9/11 was an inside job

[FatFreddy]

Here's an interesting theory about Barbara Olsen.
http://letsrollforums.com/barbara-olson-9-11-t20525.html?t=20525&highlight=barbara+olsen

Here's the inside job proof from post #711 again so it doesn't get buried.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...n-inside-job&p=3163723&viewfull=1#post3163723

 

[David C]

Here's an interesting theory about Barbara Olsen.

Linking to another forum? A really nutty one at that and a particularly moronic theory as well.

Here's the inside job proof from post #711 again so it doesn't get buried.

Pathetic - you just never stop spamming do you. You also seem unable to tell the difference between crap and more crap, it must really scramble your head.

Here's a link to my reply you ignored -

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...n-inside-job&p=3164347&viewfull=1#post3164347

 

[FatFreddy]

Here's a link to my reply you ignored -

The reply was nothing but handwaving.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handwaving
(excerpts)
--------------------------------------------
Handwaving is a pejorative label applied to the action of displaying the appearance of doing something, when actually doing little, or nothing. For example, it is applied to debate techniques that involve fallacies. It is also used in working situations where productive work is expected, but no work is actually accomplished. Handwaving can be an idiomatic term, and it can also be a literal descriptive term for the use of excessive body language gestures that are associated with a lack of productivity in communication or other effort.
The superlative expressions for the term, such as "vigorous handwaving" or "furious handwaving", are used to imply that the handwaver lacks confidence in the information being conveyed, and cannot actually convey the essence or core of his argument.
---------------------------------------------
Handwaving is also occasionally used in informal debate or discussion. If the opponent in a debate uses the term, it is meant as a shorthand way to accuse the proponent in the debate of having committed an informal fallacy. In this sense, it is also as if a participant is waving their hands as to discourage an insect that is flying around their head, so are they waving away questions.
---------------------------------------------

Let's see you actually address an argument or two.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...n-inside-job&p=3163723&viewfull=1#post3163723

 

[paddoboy]

Let's see you actually address an argument or two.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...n-inside-job&p=3163723&viewfull=1#post3163723

Is there an argument???
I don't think so...The overwhelmingly most obvious verdict is in.....That's it, pure and simple.
There will not be any more useless enquiries, about something that doesn't need one.... :shrug:

 

[billvon]

Here's an interesting theory about Barbara Olsen.

Here's a good take on the main problem with Truthers:
===========
On the morning of September 11th, 2011, New York City solemnly remembered the thousands of people who lost their lives in the al-Qaeda terrorist attacks of ten years ago. At the newly completed memorial where the Twin Towers once stood in Lower Manhattan, the names of the 2,977 people who died in the towers, the Pentagon, and on the hijacked airplanes were read by family members and friends. Their voices reverberated for blocks around the subdued streets of the financial district.

But two blocks from the Ground Zero memorial, opposite the peace-ribbon-covered railings of St. Paul’s Chapel at the corner of Broadway and Fulton Street, the victims’ names were drowned out by a general rabble punctuated by chants of “controlled demolition, 9-11” and “three buildings, two planes”. Here dozens of people were gathered wearing identical black t-shirts with the logo ‘9/11 was an inside job!’ and armed with placards, banners, fliers and DVDs to give to strangers. Many passers-by stopped to listen to the chants and rhetoric of the ‘Truthers’, to start conversations or arguments with them, or simply to take pictures and videos of the curious gathering with camera phones.

These street-rallies have become an annual occurrence, an uninvited guest accompanying the official 9/11 memorial events each year, distracting from the real grief and pain still felt by many New Yorkers. This year may have been their strongest showing yet. Many of the ‘Truthers’ had travelled from other parts of the U.S.; some had flown in from overseas just to be part of the demonstration. After ten years the 9/11 conspiracist movement is perhaps stronger than ever. Yet ten years of extensive investigations have not produced a single scrap of credible evidence to back up the conspiracist claims; no verified traces of explosives in either the Twin Towers or WTC 7, no evidence that Bin Laden or other members of al-Qaeda were employees of the C.I.A., no evidence of any member of the U.S. government conspiring to bring about the events which unfolded. By now we can be reasonably sure that the conspiracy theories are not true. Yet the theorists continue to make a lot of noise and garner popular support.

