Who thinks this Post should be on the Conspiracy Thread..and Why?

[KeepOurFreedoms]

http://houseofpolitics.com/forum/showthread.php?p=18941#post18941

[USMC the Almighty]

All discussions on 9/11 being an "inside job" are conspiracy theories. Whether or not you think it's true is irrelevant, it's still a conspiracy theory and it belongs in the appropriate forum.

And lastly, who cares? Don't you have some educational youtube videos about our government to watch?

[KeepOurFreedoms]

All discussions on 9/11 being an "inside job" are conspiracy theories. Whether or not you think it's true is irrelevant, it's still a conspiracy theory and it belongs in the appropriate forum.

And lastly, who cares? Don't you have some educational youtube videos about our government to watch?

YOU should care. This is someone involved telling it like it was. NO conspiracy is involved in his telling his own story. What is wrong with you???

[USMC the Almighty]

YOU should care. This is someone involved telling it like it was.

No, I mean why do you care about what forum it's in? I was just trying to keep things organized. We don't want 9/11 conspiracies infiltrating the real forums.

NO conspiracy is involved in his telling his own story. What is wrong with you???

Right, but he's talking about a conspiracy. That belongs in the conspiracy forum. Find something else to complain about.

[KeepOurFreedoms]

No, I mean why do you care about what forum it's in? I was just trying to keep things organized. We don't want 9/11 conspiracies infiltrating the real forums.



Right, but he's talking about a conspiracy. That belongs in the conspiracy forum. Find something else to complain about.

"the real forums" So you are trying to hide anything related to finding the truth out about 9/11. You're just a Bush Flunky.

[USMC the Almighty]

"the real forums" So you are trying to hide anything related to finding the truth out about 9/11.

Yes, the real forums. Where adults have conversations on actual issues. And I'm not trying to hide anything. I'm simply trying to keep the forum organized.

You're just a Bush Flunky.

Because I don't believe some fabricated theory that he placed explosives in the World Trade Centers? Bush and I don't see eye to eye on plenty of issues, but that doesn't mean I think he is responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

[KeepOurFreedoms]

Yes, the real forums. Where adults have conversations on actual issues. And I'm not trying to hide anything. I'm simply trying to keep the forum organized. Yeah Right!!!


Because I don't believe some fabricated theory that he placed explosives in the World Trade Centers? Bush and I don't see eye to eye on plenty of issues, but that doesn't mean I think he is responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

You think 4 planes were hijacked by guys with Box Cutters??? LOL You must really enjoy that theory of Bush and Company. And they just happened to find the Passports to the hijackers near Ground Zero, when nothing else survived the 3 buildings that fell into their own footprint at free fall speed. You are very gullible.

[Rokerijdude11]

All discussions on 9/11 being an "inside job" are conspiracy theories. Whether or not you think it's true is irrelevant, it's still a conspiracy theory and it belongs in the appropriate forum.

And lastly, who cares? Don't you have some educational youtube videos about our government to watch?

your obviously a biased worthless piece of trash. as you didnt bother to watch the video .we can tell this by your again "SIMPLISTIC" childish response.....

pro government Neal and Bob man here folks

[Rokerijdude11]

look at that

my Biased Moderator................has given me an infraction on this.............


he gave me 2 in one day....................his personal dislike of me has become apparent

and continues to force him to Biased moderations of me

I am fairly well convinced that USMC is the same as ADMIN too BTW for any interested

[9sublime]

Roker, admin and USMC are not the same person. Get over it. Not everyone makes multiple accounts.

Secondly, whilst I do not believe the official story about 9/11, it should still be in the conspiracy theory section because thats exactly what it is.

[Rokerijdude11]

Admin Himself said he had a regular account that he used to post, so no secret there?

This video was a ex-cop telling what he saw, and heard on that day...........as well as the sickness he has endured.......... yes he makes mention of the possibility of an inside job but it was in NO WAY the crux of his interview

so according to you anything 9-11 related is a conspiracy post? interesting

[USMC the Almighty]

Roker, if I were Admin, you would've been gone a long time ago.

[Rokerijdude11]

i was already banned remember?

[USMC the Almighty]

i was already banned remember?

But you kept making new usernames. If it were up to me (and 9sublime) -- you would be gone for good.

[KeepOurFreedoms]

i was already banned remember?

Isn't there freedom of speach here?

[Rokerijdude11]

no there is not

[Rokerijdude11]

But you kept making new usernames. If it were up to me (and 9sublime) -- you would be gone for good.

