Zero Evidence that 9/11 Was an Inside Job

Way to duck the question! It was a simple one really. You've accused the staff here of being in on the conspiracy and that you would be edited or banned if you presented evidence other people here are in on the conspiracy.

I asked you a very simple question. Here it is again. All it takes is a yes or no answer.

Would you present your evidence if the mods promise not to edit or ban what you post and assuming your evidence does not break the clearly posted TOS of the board?

 

Go to Eric Holder? Mr. Fast & Furious himself?? LMAO....

Hey, why don't you list your credentials here so everyone can see just how you are qualified to debunk all these professionals.

FYI, no one is running away or changing the subject. You're just like most all the rest. Every post, with the rare exception, is much like this one of yours...full of bull(*)(*)(*)(*) and acting like you know best. It's obvious from your posts that you're not Mensa material, so why not quit fronting like you are?

A REAL investigation would be one that includes ALL the evidence...nothing left out and nothing redacted or classified to the investigators and with ample funding and time to see it through.

See how that works?

 

The purpose of the Commission was to:

" to prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11 attacks"

By the Chair's admission they have failed because if they had succeeded they could say they have given a definitive account.

It was such a sham they have nothing about WTC 7 and they were not even allowed to interview the so called chief architect of the attacks.

It's fine if people want to believe the OCT but it's absurd to claim the Commission was a full investigation when by their own admission it was not. They even tried to point out it was a best seller as if that was supposed to be a point of credibility. Pedophiles have had best sellers....so what?

 

Ummm...no. If you truly had (*)(*)(*)(*)ing information and the Staff was in on a conspiracy you would have already been banned. I don't care if you believe people are paid agents but good goose throttling grief....don't go around claiming you know it is fact when you don't have anything to back it up.

 

From patriot911's post:

The 9/11 Commission was created by statute. We had two responsibilities - first, tell the story of 9/11; I think we've done that reasonably well. We worked very hard at it; I don’t know that we’ve told the definitive story of 9/11, but surely anybody in the future who tackles that job will begin with the 9/11 Commission Report. I think we’ve been reasonably successful in telling the story. It became a best seller in this country and people showed a lot of interest in it.

I see a couple of things in the Lee Hamilton quote. First, he doesn't describe his Commission's work as being an investigation. He calls it 'telling a story' and even in that limited context he admits that it may not be definitive. Funny how he remarks on it being a best seller. WTF is that all about? He also makes references to anybody in the future that tackles the job.

Based on his earlier statement on being set up to fail, I take his quote above to be tinged with sarcasm and inviting further investigation. JMO.

 

Can you show where I have used double standards?

 

How did passports from the terrorists survive everything that happened? Does that not seem odd to people?

 

Yes, but stating that they are not sure that they covered every detail is NOT and admission of failure.

If I had a flat tire and I tried to fix it myself and said "I'm not sure of it is completely fixed or not", that means it might be fixed, or it might not be fixed. It does not mean I failed to fix it.

 

I get your point, but that's a BAD analogy. You might have TRIED to fix a tire but, if it doesn't hold air, you FAILED to fix it.

 

OK, so you're not going to go anywhere with the vast amount of evidence you can't seem to post one shred of. Gotcha.

What kind of idiot would believe the credentials someone claims on the internet? Seriously? It doesn't take a specialist to debunk these jokers because they're not professionals in the first place. Professionals don't make the kinds of mistakes they do. I would be happy to give some examples if you're actually willing to objectively look at the evidence.

You guys don't run away? Really? Then post some evidence or run away YET AGAIN. How many times have I asked you for evidence now?

Nothing was redacted or classified to the investigators. The FBI had the complete cooperation of everyone. Even the 9/11 commission got to hear a bunch of classified stuff. Yet none of them came out and claimed truthers are right and everyone else is wrong.

It is quite obvious you don't.

 

The 9/11 commission report WAS a best seller at one point when they bound it up and offered it for sale. And he is right that they told the story of 9/11. I've been saying all along that it was the FBI doing the investigation. Truthers like to put their fingers in their ears and go LA LA LA LA LA at the top of their lungs every time that comes up. Go back to the posts from just today and see how many times I mention the FBI did the investigation. Yet here truthers are STILL pretending it was the 9/11 commission that did the investigation and then wondering why the 9/11 commission didn't call it an investigation.