The conspiracist worldview paints the world in black and white terms – the valiant and righteous conspiracy theorists battling against the monolithic and psychotically evil conspiracy. But reality is shades of grey. While the U.S. government is probably not the perpetrator of an evil conspiracy, neither is it blameless. There were things that could and should have been done differently leading up to 9/11. We know, for instance, that the C.I.A. had intelligence that two of the hijackers were living in the U.S for months before the attacks. The F.B.I. would have had the authority to investigate the men if they knew of their presence on U.S. soil. One C.I.A. agent repeatedly emailed his superiors specifically requesting permission to pass this information on to the F.B.I. His emails went unanswered.

The problem was not conspiracy within the government, but incompetence. Endemic lack of inter-agency communication – failure to divulge information to those who most needed it – rendered everyone blind to the clear and present danger right in front of their eyes, and meant that essential actions which could have thwarted the plans were not taken. Mistakes were made, and by calling attention to them we may be able to prevent the same mistakes from being made in the future. However, according to those in the know, the network of U.S. intelligence and counter-terrorism agencies is now more complex and convoluted than ever, with ever-increasing levels of bureaucracy and redundancy. These real issues receive much less attention from the public than the conspiracy theories.

By painting over the grey areas of reality and making scapegoats of imagined conspirators, conspiracy theories distract attention from real and potentially rectifiable issues. We can’t combat a conspiracy which doesn’t exist, but we can force those in charge to learn from their mistakes.
==========================

 

[FatFreddy]

Here's some info...
http://911review.com/articles/anon/false_flag_perations.html

...that can be added to the other stuff.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...n-inside-job&p=3163723&viewfull=1#post3163723

 

[paddoboy]

Here's a good take on the main problem with Truthers:
===========

Well put billvon.

 

[James R]

FatFreddy:

If all you're going to do in your posts here is advertise another site by linking to it, you should probably leave. We have a policy against spam.

You are free to put your own arguments, but if you only want to cut and paste or link to 'Truther' sites then we will probably find that to be unacceptable in the long run.

 

[roscoe]

Here's an interesting theory about Barbara Olsen.
http://letsrollforums.com/barbara-olson-9-11-t20525.html?t=20525&highlight=barbara+olsen

Here's the inside job proof from post #711 again so it doesn't get buried.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...n-inside-job&p=3163723&viewfull=1#post3163723

Well we shouldn't detract from the FACT that Barbara Olson's so-called cellphone call is a PROVEN FAKE. Senator Ted Olson never received a call from his wife. In fact cellphone calls from high flying, fast moving aircraft are (or were) impossible in 2001. However in 2006 American Airlines announced that they had spent a lot of money setting up a system where cell calls could be made from their aircraft. Why would they have the need to spend all this money when according to the official 911 story it was done on Sept 11th 2001? Senator Ted Olson shut up about his wife's phone BOXCUTTER message when he was informed that UA644AA (Flight 77) was NEVER fitted with Airphones.

A Japanese TV station has tested whether calls can be made from fast moving, high flying aircraft and - IT CAN'T BE DONE. You get a problem called CELL CASCADING - They may connect for a brief period but it cannot hold onto the call and the connection is dropped after less than a second. Below 800 feet the calls may connect for longer.

You should listen to this.

Here's the Air Traffic conversation with United Airlines Flight 93

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apLc6izfNj0&feature=player_detailpage

You can hear the engine noise in the background. Even though the pilot is using a noise cancelling microphone.

Now listen to the AIRPHONE call made by flight attendant Ceecee Lyles. No noise cancelling microphone and in the cabin closer to the engines.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUrxsrTKHN4

NO AIRCRAFT BACKGROUND NOISE

SHE'S ON THE GROUND.

ACARS confirms that she was west of Pittsburgh when this call was made.

The ACARS system received an acknowledgement from the United 175 at Middleton PA (MDT RGS on the map below) 25 minutes AFTER it had supposedly crashed into the south Tower. Nowhere near New York City.

This from the RADES radar information released through a FOIA request showing that UA93 converged with another plane and was swapped (in fact they did a Doe-See-Doe). UA93 then may have landed at Cleveland. The drone then continued on showing UA93s transponder code.

This was to confuse the FAA and NEADS. The question is who has the call code GIANT KILLER who sent the two interceptor fighters from Langley out into the Atlantic (Whiskey 86) when they were heading for Washington and would have made it before the Pentagon explosion?

 

[roscoe]

Not as easy as idiotic conspiracy theories.



No, really there isn't. We already know the explanation, a plane hit the pentagon with 64 passengers on board.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_77



You said it. The mental gymnastics required by trufers to complete their impossible conspiracy is painful and always deceptive.