9 is a big boy he dosent need a worm like you speaking for him......you arent even qualified to hold his jockstrap in my book

[USMC the Almighty]

Isn't there freedom of speach here?

Yes there is.

[Rokerijdude11]

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahah

Not likely

[USMC the Almighty]

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahah

Not likely

Who's right to speak out has been infringed upon? And moving a thread from one forum to another doesn't count.

[TruthAboveAll]

USMC, thank you for bringing this issue to discussion. Since Roker and Keep... seem to question whether freedom of speech is honored here, I'm guessing they would also be outraged if they were arrested after crying "Fire!" in a packed theater.

Freedom of speech is only in effect where the government is concerned. I think it is fully reasonable to try to direct, or re-direct, specific threads to the appropriate category.

"Conspiracy" implies collusion, involving two or more persons; "Theory" is conjectural summary of a proposed explanation.

My heart goes out to the man, the subject of the video. (Yes, I did watch it.) He has real, tangible physical problems. He also has many emotional problems. Many of his "observations" about events on 9/11 were his personal assessments, based on his knowledge, perspective and beliefs.

This is not nearly sufficient as evidence. Put it this way. If you can imagine the nature of what he is saying, then juxtapose it into a one-on-one situation where a lawsuit was involved, no judge or jury would find on his behalf. The medical condition part? Definitely provable. The EPA's evaluation of air quality? That's iffy, but could possibly stand up. (Iffy, because this truly was an unprecedented event and there were factors even the EPA in their all-knowing, all-responsible position couldn't possibly qualify.)

Everything else, however, would be thrown out unless there were significant corroboration. So until the time that something definitive emerges as solid evidence, this is a subject that by definition must go to the Conspiracy Theory category. By definition, regardless what you, Roker, me... any of us believe.

[KeepOurFreedoms]

USMC, thank you for bringing this issue to discussion. Since Roker and Keep... seem to question whether freedom of speech is honored here, I'm guessing they would also be outraged if they were arrested after crying "Fire!" in a packed theater. After this comment I know I need not read anymore of your nonsense.
Freedom of speech is only in effect where the government is concerned. I think it is fully reasonable to try to direct, or re-direct, specific threads to the appropriate category.

"Conspiracy" implies collusion, involving two or more persons; "Theory" is conjectural summary of a proposed explanation.

My heart goes out to the man, the subject of the video. (Yes, I did watch it.) He has real, tangible physical problems. He also has many emotional problems. Many of his "observations" about events on 9/11 were his personal assessments, based on his knowledge, perspective and beliefs.

This is not nearly sufficient as evidence. Put it this way. If you can imagine the nature of what he is saying, then juxtapose it into a one-on-one situation where a lawsuit was involved, no judge or jury would find on his behalf. The medical condition part? Definitely provable. The EPA's evaluation of air quality? That's iffy, but could possibly stand up. (Iffy, because this truly was an unprecedented event and there were factors even the EPA in their all-knowing, all-responsible position couldn't possibly qualify.)

Everything else, however, would be thrown out unless there were significant corroboration. So until the time that something definitive emerges as solid evidence, this is a subject that by definition must go to the Conspiracy Theory category. By definition, regardless what you, Roker, me... any of us believe.

!!!!!

[USMC the Almighty]

this is a subject that by definition must go to the Conspiracy Theory category. By definition, regardless what you, Roker, me... any of us believe.

This is the bottom line. It does't matter what you may think about the validity of the 9/11 story, saying that it was orchestrated by anyone other than the Islamic terrorists is, by definition, a conspiracy theory.

[Rokerijdude11]

USMC, thank you for bringing this issue to discussion. Since Roker and Keep... seem to question whether freedom of speech is honored here, I'm guessing they would also be outraged if they were arrested after crying "Fire!" in a packed theater.


Roker replies;
freedom of speech is exactly that the "Freedom" to say Whatever.....you desire with "No Restrictions" ......anything,anything other than that is what can only be known as......... "Limited Freedom Of speech"............period.

There is no other discussion, as in its legal terms, and defenitions. anything that is "Limited", cannot be "Free", so to limit one from yelling "Fire" in a crowded theatre is ...."Technically, and legally "Limited Freedom of Speech"



Freedom of speech is only in effect where the government is concerned. I think it is fully reasonable to try to direct, or re-direct, specific threads to the appropriate category.

"Conspiracy" implies collusion, involving two or more persons; "Theory" is conjectural summary of a proposed explanation.

