If 9/11 was a inside job, How many people were involved?

Originally posted by jprophet420
However, when i found this site i saw that the government does have camcorder footage of what happened but will not release it, not to mention still photographs.

The FBI took about 40,000 photos, most not released.

reply to post by seanm

What I've described is you: someone who particpates in discussions simply to flame others. You accuse others of making claims they cannot support, yet you do the same.

Anyone who has read our exchanges here or in the other thread can see that you are a complete fraud. Yet you continue to posture, like a flaccid penis who thinks he's a hard on.

I'm going to continue to expose you, all the time leaving myself open to the possibility I might be forced to issue a humbling apology if you can actually back up your argument.

So, again, you made the following claim:

reply to post by seanm

 

AA11 and UA175 did not have any tanks of any sort attached to them.

I asked you here...

reply to post by coughymachine

 

You have the evidence to back this claim up?

I'd be specifically interested in the photographic analysis that relates to Flight 11.

Here...

reply to post by coughymachine

 

Is this meant to embarass me into silence?

I don't know what I'd do. Now you tell me.

In the absence of any photographic evidence, please show how it's possible to prove that Flight 11 - or, perhaps more accurately, the plane that hit WTC2 - did not have a pod.

Here...

reply to post by coughymachine

 

I'm too lazy to play your games. Either explain how, in the absence of photographic material, you can prove that the plane that struck WTC2 did not have a pod or I'll just assume you cannot.

Here...

reply to post by coughymachine

 

If you had any way of showing how to prove whether or not the plane that hit WTC2 had pods, you'd have given it by now.

You're a fraud.

Force me to retract that.

And here...

reply to post by coughymachine

 

I have accused you of being a fraud - twice now. You have had the opportunity to humble me and force a retraction by simply substantiating a claim you made. Instead, you hop from foot to foot, trying to pretend you have an answer, when in fact, it appears you have no clue. Are you going to continue to duck and dive? Is this how septics behave when challenged to back-up their claims?

Show me how to prove, without photographic evidence, that the plane that hit WTC2 did not have a pod.

If you do, I will publicly apologise for insulting you.

to prove it.

On each occasion, I had to respond to your embarrassing attempts to evade the question, which to me is evidence of your inability to substantiate your claim.

Be big enough to say you erred in making such a claim, or address this question: how can you prove, without photographic evidence, that the plane that hit WTC2 did not have a pod?

Do so satisfactorily, and I'll apologise.

reply to post by ULTIMA1

I know short posts are generally shunned, but;

source?

i believe you but i would like to see with my own eyes.

thanks, JP

Originally posted by jprophet420
reply to post by seanm

 

Its sad to say but he's right. you dont post evidence 9 times out of 10, you simply make references to it.

I understand your need to deny the existence of evidence inconvenient to you. After all, there is no evidence whatesoever, there's just an "official story", right, JP?

None of you like it when I call you on it and ask you to refute the massive evidence against your claims. No wonder you get upset when I questions your unsupported claims.

Keep sticking you foot in your mouth.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Please give an example of a case where the FBI or any other agency published all evidence of an ongoing investigation.

Originally posted by coughymachine
reply to post by seanm

 

What I've described is you: someone who particpates in discussions simply to flame others. You accuse others of making claims they cannot support, yet you do the same.

Please demonstrate that you know how to determine if external tanks were on AA11 or not.

Anyone who has read our exchanges here or in the other thread can see that you are a complete fraud. Yet you continue to posture, like a flaccid penis who thinks he's a hard on.

Most rational people would know that claiming you need photographic evidence is absurd. That you are upset that I point it out is obvious.

I'm going to continue to expose you, all the time leaving myself open to the possibility I might be forced to issue a humbling apology if you can actually back up your argument.

All you are actually doing is demonstrating that you have no ability to distinguish facts and evidence from speculation.

So, again, you made the following claim:

reply to post by seanm

 

AA11 and UA175 did not have any tanks of any sort attached to them.

I asked you here...

reply to post by coughymachine

 

You have the evidence to back this claim up?

I'd be specifically interested in the photographic analysis that relates to Flight 11.

Here...

reply to post by coughymachine

 

Is this meant to embarass me into silence?

I don't know what I'd do. Now you tell me.

In the absence of any photographic evidence, please show how it's possible to prove that Flight 11 - or, perhaps more accurately, the plane that hit WTC2 - did not have a pod.

Here...

reply to post by coughymachine

 

I'm too lazy to play your games. Either explain how, in the absence of photographic material, you can prove that the plane that struck WTC2 did not have a pod or I'll just assume you cannot.

Here...

reply to post by coughymachine

 

If you had any way of showing how to prove whether or not the plane that hit WTC2 had pods, you'd have given it by now.

You're a fraud.

Force me to retract that.

And here...

reply to post by coughymachine

 

I have accused you of being a fraud - twice now. You have had the opportunity to humble me and force a retraction by simply substantiating a claim you made. Instead, you hop from foot to foot, trying to pretend you have an answer, when in fact, it appears you have no clue. Are you going to continue to duck and dive? Is this how septics behave when challenged to back-up their claims?

Show me how to prove, without photographic evidence, that the plane that hit WTC2 did not have a pod.

If you do, I will publicly apologise for insulting you.

to prove it.

On each occasion, I had to respond to your embarrassing attempts to evade the question, which to me is evidence of your inability to substantiate your claim.

I am not embarrassed to ask you repeatedly to engage in the exercise designed to help you think to tell us how you would go about determining whether AA11 had external tanks in the absence of photographs.