Why don't you ask for the entire conversation then rather than making a lame and decidedly incorrect ASSumption? OR you could have looked it up yourself and read for yourself just what the conversation was like. OR you could have read all the quotes I did of Lee Hamilton and realized he thinks truthers are pretty much dishonest scum. Your choice. Personally I didn't detect a lick of sarcasm in it. Then again, I just read what is written and I don't pretend to know what the guy was actually thinking.

 

ONE passport survived from a guy that was in the cockpit at the time and, according to the eyewitness that checked them in, had the passport on him. The odds are high, but not impossible. The odds of finding an intact passport are far better than truther theories being true even if they could agree on one.

 

Bull(*)(*)(*)(*). To claim they gave a definitive account would be a lie from the getgo because it assumes they had every last shred of evidence. Now, we know truthers like to deal in absolutes, but everyone on the commission knew they probably didn't have every last shred of evidence.

On the contrary, Lee Hamilton says they did interview the architects, engineers and experts. So who are we to believe? Someone who can't back up their claims or Lee Hamilton himself?

It wasn't even an investigation. That was done by the FBI. Their own admission was that it was not definitive. Only a complete retard would believe that a person admitting they don't know everything is an admission of failure.

Amazing what truthers get out of the truth. Hamilton said it was very popular. He said nothing about its best seller status having to do with its credibility. That is bull(*)(*)(*)(*) you just made up.

Yes. Come up with more lameassed comparisons to points nobody but you is making.

 

But if it did hold air long enough to get me to the next gas station, was it a failure?

Yes, I agree, it was a bad analogy, but it was all I could come up with at the moment.

 

According to the 9/11 Commission three hijacker passports were recovered. You really should learn the facts if you want to pretend to know anything...

 

Nobody is claiming they should have been able to cover every detail. If your strawman fixed your tire I too would be cautious.

 

Since none of the remains of any hijackers were released for identification it makes sense that we have two possible explanations:

it was a fluke for three passports to survive

or

they were planted

I would be curious to know how many passports have survived similar plane crashes.

 

Unless that next gas station was hour home and you planned on never driving that car again......yes it was a failure.

The commission was not supposed to be an interim report. It was meant to be the first and final investigation so with the Chairs saying they don't know if they told the definitive story they are saying they definitely don't know what happened. Their purpose was foreshadowing a scapegoat because they knew it was so incomplete that existing and new information would not sync with their claims.

 

Only one whole one that was undamaged. Sorry, I should have been more specific. The ones retrieved from Flight 93 are no big surprise as lots of personal artifacts were dug up from the crash site.

 

Bull(*)(*)(*)(*). Pretending the 9/11 commission was saying they definitely don't know what happened is a blatand and extremely dishonest lie. The definitive story, as has been explained to you before but you chose to ignore, means they have every single fact and every single scrap of evidence. The 9/11 commission would have to have the egos of truthers to try and claim they had the definitive 9/11 story.

YOU claim since they don't have egos the size of truthers that their claim it is not the definitive work that it is an admission of failure. They say otherwise. Once again we have to choose between a guy who blatantly lies and says the commission says they definitely didn't know what happend, or the 9/11 commissioner himself who paints a VERY different picture from SS?

Gee. That's a hard one. I am going to have to go with the 9/11 commission instead of a proven liar. The 9/11 doesn't work in absolutes like SS. According to SS, if the 9/11 commission doesn't know every last little detail, they didn't know anything. That is complete bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

 

Actually, you are wrong as well, so I wouldn't be so fast at being rude.

Per page 542 (pdf version) Note #106 for Chapter 7:

It does not say where they were recovered....whether in a safe house they used or at the crash site.

 

his pathetic ramblings he always goes on in his posts amuses me.

 

not to the coincidence theorists logic.Just look at their posts throughout this thread and you'll get some great entertainment.

 

Who would you release the terrorists' remains to? Nobody has claimed or even asked about the remains except one time since 9/11. The FBI still has the remains. Maybe you would like to claim them and then go about finding out who they belong to. You seem awfully concerned the remains make their way back.

Would you accept the 9/11 passport as possible if other passports were found? Or would you blow it off like the other evidence?