My heart goes out to the man, the subject of the video. (Yes, I did watch it.) He has real, tangible physical problems. He also has many emotional problems. Many of his "observations" about events on 9/11 were his personal assessments, based on his knowledge, perspective and beliefs.

This is not nearly sufficient as evidence.






Roker replies;

excuse me, but there is no place in this thread where i have claimed this video to be "evidence" of anything.In this thread, i have only discussed the reasoning behind labling the video, as a "conspiracy". The man is a police officer.......that has to give him some credability?.......
He simply was telling his story .And all i said,is that does not constitute a conspircay

as your defenition states, 2 are needed for the conspiracy.
So a single eyewitness account, cannot be defined as a conspiracy anyhow






Put it this way. If you can imagine the nature of what he is saying, then juxtapose it into a one-on-one situation where a lawsuit was involved, no judge or jury would find on his behalf. The medical condition part? Definitely provable. The EPA's evaluation of air quality? That's iffy, but could possibly stand up. (Iffy, because this truly was an unprecedented event and there were factors even the EPA in their all-knowing, all-responsible position couldn't possibly qualify.)

Everything else, however, would be thrown out unless there were significant corroboration. So until the time that something definitive emerges as solid evidence, this is a subject that by definition must go to the Conspiracy Theory category. By definition, regardless what you, Roker, me... any of us believe.

"Conspiracy" implies collusion, involving two or more persons; "Theory" is conjectural summary of a proposed explanation.


we have one man .....re-canting his experience on that day
this does not imply collusion...it dos not fit the defenition of a conspiracy

[ArmChair General]

Who's the decider when it comes to what is a 'conspiracy theory'?

[USMC the Almighty]

Who's the decider when it comes to what is a 'conspiracy theory'?

Merriam-Webster.

[Castle]

we have one man .....re-canting his experience on that day this does not imply collusion...it dos not fit the defenition of a conspiracy
Ahhh yes, one man making assertions that contradicts so many other accounts. Of course, those that require an alternate accounting of that day will cling to this if, for no other reason, to further their agenda. If you do not wish to be included in this group, I suggest you refrain from your petty personal attacks and focus on providing factual evidence that challenges popular belief.

I make no claims as to the validity of his experience but the facts remain. This is still a theory that does not support the facts as we know them. You are not prevented from stating your opinions on this subject.

A subject that currently belongs where it is.

-Castle

[Rokerijdude11]

Ahhh yes, one man making assertions that contradicts so many other accounts. Of course, those that require an alternate accounting of that day will cling to this if, for no other reason, to further their agenda. If you do not wish to be included in this group, I suggest you refrain from your petty personal attacks and focus on providing factual evidence that challenges popular belief.

i suggest you re-examine . Im not commenting on the validity of what the man is saying,or if what he says holds any truths or not. Nor am i attacking anyone .

I am commenting on the fact that a very large percentage of his video simply describes what happened to him that day and he related his experiences..

yes...he also eluded there may be more here than meets the eye . But i did not support that ,nor was i commenting on it etc. what we had was ONE man ...telling his story

that does NOT constitute a "Conspiracy" period............
all it is is a man saying his piece.there arent 2 people
there is no collusion........

I make no claims as to the validity of his experience but the facts remain. This is still a theory that does not support the facts as we know them. You are not prevented from stating your opinions on this subject.

A subject that currently belongs where it is.

-Castle
how does this mans story fall in the defenition of "conspiracy"

[Rokerijdude11]

Ahhh yes, one man making assertions that contradicts so many other accounts. Of course, those that require an alternate accounting of that day will cling to this if, for no other reason, to further their agenda. If you do not wish to be included in this group, I suggest you refrain from your petty personal attacks and focus on providing factual evidence that challenges popular belief.

i suggest you re-examine . Im not commenting on the validity of what the man is saying,or if what he says holds any truths or not. Nor am i attacking anyone .

I am commenting on the fact that a very large percentage of his video simply describes what happened to him that day and he related his experiences..

yes...he also eluded there may be more here than meets the eye . But i did not support that ,nor was i commenting on it etc. what we had was ONE man ...telling his story

that does NOT constitute a "Conspiracy" period............
all it is is a man saying his piece.there arent 2 people
there is no collusion........

I make no claims as to the validity of his experience but the facts remain. This is still a theory that does not support the facts as we know them. You are not prevented from stating your opinions on this subject.

A subject that currently belongs where it is.