I can think of no better exercise to help you think through your problem.

reply to post by seanm


So, in sum, you have absolutely no idea how to substantiate your claim. And worse, to cover your inability to do so, you are trying to argue that I am somehow deficient.

It has become clear by reading your contributions to both this and other threads that you are unable to produce evidence to back up any of your claims.

Yet you strut around demanding it of others.

In my view, you devalue this board with your hypocrisy. Since you clearly have nothing worthwhile to contribute, I guess that was your sole purpose.

Originally posted by snoopy
Please give an example of a case where the FBI or any other agency published all evidence of an ongoing investigation.

Is it an ongoing investigation, its been 6 years? And i did not see a listing of the reports used in the trial. So why have they not been released.

How come i can find other crime scene reports on avivation crash scenes but nothing on 9/11 crime scenes?

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by ccaihc
1. How do you know that people are getting sick and dieing? You just answered your own question.

2. I don't know? I don't know how the FBI works, why does it matter if they took the cameras down after the fact, it's not like more planes flew into the pentagon after they took them down.

1. Because their were law suits filed before they were exempted from the EPA regs.

2. Why take the cameras unless they did not want them to be pointed were they were pointed?

Why have the FBI not released any photos or videos from the Pentagon or the nearby builidngs? They were not used in trial, so unless they have a national secrurity reason they should be released.

[edit on 21-10-2007 by ULTIMA1]

1. Yes, but you answered your own question. It wasn't kept secret. You know about it.

2. What the hell are they going to see? Stop stretching.

3. Because they think it's pointless? I don't know, ask the FBI.

Originally posted by ccaihc

1. Yes, but you answered your own question. It wasn't kept secret. You know about it.

2. What the hell are they going to see? Stop stretching.

3. Because they think it's pointless? I don't know, ask the FBI.

1. But what they do at area 51 is kept secret. We only know some of the effects caused by what they do.

2. I an not strecthing i am asking a good legal question.

3. Why would it be pointless to release the evidence of what happened that day? Unless it would incriminate them. I have FOIA request into the FBI.



[edit on 21-10-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by coughymachine
reply to post by seanm

 

So, in sum, you have absolutely no idea how to substantiate your claim. And worse, to cover your inability to do so, you are trying to argue that I am somehow deficient.

It has become clear by reading your contributions to both this and other threads that you are unable to produce evidence to back up any of your claims.

Yet you strut around demanding it of others.

In my view, you devalue this board with your hypocrisy. Since you clearly have nothing worthwhile to contribute, I guess that was your sole purpose.

You dissemble very badly, coughymachine.

I repeat: I am not embarrassed to ask you repeatedly to engage in the exercise designed to help you think to tell us how you would go about determining whether AA11 had external tanks in the absence of photographs.

I can think of no better exercise to help you think through your problem.

Quite obviously, the willingness and effort to think is something you avoid at all costs. Too bad for you. It's a good example of the nature of 9/11 denial, however, and why 9/11 Denial will end up in the dustbin of history with Holocaust Denial.

reply to post by seanm


You're becoming a bigger joke with each post.

This time you've even had to play the 'Holocaust denier' card.

It's a shame you've been allowed to continue to devalue this forum.

Back up your claims or stop pretending you have a clue.

Originally posted by coughymachine
reply to post by seanm

 

You're becoming a bigger joke with each post.

This time you've even had to play the 'Holocaust denier' card.

Denial is denial.

The fact that you have to entertain the notion that AA11 never existed as a regularly scheduled flight on 9/11 outs you as a 9/11 Denier.

reply to post by seanm


More lies - I've never made any claim about Flight 11.

You clearly have nothing to contribute. You seem to feel you can make claims without backing them up, yet challenge everyone else to support theirs. You're both a proven liar and a proven hypocrite.

I've given you the opportunity to waste my time and devalue this board. That is regrettable.

Unless you actually have something to contribute, we're done.

reply to post by snoopy


Absolutley. At any point in time that they feel the effort is not worth the danger the fire fighters. Risk alot to save alot...Risk a little to save a little. Risk nothing to save the unsavable.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Because the point is that the work there is not illegal. The mass murder of 3000 innocent civilians and police/fire is. That is why. NSA, not illegal. Manhatten project, not illegal and full of spys so also not that secret.

reply to post by jprophet420


But to release evidence in a ongoing criminal investigation prior to trial is wrong under our judicial system.

Edit to add:

Most aircraft crash sites are not criminal investigations. 99.99% are not due to criminal intent.

[edit on 23-10-2007 by six]

Originally posted by coughymachine
reply to post by seanm

 

More lies - I've never made any claim about Flight 11.

I have already addressed this at length here, so do not continue to accuse me of lying:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You cannot have your cake and eat it too, coughymachine.

Now you are in the position of having to address those implications. So let's start with the fundamental question:

Did AA11 exist as a regularly scheduled Boeing 757 flight on 9/11 or not?

If so, what happened to it? If not, what hit WTC 1?

reply to post by seanm


I haven't got to address anything, you LIAR.

You want to try to engineer me into denying an assertion I NEVER made so that you can avoid the embarrassment of having to back up a claim you DID make.

You've already shown us you're a liar and a hypocrite. Don't start making yourself look like a clown as well.

Originally posted by coughymachine
reply to post by seanm

 

I haven't got to address anything, you LIAR.

It is now clear to everyone your misrepresentation of what I have written, coughyman:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I would appreciate some intellectual honesty from you for a change.