No it doesn't. It proves beyond a shadow of a doubt how gullible people like you are!



That could just as easily be done by allowing* 19 hijackers to do it, rather than the truly mental and ridiculously unfeasible suggestions by trufers.



* which I also don't believe

So do you actually have a point here? Or better still have some rebuttal information rather than just a jaundiced OPINION?

 

[roscoe]

Body parts and plane parts are plantable. There's an explanation for the body parts and passengers at the 44:00 time mark of this video.

9/11 - Painful Deceptions - (Full Length).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5wkyEDIxTk


This video proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that 9/11 was an inside job.

September 11 -- The New Pearl Harbor (FULL)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DOnAn_PX6M


This video does a good job of explaining the government's motives for planning and carrying out the 9/11 attacks.
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/new-american-century/

yes and I would also add.

http://www.tubechop.com/watch/2118943

And

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zc23nPsmP_Q

Confirmation of an underground explosion BEFORE the first plane struck the North Tower.

 

[roscoe]

Nobody commented on this either.

This is from a video from a so-called Al-QAEDA website (was traced to Texas before it was removed) that shows Ahmed Al Haznawi moving about in front of a screen saying how much he hates America etc etc etc etc bla bla bla.

ERM!

How did he get the picture of the Trade Center explosion before his friends crashed into it?

Same website

Abdulaziz al-Omari "martyred" himself onboard American 11. So we're told.

Isn't that a nice picture of the Pentagon under repair he's moving in front of. What a remarkable piece of premonition.

The site was removed before we could send the donkey ears to them.

Robert S. Mueller, III, Director, FBI, Commonwealth Club of California

The hijackers also left no paper trail. In our investigation, we have not uncovered a single piece of paper either here in the U.S. or in the treasure trove of information that has turned up in Afghanistan and elsewhere that mentioned any aspect of the September 11th plot. The hijackers had no computers, no laptops, no storage media of any kind. They used hundreds of different pay phones and cell phones, often with prepaid calling cards that are extremely difficult to trace. And they made sure that all the money sent to them to fund their attacks was wired in small amounts to avoid detection.

site: www.fbi.gov page: www.fbi.gov/pressrel/speeches/speech041902.htm

This link has now been removed - I wonder why?

 

[roscoe]

Agree. These people inhabit a pretty thick-walled cocoon, spun from their own stupidity and/or paranoia. Waste of time arguing with them.

Naturally we are thick walled. We have the truth on our side, you don't.

 

[roscoe]

roscoe,

A long while back in this thread, you posted a picture of the hole in the front of the Pentagon and asked where the plane was.

I told you that most of the plane was inside the building (or through it and out the other side). Bear in mind that this was a high-speed airline crash.

Just now, I browse through the thread and I see, many posts further on, that you are still asking "where's the plane?" about the same picture.

It's almost like you just won't consider any viewpoint that doesn't support your silly conspiracy theory. It's like such points go in one ear and out the other.

Here's an idea: go and dig up some images from where the plane/missile/whatever exited the Pentagon again. Do you have any of those?

Show me the plane not the Government narrative. Or don't you understand the phrase "911 was an inside job"?

Oh wait a minute let me guess, the plane was underneath all those weapons of mass destruction.

Please arrange the following into a well known phrase - UP COVER

 

[roscoe]

THE SEPT 11th STAND DOWN EXPLAINED

The airborne command center plane (shown below) did a Doe See Doe with plane heading in from the west showing the SQUAWK (transponder code) for American 77. The plane which, the story says, hit the Pentagon. The RADES data confirms this.

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1179198/9_11_white_plane_over_washington_dc/

British aeronautical engineer Joe Vialls claims that all 757 and 767 aircraft are equipped with computerized remote flight control systems for the purposes of rescuing the planes from attempted hijackings. If this were true, it would raise some very interesting questions. On the one hand, if the systems were used to control the aircraft and pilot them into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, then who was at the controls? How did they get access to the secret codes?

But on the other hand: if these systems were on the aircraft, and they were not compromised by some enemy trick of espionage, then why weren't they used on September 11 to save the four ill-fated flights?

