Your failure to understand the simple concept of your posts are full of (*)(*)(*)(*) continues to astound me. We don't know where Al Qaeda got the money. We DO know Al Qaeda funded 9/11. They left a paper trail. YOU pretending they can't prove one without the other shows either profound dishonesty or profound ignorance. If I give you a hundred dollars but you can't prove where that hundred came from, does that change the fact I gave you a hundred dollars? You KNOW I gave you a hundred dollars, but according to your (*)(*)(*)(*)ed up logic, if you don't know where I got the hundred, you can't claim I gave you a hundred. Like I said. Seriously (*)(*)(*)(*)ed up logic you have there, SS.
And again you prove to everyone you have absolutely no clue. Just because you claim it isn't possible doesn't mean it isn't possible. It just means you're incapable of understanding very simple concepts as I outlined above. So they can fund another group to attack us, but because we still don't know who they are, that group can't be proven to have spent the money on the attack. I am sure you still don't see the profound stupidity of your logic, but I am getting a really good chuckle out of it! And again you use the dishonest tactic of pretending if you don't know one link in the chain of funding, you can't know any link. So how far back do the links have to go before you start to see the ludicrous nature of your claim? Who funded the funders? Where did they get their money? Who funded the funders funders? Ignorance is just another name for truther.
Please keep on trying to defend the OCT because all you do is help show why it is not to be taken seriously. The Commission HAD to claim al qaeda did it because that was the conclusion prior to any investigation at all. The fact they don't know the origin of the funds means they don't know who funded 9/11. That is why there are still court cases going on TODAY to find out. You simply swallow whatever peter they wave in your face if it fits your agenda because anyone with an ounce of common sense would ask: how do they know it was al qaeda? Think about it Einstein, whenever anything happens and al qaeda is blamed, how do you know it truly is al qaeda? The fact you are stumped at this very moment shows you have never thought to question the peters you are fed and swallow.....you simply gulp them down with gratitude.....
At this point I'm not even defending the OCT. I am only showing everyone the absolutely retarded nature of your claims. That is your opinion and as useless/meaningless as the rest of your opinions. Truthers LOVE to pretend their opinions actually mean anything or are "evidence". The truth is the opinions are usually retarded and based on nothing but ignorance. So what is your evidence the commission HAD to come to a conclusion even if the evidence pointed somewhere else? With all the evidence the commission presented in their report, is there an alternative that the evidence indicates? Please enlighten us with your genius. You constantly repeating the same meaningless garbage, especially once you've been shown why it is retarded, only shows your desperation and dishonesty. Why is it you can't respond to my display of why who funded Al Qaeda is immaterial to proving Al Qaeda funded the attack? Wrong. There are court cases going on today to determine individual people's guilt in the attack. They already proved Al Qaeda's guilt in the attack in Moussaoui's trial since proving Al Qaeda was guilty is key in proving Moussaoui was part of the attack. Now you have a homosexual fixation? Is it latent homophobia or latent homosexual tendancies that lead you to use homosexual imagry? BTW, the answer to the question is simple. The evidence all points to Al Qaeda. The hijackers were known members of Al Qaeda. The paper trail led back to Al Qaeda. Osama himself proclaimed Al Qaeda's responsibility in the attacks multiple times. KSM has admitted his part in the attacks. Moussaoui admitted his part in the attacks. Other members of Al Qaeda have admitted their parts in the attacks and the fact Al Qaeda was behind the attack. Video taped wills of several of the hijackers displayed by Osama claimed they were ready for the attack. Other materials found in numerous places in Afghanistan and Pakistan show Al Qaeda was behind the attacks. And what do YOU have? Your opinion that because they can't specifically name who funded Al Qaeda, that one cannot claim Al Qaeda funded the attacks. BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAA!!!!! What a jacked up lame opinion. Read above. Can you refute any of that evidence? Can you refute the evidence in the USS Cole bombing? The embassies? The WTC in 93? The EVIDENCE tells you who did it. Of course, truthers believe opinions trump evidence which explains just about everything. Again with the homosexual imagry. Is there something you want to tell us? If you have some kind of sick mancrush on me, forget about it. I'm married and she is both armed and a really good shot. BTW, you do know the homosexual stuff is considered a bannable offense, right? Just sayin. Don't know if you're going for the usual truther ban or ignorant of the rules. So what leads you to incorrectly ASSume I am stumped? I've shown you the fallacy of your claims. You've been unable to come up with anything other than homosexual insults for a reply. Seems to me you're the one who is stumped. Once again SS goes down in flames.