-Castle
how does this mans story fall in the defenition of "conspiracy"


here is from USMC source

Main Entry: con·spir·a·cy
Pronunciation: k&n-'spir-&-sE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -cies
Etymology: Middle English conspiracie, from Latin conspirare
1 : the act of conspiring together
2 a : an agreement among conspirators b : a group of conspirators
synonym see PLOT

where does this mans re-canting of the days events fall into the above defenition?

[USMC the Almighty]

Jesus Christ, Roker. KOF clearly posted the video to support the position that 9/11 was an inside job (hence the title of the thread).

The definition of a conspiracy theory, according to Merriam-Webster is "a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators". Saying that 9/11 was perpetrated by the government fits this definition. End of story.

[Rokerijdude11]

Jesus Christ, Roker. KOF clearly posted the video to support the position that 9/11 was an inside job (hence the title of the thread).

The definition of a conspiracy theory, according to Merriam-Webster is "a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators". Saying that 9/11 was perpetrated by the government fits this definition. End of story.



First of all Mr USMC, it was Marilynj55 who posted the original video, and "Titled" it 9-11 inside job. ??

All that KOF did ,was come here to ask IF THIS POST should have been MOVED to the conspiracy section? Are you this incapable of following along?

She didn't post it for any such reason, as you have obviously mistaken,and then accused her of.

Secondly the above definition of conspiracy that i have Cited for you, is "DIRECTLY" from Merriam-Webster website?

Being there aren't two people, or more conspiring in this situation, your "counter" definition, of a the "TERM" "Conspiracy Theory" is NULL, as the conspiracy part of that has not been able to be established.

Fine mis-directive piece of work though,it will catch many who are, shall we say more naive than us off guard.


The definition of conspiracy hasn't been met PERIOD end of story.......your "definition of the "TERM" conspiracy theory is NULL

[KeepOurFreedoms]

Jesus Christ, Roker. KOF clearly posted the video to support the position that 9/11 was an inside job (hence the title of the thread).

The definition of a conspiracy theory, according to Merriam-Webster is "a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators". Saying that 9/11 was perpetrated by the government fits this definition. End of story.

You really are Mr. Goofy.

[TruthAboveAll]

First of all Mr USMC, it was Marilynj55 who posted the original video, and "Titled" it 9-11 inside job. ??

All that KOF did ,was come here to ask IF THIS POST should have been MOVED to the conspiracy section? Are you this incapable of following along?

She didn't post it for any such reason, as you have obviously mistaken,and then accused her of.

Secondly the above definition of conspiracy that i have Cited for you, is "DIRECTLY" from Merriam-Webster website?

Being there aren't two people, or more conspiring in this situation, your "counter" definition, of a the "TERM" "Conspiracy Theory" is NULL, as the conspiracy part of that has not been able to be established.

Fine mis-directive piece of work though,it will catch many who are, shall we say more naive than us off guard.


The definition of conspiracy hasn't been met PERIOD end of story.......your "definition of the "TERM" conspiracy theory is NULL

Roker, I understand where you're coming from, feeling that the NYPD officer's recounting of the events concerning him, from his perspective, is not a conspiracy theory because it's just his account with no indication of being in conclusion with anyone else.

The problem is that no, he's not a part of a conspiracy theory, but his claims and observations, assessments and conclusions are part of the general "9/11 Conspiracy Theories" category. With his presentation he is implying and at points accusing others as perpetuating the days events in a diabolical manner, that two or more were conspiring to have those events unfold.

No one is saying that he's part of a conspiracy. What is true, though, is that he's presenting, or alluding to, the theory part of the phrase. The phrase is actually two components from both ends of the issue.

Believe me, I'm in no way blindly supporting the government, from Congress, to the President, to the Supreme Court. If any type of solid evidence ever emerges that there was any type of American (PERIOD!) manipulation on 9/11 events, I'll be the first to light a torch and storm Washington. (Or wherever the American involvement could stem from...)

[TruthAboveAll]

You really are Mr. Goofy.

Oh, wow! How impressive.

[TruthAboveAll]

!!!!!

I guess your reply was actually where you interjected the 'After this I don't need to read any more' type statement.

Please, if you've evidence I'm incorrect, please provide it. With what you've provided so far, you might as well just stick your tongue out and go "PFFFTTT!" Giving raspberries has about as much meaning as anything else you've said.

[vyo476]

Here's a question, KOF and Roker: If not in Conspiracy Theories, where did the thread that was moved belong?