Let me quote from Vialls, who posted in October 2001:

In the mid-seventies America faced a new and escalating crisis, with US commercial jets being hijacked for geopolitical purposes. Determined to gain the upper hand in this new form of aerial warfare, two American multinationals collaborated with the Defense Advanced Projects Agency (DARPA) on a project designed to facilitate the remote recovery of hijacked American aircraft. Brilliant both in concept and operation, “Home Run” [not its real code name] allowed specialist ground controllers to listen in to cockpit conversations on the target aircraft, then take absolute control of its computerized flight control system by remote means.
From that point onwards, regardless of the wishes of the hijackers or flight deck crew, the hijacked aircraft could be recovered and landed automatically at an airport of choice, with no more difficulty than flying a radio-controlled model plane. The engineers had no idea that almost thirty years after its initial design, Home Run’s top secret computer codes would be broken, and the system used to facilitate direct ground control of the four aircraft used in the high-profile attacks on New York and Washington on 11th September 2001.

From BOEING
Flight Deck

The 757-200 flight deck, designed for two-crewmember operation, pioneered the use of digital electronics and advanced displays. Those offer increased reliability and advanced features compared to older electro-mechanical instruments.

A fully integrated flight management computer system (FMCS) provides for automatic guidance and control of the 757-200 from immediately after takeoff to final approach and landing. Linking together digital processors controlling navigation, guidance and engine thrust, the flight management system ensures that the aircraft flies the most efficient route and flight profile for reduced fuel consumption, flight time and crew workload.

The precision of global positioning satellite system (GPS) navigation, automated air traffic control functions, and advanced guidance and communications features are now available as part of the new Future Air Navigation System (FANS) flight management computer.

[....]

Flight decks of the 757 and 767 are nearly identical and both aircraft have a common type-rating. Pilots qualified to fly one of the aircraft can fly any of the seven 757/767 family members with only minimal additional familiarization.

The operating system of an LRU, the OPS acts on data contained in the operation program configuration (OPC) files to define the function of the LRU. The OPS is typically the largest, most complex software associated with an LRU, both in the amount of information it contains and the time required to load the software. Obtaining certification for new versions of an OPS requires commensurate time and effort.

Operational program configuration (OPC).
This software is a specialized database that determines the LRU configuration and function by enabling or disabling optional features contained in the OPS. Configuration information is also supplied to many LRUs through hard-wired discretes (program pins). The large number of possible combinations of software and program-pin configurations complicates configuration management. Though an OPC will probably never completely replace program pins, Boeing has placed as much configuration information as possible in the OPC. The OPC is small compared to the OPS and typically requires less than one minute to load.

Database.
A database is a collection of data arranged for easy access and retrieval by the operating system of an LRU. Some of the databases used by software loadable LRUs are:

Flight management computer (FMC) navigation database (NDB)

From Boeing

Chicago Tribune article

But companies that have designed such systems for the military say it wouldn't be difficult to adapt the technology for commercial aircraft.

General Atomics Aeronautical Systems Inc. developed a remote-controlled reconnaissance plane for the Air Force called Predator, which flew in Bosnia during the conflict there. Used by the military since 1994, it can be landed by pilots linked by satellite using controls on the ground or ordering an onboard computer to do the job.

Tom Cassidy, president and CEO of the San Diego company, said he sent Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta a letter shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks.

"Such a system would not prevent a hijacker from causing mayhem on the aircraft or exploding a device and destroying the aircraft in flight," the letter said, "but it would prevent him from flying the aircraft into a building or populated areas."

Cassidy said Thursday that a pilot aboard a commercial airliner could turn the plane's guidance over to ground controllers at the press of a button, preventing a hijacker--or anyone else aboard--from flying the plane.

That system also would keep people on the ground from taking control of a plane away from the pilot, Cassidy said, because the pilot would first have to give up control.

Aircraft anywhere in the nation could be remotely controlled from just one or two locations using satellite links, Cassidy said. Those locations could be heavily fortified against terrorists.

"The technology is available," Cassidy said. "We use it every day."

In his interview with the German daily "Tagesspiegel" on January 13th, former German Secretary of Defence Andreas Von Buelow made the following statement:-
"There is also the theory of one British flight engineer: according to this, the steering of the planes was perhaps taken out of the pilots' hands, from outside. The Americans had developed a method in the 1970s, whereby they could rescue hijacked planes by intervening into the computer piloting [automatic pilot system]. This theory says, this technique was abused in this case..."
Not quite so much a theory as might first appear. When I released the above report about "Home Run" remote control in October 2001, I mentioned that one European flag carrier was aware of the technology, though at that precise point in time I thought it prudent not to name the actual airline:-
"As long ago as the early nineties, a major European flag carrier acquired the information and was seriously alarmed that one of its own aircraft might be "rescued" by the Americans without its authority. Accordingly, this flag carrier completely stripped the American flight control computers out of its entire fleet, and replaced them with a home grown version. These aircraft are now effectively impregnable to penetration by Home Run, but that is more than can be said for the American aircraft fleet..."
The European flag carrier which completely stripped the American flight computers out of its aircraft was Lufthansa, the German national airline. Bearing in mind his former posts as Secretary of Defence and Minister of Science and Technology, Herr Von Buelow would have known all about this mammoth but secretive task.
How very clever (and discreet) of Von Buelow to sort of "drop the information" into the middle of an interview about the 9/11 attacks!

