gosh who the fuck knows!

All I know is these two things proVE it. OMGZ INZID JEW! NINEELVEN 911! INVESTIGATION NOWZ!!!!!

This fucking dregs and dross, and utter fucking bullshit about "OMG Teh FBI don't have 911 on Osama's wanted poster! They must think he's innocent" moronology is all that is left of the truth movement.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

8den

Thanks for the reply. Obviously I have some issues with what you've said and I will respond when I have some time to do it justice. I would say that I have never made any allegations about the joooooz so that is one strawman that especially gets on my tits.

 

[editor]

Thanks for the reply. Obviously I have some issues with what you've said and I will respond when I have some time to do it justice.

(listing 'necessary' points to be investigated)

Questioning of people who recieved warnings not to fly on 9/11 including Mayor Willie Brown of Chicago and Salman Rushdie. Full research into who gave these warnings; full research into who was making "put" options.

You don't do yourself any favours by demanding that an enquiry be set up to investigate easily-checked, barking fruitloop loon bullshit like the above.

 

[Jazzz]

Why don't you give us a list of what you feel this commission got wrong? If you don't think it's credible. Instead of ad homien-ing it to death. Jazzz here cannot tell us what evidence could be provided to satisfy him that he is wrong.

I gave a fucking length reply to that ridiculous argument - which I note you didn't bother responding to. And you of all people have the chutzpah to complain about ad hominems!

 

[8den]

I gave a fucking length reply to that ridiculous argument - which I note you didn't bother responding to. And you of all people have the chutzpah to complain about ad hominems!

Really Jazzz? Exactly which post of yours did you write a lengthy response I did not respond to? Please be specific? Link to fucking it. You pathetic delusional liar.

Oh, while we're on the subject, what about your claim that "no one could have predicted WTC7 collaspe"? Then I linked to a series of quotes from firemen who predicted the collapse. You shut up then, didn't you Jazzz? Or the Willie R thread were you refused to believe he would turn up to an event with Neo Nazis? You fucked off pretty rapidly, after I quoted a former member of the Waffen SS at the event with Willie? Oh yes you did Jazz.

Mind you this is the man who suffered the most conclusive and comprehensive pwnage on the history of this forum, by the Architect, and Jazzz actually believes he won that one.

Pathetic.

Oh and Jazzz when will you tell us what evidence could be presented that would satisfy you that you were wrong about 911?

I mean a dinosaur bone from 2,000 years ago would help disprove evolution. But there's no imperical evidence that support this. See you are like creationists, you irrationally believe what you do, and nothing can prove you wrong.

Finally the sheer irony of complaining "you of all people have the chutzpah to complain about ad hominems!" using an ad hominem. Jesus Jazzz you are a pathetic piece of nonsense. And yes that is an ad hominem. Prove me wrong, show me your response to your moronic FBI Bin Laden nonsense and show me, where I didn't challenge it?

Now, Taffy, strawman? People claiming the Jews commited 911? You claim thats a strawman?

Would you like me to list how many anti semitic groups have ties with the 911 truth movement? How the "Amrican Free Press" a prefered source for film makers like the loose change boys, are holocaust deniers? How all the leading lights of the truth movement attended a conference organised by a noted Holocaust denier? How about Eric May of the "ghost squad troop" rants about the Media Jews who control hollywood? How Wille Rodgriuez attended a conference attended by, as mentioned, a former member of the Waffen SS, who opened a muesum celebrating Hitler?

Citing that holocaust denial and anti semtism is a strawman when connected with 911, is fucking bullshit. The "truth movement" is populated with vast numbers of racist bigots. However much you and Jazzz would like to deny it.

Oh and I wait with fucking baited breath for your response to my points.

I suspect you'll fuck off ignore it, and come back, spouting the same tired worn out bullshit as if it was something new in a few weeks time.

Just like Jazzz.


Oh and Taffy have you fucking read the 911 commission report? I doubt you have. In fact I'll fucking bet you haven't. Perhaps you should before you criticise the 911 commision investigation.

 

[Jazzz]

Oh dear. Well at least you know when someone loses it and becomes quite so vicious at so little provocation, you kind of know you are doing something right

Here was the response I gave, which was quite full - post 140, although you completely ignored it as a reply, so I don't hold out much hope for you doing so here. But everyone else should they be interested can see it.

If you don't like it, tough, I really can't be fucked dealing with your abuse, you're on ignore.

 

[editor]

Here was the response I gave, which was quite full - post 140, although you completely ignored it as a reply, so I don't hold out much hope for you doing so here. But everyone else should they be interested can see it.

That's just a pile of your usual wild, fact-free supposition completely unsupported by any credible analysis or expert comment. There's absolutely nothing of substance there at all.

And that's just about par for your 'investigations.'

Talking of which, whatever happened with that poor hotel bloke in Birmingham you shoved your 911 loon DVDs at? And what did your little adventure up there prove exactly?

 

[8den]

Oh dear. Well at least you know when someone loses it and becomes quite so vicious at so little provocation, you kind of know you are doing something right

And I get shit for the ad hominens! *LOL*

Bless Jazzz you claim I flouncy off and lose my temper but we've seen you flounce off and loose your temper so often, and engage in rank hyprocracy so frequently, I'm surprised you can look yourself in the mirror.

Here was the response I gave, which was quite full - post 140, although you completely ignored it as a reply, so I don't hold out much hope for you doing so here. But everyone else should they be interested can see it.

If you don't like it, tough, I really can't be fucked dealing with your abuse, you're on ignore.

Oh noes! iz on ignore. brave sir jazzz is fucking off and running away.

Two points, no wait three.