[Rokerijdude11]

The point being it was fine where it was posted. It was wrongly moved to conspiracy section in my opinion. The problem with it being in the conspiracy section is the automatic stigma thats attached due to the "Conspiracy" relation

I find his related illness far more interesting than his candid conspiracy statements i feel there is some importance in the video,and by moving it to conspiracy section many people will never give it a look due to the "Conspiracy" Stigma

[TruthAboveAll]

"Conspiracy" implies collusion, involving two or more persons; "Theory" is conjectural summary of a proposed explanation.


we have one man .....re-canting his experience on that day
this does not imply collusion...it dos not fit the defenition of a conspiracy

Roker replies;
freedom of speech is exactly that the "Freedom" to say Whatever.....you desire with "No Restrictions" ......anything,anything other than that is what can only be known as......... "Limited Freedom Of speech"............period.

There is no other discussion, as in its legal terms, and defenitions. anything that is "Limited", cannot be "Free", so to limit one from yelling "Fire" in a crowded theatre is ...."Technically, and legally "Limited Freedom of Speech"

You can interpret it how you want, I guess.

"Congress shall make no law respecting...or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Irresponsible, harmful and slanderous speech has never been covered by this. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote in the 1919 Supreme Court case Schenck vs U.S.: “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.” It was an oversimplification to some. It isn't the act of shouting "Fire" or even causing a panic. It is because the patrons of a theater enter it with an understanding that this is something that would be unacceptable to the owner, and that they have a reasonable expectation of not being disturbed by other patrons.

The owner also has a right to establish a different environment. A good example of this would be the rowdy, bawdy, even crude environment when a theater is showing "The Rocky Horror Picture Show." If someone goes into a theater showing that, plunking their bucks down and expecting to sit peacefully and watch a movie, they're sadly mistaken. Yet none of the rowdy patrons are violating their rights. Their expectations were unrealistic. Freedom of speech is actually grounded in private-property rights.

I don't have a problem with expecting responsibility to be exercised within the right. I don't have a problem with not allowing libel or slanderous speech or communication. I don't have a problem with limiting publication and distribution and criminalizing child pornography.

I also don't have a problem with a 9/11 victim to air their observations and views. And I don't have a problem with your right to argue the opposing positions. But I do have a problem with distortion of the facts, intentional or not.

If I need to be corrected, please feel free to do so. But please, even if you can't be civil about it, please have the decency to at least be factual.

[KeepOurFreedoms]

I guess your reply was actually where you interjected the 'After this I don't need to read any more' type statement.

Please, if you've evidence I'm incorrect, please provide it. With what you've provided so far, you might as well just stick your tongue out and go "PFFFTTT!" Giving raspberries has about as much meaning as anything else you've said.

You're wrong.

!!!!! was posted because at least 5 digits/numbers/letters are required per post after a quote.

[TruthAboveAll]

You're wrong.

!!!!! was posted because at least 5 digits/numbers/letters are required per post after a quote.

Oh. I stand corrected, then. I could have sworn you added the red After this comment I know I need not read anymore of your nonsense.
comment.

[Rokerijdude11]

Roker replies;
freedom of speech is exactly that the "Freedom" to say Whatever.....you desire with "No Restrictions" ......anything,anything other than that is what can only be known as......... "Limited Freedom Of speech"............period.

There is no other discussion, as in its legal terms, and defenitions. anything that is "Limited", cannot be "Free", so to limit one from yelling "Fire" in a crowded theatre is ...."Technically, and legally "Limited Freedom of Speech"

You can interpret it how you want, I guess.

"Congress shall make no law respecting...or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Irresponsible, harmful and slanderous speech has never been covered by this. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote in the 1919 Supreme Court case Schenck vs U.S.: “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.” It was an oversimplification to some. It isn't the act of shouting "Fire" or even causing a panic. It is because the patrons of a theater enter it with an understanding that this is something that would be unacceptable to the owner, and that they have a reasonable expectation of not being disturbed by other patrons.

The owner also has a right to establish a different environment. A good example of this would be the rowdy, bawdy, even crude environment when a theater is showing "The Rocky Horror Picture Show." If someone goes into a theater showing that, plunking their bucks down and expecting to sit peacefully and watch a movie, they're sadly mistaken. Yet none of the rowdy patrons are violating their rights. Their expectations were unrealistic. Freedom of speech is actually grounded in private-property rights.

I don't have a problem with expecting responsibility to be exercised within the right. I don't have a problem with not allowing libel or slanderous speech or communication. I don't have a problem with limiting publication and distribution and criminalizing child pornography.

I also don't have a problem with a 9/11 victim to air their observations and views. And I don't have a problem with your right to argue the opposing positions. But I do have a problem with distortion of the facts, intentional or not.