AND NOW - SOME "FICTION" - AIRCRAFT TAKES OFF FROM BOSTON AND HEADS FOR THE WORLD TRADE CENTER BY REMOTE CONTROL- SHOWN MARCH 2001

The argument against this:

The 777 was Boeing's first true fly-by-wire design. The 757 and 767 apparently used a mechanical linkage with hydraulic power assist. Although the 757 and 767 are equipped with fully automatic flight controls, the pilot can always over-ride the automatic systems. Normally this is done by simply disabling the automatic systems, but in any event the mechanical linkage would always allow the pilot to wrestle control by applying sufficient force to the yoke. It would be like driving a car with a power steering pump failure.

This assumes the pilot is conscious and not disabled by gas in the aircraft air conditioning system.

 

[roscoe]

Loose Change Final Cut trailer

Includes the last Barry Jennings interview before he was murdered.

We will not drop the ball on this until we get a new inquiry

 

[GeoffP]

This thread has gone on long enough. It is nothing more than a vehicle to spread false information and wild supposition. It should be closed.

And, further, a note:

While I like to debate the events of 9/11 as much as anyone, it seems that each debate with each 9/11 conspiracy poster that appears at SF starts and ends the same way: with outrageous speculation. The events of 9/11 are well-supported and the conspiracies, again and again, do not wash. The 'normal' explanations are always more reasonable and better found, which results in each discussion degenerating into even more absurd 'conclusions' based on ridiculous assumptions/assertions/inferences. Maybe it's time that there was a general ban on 9/11 threads: it seems that no conspiracy poster can deal with the subject unemotionally.

Alternatively, though, here's an idea:

A formal debate for it.

Choose, among the lot of you, the very very 'Truthiest' 9/11 conspiracy poster from the site: make a Group, debate it endlessly, dial up the great Ziggurat on Mars and ask them what they think. Do as you like. Then, choose your David and send him forth to face: me. In open debate, we shall see if your god favours your impressions, or whether in fact rationality shall stand the day, in that great British tradition, whether you're British or not, according to SF debate regulations. It shall be like unto a dance-off but without a scrawny DJ with gold teeth.

Your spiritual opposition​

Then, once and for all, it might be said that 19 religious reactionaries armed with box cutters attacked the cockpits of four aircraft and took control of the planes to crash into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon (which actually happened), or whether Pentagon Zionists remote-controlled near misses, dropping nuclear-tipped/thermobaric cruise missiles into each of those buildings as they flew over them instead of hitting them, while using advanced space-based teleportation technology to remove the aircrew, passengers and terrorists (wait... not those, obviously), giving them facelifts and identity overhauls and releasing them all into the general populace with the name 'Mary'. That's why you see so many Marys around these days. Stands to reason!

The prize? Let's see... How about this? If you win, as judged by a panel of reasonable competents (taking firm note of those two words), I shall, theretofore and oncetoall, leave SciForums foreverdyever, may Myuu praise my holy bones.

And if I win... how about the assorted Excellencies of SF elevate me unto a Mod-hood? I suspect my candidacy would be opposed by a collection of freaks elements of the Modocracy, but surely such a noble action in the defense of non-Cthulianism should be sufficient vetting of my character and - more likely - my toleration? Surely it can be seen that I desire nothing more than unbridled power a chance at a fair shake for my fellow SF-ers? And by which I certainly do not mean giving them all a good hard shake. What greater service for SF - and incidentally mankind - could there be than hands-down refuting a scenario the facts of which have eluded a fourth of the American population?

And how could it be a losing bet for the Troofers? If I am beaten, I am silenced. If I win, I can only implement the rules as approved by SF and Staff. As my third cousins would assuredly have said: can't say fairer than that, now can I?

Come on, Troofers: Put your balls where your mouth is.

 

[Bells]

This thread has gone on long enough. It is nothing more than a vehicle to spread false information and wild supposition. It should be closed.

