Unlike you, I actually point out the BS. You can only make the claim.
Where? Again you make claims without examples or proving they are lies and mischaracterizations.
How? Just wussing out and claiming everything is a mischaracterization by you only proves you have nothing to back up your claims. Honestly I expected better.

So let's see.... we have all the parties involved interviewed and cross checked against one another and a timeline built on this that all parties involved agree on. But we are suppose to ignore that timeline in favor of a timeline put together by a guy with an agenda from newspaper articles that repeatedly get their facts wrong. Hmmm.... who are we to believe?

Again you make claims without backing them up. I have repeatedly pointed out your credibility issues yet all you can do is make the claims without examples. Sad.

How about quoting a reputable source? Globalresearch.ca is as bad as infowars and prisonplanet.

Here's a quick example of the many lies:

Zero scrambles on 9/11? BULLSH*T! And you wonder why you have credibility issues? It's because you post blatant lies. You really should check the crap you post because it really does reflect on you.

This.
It's unfortunate that anybody who points it out gets lumped in with the "inside job" whackos.
Of course, that's deliberate.

__________________
"Our liberties we prize and our rights we will maintain"- Iowa state motto
-Squidward
Ventura/ Paul '12

-Retro Fit

The sources on their website refute your claim. You might want to listen to the interview and then read the link to the government protocols for hijackings within the context. What did they define an official "scramble" as?

__________________
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." ~ Schopenhauer

“How fortunate for leaders that men do not think.” - Adolf Hitler

"We should never forget that everything Adolf Hilter did in Germany was 'legal'" - Martin Luther King Jr., from a Birmingham jail, April 16, 1963.

The fact that fighters were scrambled from Otis per FAA and NORAD regulations in the event of a hijacking makes that web site a liar.

The fact that fighters were scrambled out of Langley per FAA and NORAD regulations in the event of a hijacking makes that web site a liar.

Claiming there were no fighters scrambled on 9/11 is a complete fabrication even when you try and cover up their lies by trying to define "scramble" as something else.

So how do you define "scramble", Truth-Bringer? And how does this somehow negate the launching of fighters from Otis and Langley for the express purpose of intercepting the hijacked jets?

All irrelevant for reasons stated by their sources.

__________________
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." ~ Schopenhauer

“How fortunate for leaders that men do not think.” - Adolf Hitler

"We should never forget that everything Adolf Hilter did in Germany was 'legal'" - Martin Luther King Jr., from a Birmingham jail, April 16, 1963.

Like I've stated before and like you continue to prove, you blindly believe anyone who says what you want to hear.

I've listened to the source your article claims proves their point. I've even found where in the radio show the guy almost says what is quoted. Notice I said almost. He never said nothing was scrambled on 9/11. That little tidbit was added by the highly dishonest people at Globalresearch.ca. I can find nothing else in that radio show that defines scramble as something else as you claim it does.

Please tell me exactly where in the radio show the guy defines scramble and claims no fighters were scrambled on 9/11. The show has a nice handy time index that will allow me to jump to exactly the point where you claim this is all said. I look forward to hearing you defend your claims.

How about little things like reporters who said Building 7 had fallen BEFORE it had collapsed?

Or the THOUSANDS OF RESCUE WORKERS (who, if you want to talk about "what you know" I think firemen, paramedics, policemen, bomb squads, SWAT, and others qualify this) who ALL SHARED IDENTICAL stories about multiple explosions going off in succession?

And as far as saying "scientific proof," both sides have doctors, scientists, engineers, mathematicians and other scholars to back them up. So let's can that slap-on line and go with what we know....

I hear the 9/11 deniers keep telling the truthers to "prove it." Well, aside from the previous paragraph, how about you explaining the aforementioned things, and the dozens of other things?

HOW MANY COINCIDENCES HAVE TO HAPPEN BEFORE YOU START PUTTING THE PIECES TOGETHER?