If I need to be corrected, please feel free to do so. But please, even if you can't be civil about it, please have the decency to at least be factual.

There is no other discussion, as in its legal terms, and defenitions. anything that is "Limited", cannot be "Free", so to limit one from yelling "Fire" in a crowded theatre is ...."Technically, and legally "Limited Freedom of Speech"

[heyjude]

It's a conspiricy theory. Doing your job.

[KeepOurFreedoms]

It's a conspiricy theory. Doing your job.

It is a man reporting what he experience first hand. He was there. Not a conspiracy theory. It is news.

[USMC the Almighty]

It is a man reporting what he experience first hand. He was there. Not a conspiracy theory. It is news.

But it's the content of what he is reporting that composes the conspiracy theory.

[KeepOurFreedoms]

But it's the content of what he is reporting that composes the conspiracy theory.

It is YOU calling it a conspiracy theory. He is telling facts that happened to him. Can you not see the difference?

[OPGhostdog]

This is the bottom line. It does't matter what you may think about the validity of the 9/11 story, saying that it was orchestrated by anyone other than the Islamic terrorists is, by definition, a conspiracy theory.

Also blaming the Islamic for terrorism, and really don't have proof
is slandering. The reason why its slandering is because you are
going by hear say, and you don't have physical proof. Most of
you is jumping the gun without proof, or because your lying ass
Government said so you believe it.

Regardless to whom the blame is pointing to until there's
proof that don't mean anything.

[USMC the Almighty]

It is YOU calling it a conspiracy theory. He is telling facts that happened to him. Can you not see the difference?

It is becoming increasingly clear that you are the thickest person on this entire forum.

A conspiracy theory, according to Merriam Webster (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/conspiracy%20theory) is "a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators".

Saying that 9/11 was an inside job and that the official story is "a farce" (as the person in your video asserts) fits this definition. You, Roker, Marilyn, your 9/11 'Truth' video are all putting forth a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances and that is that the government was behind, in one way or another, the 9/11 attacks.

Continuing with the definition, "as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators" -- a secret plot by the powerful groups, be it PNAC, Pentagon, Bush Administration, Military Industrial Complex...whatever you nutjobs feel like calling on any given day.

So do you now understand why any discussion on 9/11 conspiracy theories belongs in the conspiracy theory section?

Keep in mind, just because it's a conspiracy theory doesn't mean it is automatically wrong. There have been conspiracies over time that have been proven as true. That doesn't change the fact that it's still a conspiracy theory.

Frankly, I'm amazed that we're still even talking about this. Grow up. Find something worth while to talk about.

[USMC the Almighty]

Also blaming the Islamic for terrorism, and really don't have proof is slandering.

It's not slander when they confess to doing it.

The reason why its slandering is because you are going by hear say, and you don't have physical proof. Most of you is jumping the gun without proof, or because your lying ass Government said so you believe it.

There is so much physical proof that it really is stunning people even doubt that Muslim terrorists were behind it. A little anecdotal evidence that you won't find in your 9/11 "Truth" videos -- one of my friends from high school who was in the first team of Special Forces to enter Afghanistan told me about the first AQ training camp he saw. There were life-size planes, cock pits, simulators, the works. But he said the thing that convinced him were the hundreds of box-cutters everywhere.

[KeepOurFreedoms]

It is becoming increasingly clear that you are the thickest person on this entire forum.

A conspiracy theory, according to Merriam Webster (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/conspiracy%20theory) is "a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators".

Saying that 9/11 was an inside job and that the official story is "a farce" (as the person in your video asserts) fits this definition. You, Roker, Marilyn, your 9/11 'Truth' video are all putting forth a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances and that is that the government was behind, in one way or another, the 9/11 attacks.

Continuing with the definition, "as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators" -- a secret plot by the powerful groups, be it PNAC, Pentagon, Bush Administration, Military Industrial Complex...whatever you nutjobs feel like calling on any given day.

So do you now understand why any discussion on 9/11 conspiracy theories belongs in the conspiracy theory section?

Keep in mind, just because it's a conspiracy theory doesn't mean it is automatically wrong. There have been conspiracies over time that have been proven as true. That doesn't change the fact that it's still a conspiracy theory.

Frankly, I'm amazed that we're still even talking about this. Grow up. Find something worth while to talk about.

I should be shocked that you don't think 9/11 is important. Do you have any idea of how many people in the US and the world think the government was very heavily involved with 9/11? or Oklahoma City?