It isn't homosexual imagery but thank you for telling everyone that is all you can see. It is a reference to Peter Pan, as in your posts remain frozen in an immature state never willing to grow up. You swallow any Peter Pan fantasy if it fits your agenda. Show us how all hijackers were members of al qaeda. If the origin of the funds are unknown you can't claim al qaeda funded it. Why? If al qaeda funded it then the origins would be.....KNOWN. You really want to pretend the Commission did not have an agenda to blame al qaeda? Are you really so desperately foolish as to claim the Commission had no pressure to blame anyone but al qaeda? Can't wait for you to run away from proving all the hijackers were members of al qaeda......
You expect ANYONE to buy that? That is just downright PATHETIC!!! OMG, I'm going to have to repost that one! Show us they weren't. You've pretended to read the 9/11 commission report. It is all in there. Can you refute it? Now you're just being stupid. You're trying to pretend there is only one "funding" going on here when there is clearly two as has been repeatedly shown to you. The 9/11 commission is talking about the funding Al Qaeda receives not being known. They know Al Qaeda funded the hijackers from the paper trail. Try to keep up. You're embarassing all your fellow truthers and anyone else who wishes to remain ignorant of the truth. That is your lameassed opinion. Nothing more. Do you have EVIDENCE that the commission had an agenda to blame Al Qaeda despite what the evidence might show? Hell, do you have any evidence it was anyone OTHER than Al Qaeda? How do you get off saying they had an agenda when there is no other conclusion the evidence points to? It is all here in black and white. Each hijacker is discussed. If you're going to pretend that doesn't count, better come with evidence they are wrong or all you're going to do is look like a fool. You should be use to that by now.
Your obsessions with homosexual imagery is not shared by everyone so stop projecting. I figured you would be foolish enough to mention the Moussaoui trial as it didn't prove anything. The whole trial was a sham but you keep swallowing the fairy tales. Good job on running away from proving the hijackers were all part of al qaeda.......
Then why did he criticize the 9/11 Commission and their omission of Able Danger's findings? You know, the same Able Danger which identified Mohammed Atta as an AQ operative working within the US prior to 9/11.
You read too many crackpot conspiracy theorists. Knowing the Atta was in the US and knowing that there was a plot to attack the WTC are very different..
What conspiracy theory are you referring to? I was referring directly to what Louis Freeh has publicly said.
Here is Freeh's piece: http://www.wanttoknow.info/911/9-11_summary_articles/051117_wsj_freeh_able_danger Do you see anything about al qaeda?
Well, he was actually studying Urban Planning, so which part is the conspiracy theory? The engineer part? The living in Hamburg part? The Egyptian part? The being in the US prior to 9/11 part?
This is what you are asking people to believe: Hijackers spent years training for the largest against on American soil and decided to carry with them the information and motives of said attacking a single suitcase knowing their profiles would put them through an extra security check, and that it was just a fluke that same bag was held back in Boston.........oooooooohhhhkay!!!
The reason they went through a smaller airport prior to Boston (and subsequently why their baggage missed the flight) was due to an expectation of lighter security. Bags miss flights all the time in the US, especially on short connections. I've been victimized myself many times on this front. This isn't about my speculation or opinion, this is about what evidence is available.
It wasn't Louis Freeh that said that. It was Robert Muller and the full quote was I bolded the important part in case you missed it. Funny how much truthers miss.
Your welcome for my pointing out you didn't read your own link. As to your question, I would like to know myself. If I had to guess, I would suspect it had a lot to do with politically covering backsides and incompetence. I also suspect a lot of the redacted parts were part and parcel of the same bureaucratic creep that is in inherent in a bloated government. As to the Able Danger, the information that's been released on that front supports the fact that AQ was behind 9/11. Just so we don't bury the lead and all......
Yet another bull(*)(*)(*)(*) claim by SS that he can't back up. We're just suppose to believe his retarded opinions as though they actually mean something. Man, the ego some truthers have. I linked you the 9/11 commission report. The evidence is all there. The only failure here is your complete and utter failure at addressing what you've been given. I would work on that if I were you. What kind of credibility do you think you're going to have constantly running away from the evidence while lying your ass off about what you've been given.
I didnt say anything about a smaller airport.......you knowingly and actively skipped over the most important part of my post. No wonder you didn't have the balls for a one on one debate.