And, further, a note:

While I like to debate the events of 9/11 as much as anyone, it seems that each debate with each 9/11 conspiracy poster that appears at SF starts and ends the same way: with outrageous speculation. The events of 9/11 are well-supported and the conspiracies, again and again, do not wash. The 'normal' explanations are always more reasonable and better found, which results in each discussion degenerating into even more absurd 'conclusions' based on ridiculous assumptions/assertions/inferences. Maybe it's time that there was a general ban on 9/11 threads: it seems that no conspiracy poster can deal with the subject unemotionally.

But where else am I going to satisfy my need for red writing?

Alternatively, though, here's an idea:

A formal debate for it.

Choose, among the lot of you, the very very 'Truthiest' 9/11 conspiracy poster from the site: make a Group, debate it endlessly, dial up the great Ziggurat on Mars and ask them what they think. Do as you like. Then, choose your David and send him forth to face: me. In open debate, we shall see if your god favours your impressions, or whether in fact rationality shall stand the day, in that great British tradition, whether you're British or not, according to SF debate regulations. It shall be like unto a dance-off but without a scrawny DJ with gold teeth.

Grill instead?

Your spiritual opposition

Then, once and for all, it might be said that 19 religious reactionaries armed with box cutters attacked the cockpits of four aircraft and took control of the planes to crash into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon (which actually happened), or whether Pentagon Zionists remote-controlled near misses, dropping nuclear-tipped/thermobaric cruise missiles into each of those buildings as they flew over them instead of hitting them, while using advanced space-based teleportation technology to remove the aircrew, passengers and terrorists (wait... not those, obviously), giving them facelifts and identity overhauls and releasing them all into the general populace with the name 'Mary'. That's why you see so many Marys around these days. Stands to reason!

The problem with reality is that sometimes people like to live in the realm of fantasy.

The prize? Let's see... How about this? If you win, as judged by a panel of reasonable competents (taking firm note of those two words), I shall, theretofore and oncetoall, leave SciForums foreverdyever, may Myuu praise my holy bones.

Wow, for a brief second there, I considered driving a nail deep into my mid brain and hoping the Truther's win.. It has come to this.:bawl:

And if I win... how about the assorted Excellencies of SF elevate me unto a Mod-hood? I suspect my candidacy would be opposed by a collection of freaks elements of the Modocracy, but surely such a noble action in the defense of non-Cthulianism should be sufficient vetting of my character and - more likely - my toleration? Surely it can be seen that I desire nothing more than unbridled power a chance at a fair shake for my fellow SF-ers? And by which I certainly do not mean giving them all a good hard shake. What greater service for SF - and incidentally mankind - could there be than hands-down refuting a scenario the facts of which have eluded a fourth of the American population?

Well, you're hardly going to get my vote after that!

And how could it be a losing bet for the Troofers? If I am beaten, I am silenced. If I win, I can only implement the rules as approved by SF and Staff. As my third cousins would assuredly have said: can't say fairer than that, now can I?

Only works if it is Irish.

Come on, Troofers: Put your balls where your mouth is.

Considering this is the internet after all, and this is a forum and the conspiracy forum (insert my going oooooooooooooooh here), I don't think any of them would be fit enough to even try that...

 

[Grumpy]

GeoffP

Come on, Troofers: Put your balls where your mouth is.

Er...but that's where they already are, the only part of their heads that AREN'T firmly shoved up their own asses is their mouth. Now apply geometry and you'll see what I mean. (disclaimer: I guess that there are female Troothers, though I have personally never met one. They seem to be mostly male, 25-35 years of age, virgin and living in their mom's basement. But the previous sentence would not apply for the female of the species, though I should probably avoid further exploration of this line of thought. No offense intended towards females in general).

And why should you get all the fun? I would love to have one of these dweebs pinned down and unable to escape the cudgel of truth being liberally applied up side the head(well in the general buttocks region in their case):spank:. And absolutely no argument by website address or youtube video(unless you embed and not more than a few minutes long). A statement from a website should be quoted(and will be treated as if you yourself said it)and the web address given, but single or multiple site addresses full of woo are an automatic white flag of surrender. Aw...who am I kidding, none of those guys will put themselves in a position where they have to face undistorted evidence. All of that evidence is "planted" by the millions of minions of the hidden conspiracy to hide the fact that they are lizards from the planet Zircon..........

Terminal Stupidity, one of Evolution's most useful tools.

Grumpy

 

[GeoffP]

Not for our bloody species it isn't.

And he who bringeth the nails, pinneth the jello, sir.