FYI
Yes 5 No 9

If you continue to insist on calling Truth Seekers nutjobs just because they don't agree with your way of thinking, I can only conclude that you are running scared.

[vyo476]

The point being it was fine where it was posted. It was wrongly moved to conspiracy section in my opinion. The problem with it being in the conspiracy section is the automatic stigma thats attached due to the "Conspiracy" relation

I find his related illness far more interesting than his candid conspiracy statements i feel there is some importance in the video,and by moving it to conspiracy section many people will never give it a look due to the "Conspiracy" Stigma

Just for the sake of my curiosity...which board was it on? Since you mentioned an illness I'd assume it was in Health, but you know what they say about assuming things.

[USMC the Almighty]

I should be shocked that you don't think 9/11 is important. Do you have any idea of how many people in the US and the world think the government was very heavily involved with 9/11? or Oklahoma City?

I never said that 9/11 wasn't important. I siad that getting into a 3 day argument over what forum it belongs in isn't important.

FYI
Yes 5 No 9

So? What does this prove? None of these people have been able to refute the flawless logic.

If you continue to insist on calling Truth Seekers nutjobs just because they don't agree with your way of thinking, I can only conclude that you are running scared.

They are nutjobs. I mean, it's one thing to say that the government bureaucracies failed miserably to prevent this attack and they should be criticized very heavily for this, but to honestly think that the government had anything to do with it defies all logic.

I'm not really interested in starting the my scientist vs. your scientist stuff, but anyone who steps back and assesses this objectively can clearly discern that there is no grand conspiracy involving the Bush Administration.

Here's a question: How is a president willing (and able) to bring down the World Trade Center, murdering nearly 3,000 Americans without inspiring a single whistle-blower or attracting a solitary eyewitness, somehow morally or logistically incapable of planting some exculpatory WMDs in Iraq?

Do you really think the Bush Administration is competent enough to pull this off and secretive enough to have it not leak?

[Coyote]

Truth Seekers????? :confused:

[KeepOurFreedoms]

http://www.911truthseekers.org/

http://www.care2.com/c2c/groups/disc.html?gpp=3595&pst=812781

[Rokerijdude11]

But it's the content of what he is reporting that composes the conspiracy theory.

the entire first part of the tape the man almost exclusively talks about the health concerns and issues he had relating to ground zero.....he also tells us of many who passed away due to the mystery illness


the main thrust of the interview WAS NOT 9-11 conspiracy related. you know it but wont relent because you somehow feel your validated

[Rokerijdude11]

It is becoming increasingly clear that you are the thickest person on this entire forum.

A conspiracy theory, according to Merriam Webster (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/conspiracy%20theory) is "a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators".

Saying that 9/11 was an inside job and that the official story is "a farce" (as the person in your video asserts) fits this definition. You, Roker, Marilyn, your 9/11 'Truth' video are all putting forth a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances and that is that the government was behind, in one way or another, the 9/11 attacks.

Continuing with the definition, "as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators" -- a secret plot by the powerful groups, be it PNAC, Pentagon, Bush Administration, Military Industrial Complex...whatever you nutjobs feel like calling on any given day.

So do you now understand why any discussion on 9/11 conspiracy theories belongs in the conspiracy theory section?

Keep in mind, just because it's a conspiracy theory doesn't mean it is automatically wrong. There have been conspiracies over time that have been proven as true. That doesn't change the fact that it's still a conspiracy theory.

Frankly, I'm amazed that we're still even talking about this. Grow up. Find something worth while to talk about.
note how you continue to bring up the defenition of "conspiracy theory" from merriam webster?


Also note how you COMPLETLY AVOIDED my direct responses to your ludicrous definitions....
there can be NO "CONSPIRACY THEORY" as the BURDEN of conspiracy has not been met

BTW i use merriam websters definition of conspiracy....... its all listed several posts ahead of this

you were UNABLE to counter my points instead, you ignored them and waited and tried your tack again.......

your really not as hot as id thought .......your rather ineffective actually


the more i actually watch and read what you post the more apparent it becomes.............

there is NO CONSPIRACY in this mans SINGULAR accounts of that day the BURDEN of conspiracy per merriam websters hasnt been met there fore your "conspiracy theory" defenitions as i stated much earlier in the thread are NULL and VOID

[Rokerijdude11]

First of all Mr USMC, it was Marilynj55 who posted the original video, and "Titled" it 9-11 inside job. ??

All that KOF did ,was come here to ask IF THIS POST should have been MOVED to the conspiracy section? Are you this incapable of following along?