There's is obviously something wrong with the 9/11 Commission, and regardless of whether Bush himself hired the terrorist to do it or if he simply had a phone call he ignored, they are LYING to us and THAT is the problem.

__________________
Earn your spot today -Affrayer -bugalugs -ColoradoGirl -DEFCON1 -Divine Wind -eugenius -HoboMonkeyPirate -Josey Wales -manwhocomesaround -Never Left -Pro Deus Et Patria -venik -White Doors

OMG!! The news got something wrong on 9/11!!! So the media was in on 9/11? And not one person has come forward to explain how the US government told the British BBC when to report WTC7 fell?

You should at least check your facts because when you don't check your facts you end up looking like a complete buffoon. Yes there were several (not several thousand. several) firemen who reported multiple explosions. Tell me something. Do explosions, especially explosions in a fire, HAVE to come from explosives? Here's a hint. The answer is no.

So here's something for you to ponder since you so strongly believe the testimony of fire fighters and police and others that were actually AT ground zero when all hell broke loose, why hasn't a single firefighter come forward questioning whether or not the explosions they heard were caused by explosives? FWIW, I too believe in the testimony of firefighters. Unfortunately for "truthers", the firefighter testimony directly contradicts their theories, especially all their theories about WTC 7.

Wrong again. Scientific proof is scientific proof and can be verified. The "proof" from the truther camp has been repeatedly debunked and the subject of many laughs from the scientific community. On the other hand, the scientific proof that backs up the "official story" stands up to scrutiny by the rest of the scientific community. So much for claiming it's all a wash.

I believe I just did.

There's maybe a handful of true coincidences surrounding 9/11. MANY of the so called coincidences are either completely unrelated or completely made up. Regardless, coincidences without some kind of proof to back them up are just that. Coincidences.

So where is your proof? You claim there is something wrong with the 9/11 commission report. What? Can you even identify that? The basis for your entire belief system for 9/11 is based on lies, amateur opinion and misinformation from conspiracy sites.

But please. Don't take my word for it. Tell us what you believe to be the most (*)(*)(*)(*)ing proof that 9/11 was different from what was reported. If you want to take a serious look at the truth, I'm all for it. I'll show you beyond any doubt that the "truther" version is so full of holes that it couldn't possibly be true.

Now I know you're just screaming out crap, you're not even listening to what you're spewing.

EVERY SINGLE TIME you defend a COINCIDENCE with random crap you're just fueling the debate, because the question still remains, HOW MANY COINCIDENCES?

And as far as your claim that "Scientific proof is scientific proof and can be verified. The "proof" from the truther camp has been repeatedly debunked and the subject of many laughs from the scientific community. On the other hand, the scientific proof that backs up the "official story" stands up to scrutiny by the rest of the scientific community." You just repeated the same mistake. Who are YOU to decide what scientist is right or wrong? Have YOU checked their credentials? Have YOU personally tested their theories? Have YOU contrasted and compared all their studies?

No, all you're doing is choosing to believe which makes you feel more comfortable.

Take one minute of your life and actually use your many-worded brain: If the truthers are right and there is a conspiracy, do you honestly think the Unites States Government is going to just bring in random scientists and hope they help them cover it up? No, their team will be hand selected to do this "investigation" in order to make sure their conspiracy does not get out.

Let's try a different angle...

Do you not see the fundamental flaw in trying to have this conversation if you're ONLY going to refute claims using the sources we truthers are saying are invalid because of corruption?

You keep spouting that we truthers are blinded by what we want to see, when it can just as easily be said about you; your information is what we have a problem with, so you're not doing anything DIFFERENT than what we are.

The only difference between us is where we feel validated in collecting our information.

__________________
Earn your spot today -Affrayer -bugalugs -ColoradoGirl -DEFCON1 -Divine Wind -eugenius -HoboMonkeyPirate -Josey Wales -manwhocomesaround -Never Left -Pro Deus Et Patria -venik -White Doors