You linked to post 70 ish not your point 140, can't get anything right can we Jazzz?

as to you post on the page you link to;

Yet there is nothing in the Washington Post's article to suggest that the FBI does have any hard evidence against Osama. There is no contradiction between the two articles.

I see no reason to doubt the quote from Rex Tomb courtesy of muckrakerreport.

If the USG has evidence against Osama Bin Laden, it should come out with it. That is what the 9/11 truth movement demands. Show us the evidence!

Do fuck off you moron, how often does the prosecution release it's case to the public before trial?

Are you high or just incredibly stupid?

Onto the post you claim was a rebuttal me;

I asked;

Tell us what evidence would convince you 911 wasn't and inside job

You replied;

Right. I've actually answered this question before.

What evidence would it take to convince me that Osama Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11?

Let's first observe that this question is really an attempt at being evasive - because there is precious little evidence against Osama or indeed Al-Qaeda.

Second, let's observe that it's really completely irrelevant whether I would ever be convinced, or not - it doesn't excuse any lack of proper evidence.

Imagine the following courtroom scenario...

8den's Kangaroo Court

Defence counsel: "Your honour, I say the evidence against my client is flimsy and circumstantial. I ask you to dismiss the case"

Prosecution (shouting, manically): "Absolutely not! Your honour, I say that whatever evidence I put forward, that man will refuse to believe it and will continue to argue that his client is innocent! His mind is made up!"

Judge: "That's clearly true - he must be guilty! Twenty years hard labour! "

But's let's indeed have a look at the evidence which doesn't appear to be there. This is the problem with 9/11. Where one should rightly expect a MASS of consistent evidence, there is precious little and what there is is inconsistent. It's just no good. We even have problems with the most basic aspects, such as showing that the flights that were meant to take off match the crashes. Evidence in that case would be a single piece of aircraft wreckage to be positively identified as coming from the flight in question - yet this hasn't happened for any of the four flights. We have plenty of problems in even ascertaining that hijackers took off - eight of the nineteen named turn out to be still alive - so they can't even get that right. There's four black boxes missing from the WTC crashes - this is the first time that any black box wasn't recovered from a terrestrial plane crash. We have no data about those at all. We don't have reports from check-in staff. We have precious little CCTV footage (and there's problems with time stamps on the few pic we do have). Just everywhere you look, there's missing evidence.

And Jazzz has the audacity to call me evasive.

Jazzz you may be ignoring me from now on, but I mean you generally just ignore me and run off when I pwn you, so you ignoring me is plus ca change.

So Jazzz just continue to ignore me, I'll continue rebutting your posts, and exposing you as the pathetic delusional liar you are to the rest of this forum.

 

[editor]

Jazzz you may be ignoring me from now on, but I mean you generally just ignore me and run off when I pwn you, so you ignoring me is plus ca change.

His 2005 fact busting jaunt to Birmingham is well worth a read you know. The Masons want to chip your children! Mini-nukes in Parliament!

Come to think of it, I'm still waiting for him to reply on that thread.

 

[fela fan]

Editor, do you really want this kind of violent language on your forums that 8den is using? It's almost unreal reading his posts on this page of the thread. Can a man get more verbally violent and abusive towards other human beings who have the 'wrong' ideas about things in life? How can it possibly be acceptable on a decent forums board?

Personally i feel he ought to be calmed down, for everyone's benefit, including his own. He'll be in hospital soon with at the very least a burst blood vessel.

 

[A Dashing Blade]

Editor, do you really want the kind of evasive language on your forums that Fekla/Jazz/Taffboy are using? It's almost unreal reading their posts on this page of the thread. Can posters get more verbally amgiguous and equivocating towards other human beings who have the 'wrong' ideas about things in life? How can it possibly be acceptable on a decent forums board?

 

[8den]

Editor, do you really want this kind of violent language on your forums that 8den is using? It's almost unreal reading his posts on this page of the thread. Can a man get more verbally violent and abusive towards other human beings who have the 'wrong' ideas about things in life? How can it possibly be acceptable on a decent forums board?

Personally i feel he ought to be calmed down, for everyone's benefit, including his own. He'll be in hospital soon with at the very least a burst blood vessel.

I'm fed fucking up with the lies deceit dishonesty prevarication and bullshit of the truth movement. "jews strawman" This collection of racist morons have the audacity to claim there are "problems with the official story" but haven't bothered to check even the most cursory facts in their "conspiracy."

Meanwhile assholes like Dylan Avery, and David Ray Griffin hawk dvds and books promoting each other lies.

Hey fela I'm angry, yes, fed fucking up, that I'm repeatedly addressing the same bullshit on this forum over and over again, and until one of you fucking morons, actually addresses my points instead of whining about my language, you'll be on the receiving end of more abuse. Or maybe you could just fuck off and actually read the "official story" before you decide to try and lecture me on what's wrong with it.

Oh and quality link Editor. Jazzz you really are a gullible fucking moron.

 

[editor]

8den: I understand your extreme frustration, but please try and tone the language down just a nudge. Ta!

 

[kyser_soze]

Editor, do you really want this kind of violent language on your forums that 8den is using? It's almost unreal reading his posts on this page of the thread. Can a man get more verbally violent and abusive towards other human beings who have the 'wrong' ideas about things in life? How can it possibly be acceptable on a decent forums board?

Personally i feel he ought to be calmed down, for everyone's benefit, including his own. He'll be in hospital soon with at the very least a burst blood vessel.

Hmm, frustration at having to once again debunk shite that is easily debunkable with a little research, such as many of taffboy's comments early in the thread about Rushdie etc?

 

[8den]

How can it possibly be acceptable on a decent forums board?

Oh please! Won't somebody please think of the children.


Editor, naturally, I will obey your polite request, but I swear to god if I see the words "operation northwoods" together again, all bets are off.