She didn't post it for any such reason, as you have obviously mistaken,and then accused her of.

Secondly the above definition of conspiracy that i have Cited for you, is "DIRECTLY" from Merriam-Webster website?

Being there aren't two people, or more conspiring in this situation, your "counter" definition, of a the "TERM" "Conspiracy Theory" is NULL, as the conspiracy part of that has not been able to be established.

Fine mis-directive piece of work though,it will catch many who are, shall we say more naive than us off guard.


The definition of conspiracy hasn't been met PERIOD end of story.......your "definition of the "TERM" conspiracy theory is NULL

apparently you missed where i dismantled your theory

[Rokerijdude11]

You, Roker, Marilyn, your 9/11 'Truth' video are all putting forth a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances and that is that the government was behind, in one way or another, the 9/11 attacks.


Frankly, I'm amazed that we're still even talking about this. Grow up. Find something worth while to talk about.
How so Typical of you. As time goes on i begin to see this place more and more for what it is.First of all let me start with adressing the first comments youve made here.

I have not once commented on the contents of the video in the sense you are projecting upon myself ...you also are projecting this upon KOF as well....she clearly came here not supporting or "posting" the video as you so Erroneously eluded to earlier

she came here to ask WHY this video was placed in the conspircay section...neither her, or myself, were calling the video proof, truth, evidence, or anything else?

Myself i hadn't even discussed ANY of the specifics of the video? I was here discussing whether a mans re-canting, of 9-11 is automatically called "conspiracy".

I have never once colluded with any of the posters in this thread, to purport the video as a truth, and theory? I haven't stated what, any of what was said was even relevant? what i stated is ,the burden of "Conspiracy" per Merriam Websters dictionary, has not been met...

therefore what this man has said in the video, CANNOT be "Conspiracy Theory" he hasnt met the defintion of Conspiracy?...... The only other thing i stated was that i felt most of what the man was stating were his personal experiences and his opinions as a Police Officer at ground zero

you continue to project that the defnition of the "TERM" conspiracy Theory" is what is at stake.......that's incorrect, as the definition of "Conspiracy has never been met ....without the conspiracy its only a "Theory"

NO where in what i have sai have i purported this video to be ANYTHING least of which i have not colluded with anyone to try and Project that theory upon anyone

your misdirection is apparent and willfull many readers will not catch the Nuances in which you operate some will......
I wasnt "Putting forth" ANYTHING?

you sir on the other hand are putting Forth Non truths and misdirections....by implying that somehow i was? the only thing that i have steted is the obvious this was not conspiracy theory

this was a mans opinions and experiences being shared

Period ........

the burden of conspiracy has never been met

your crackpot idea that somehow this is a "Conspircay Theory " has been made NULL by the fact there was no collusion on the individuals part merly a re-canting of his experiences concerning the subject matter


funny you complain of how 3 days have been discussing this yet you continue to muddy the pool with your theory and projection? why is that? like a crak pipe you cant seem to put it down.....i wonder why?

[USMC the Almighty]

the entire first part of the tape the man almost exclusively talks about the health concerns and issues he had relating to ground zero.....he also tells us of many who passed away due to the mystery illness


the main thrust of the interview WAS NOT 9-11 conspiracy related. you know it but wont relent because you somehow feel your validated

Roker, the title of the video is "9/11 Truth: WTC First Responder on Says 9/11 was an Inside Job"

Are you really going to tell me that this video is not "9/11 conspiracy related"?

[USMC the Almighty]

note how you continue to bring up the defenition of "conspiracy theory" from merriam webster?

Is that a problem?


Also note how you COMPLETLY AVOIDED my direct responses to your ludicrous definitions....
there can be NO "CONSPIRACY THEORY" as the BURDEN of conspiracy has not been met

BTW i use merriam websters definition of conspiracy....... its all listed several posts ahead of this

you were UNABLE to counter my points instead, you ignored them and waited and tried your tack again.......

I'll get to it in a second.


there is NO CONSPIRACY in this mans SINGULAR accounts of that day the BURDEN of conspiracy per merriam websters hasnt been met there fore your "conspiracy theory" defenitions as i stated much earlier in the thread are NULL and VOID

What does this mean? Burden? The video and its accompanying theory fit the definition (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/conspiracy%20theory) word for word.

[USMC the Almighty]

How so Typical of you. As time goes on i begin to see this place more and more for what it is.

Which is what Roker? If you have such a big problem with "this place" then leave.

First of all let me start with adressing the first comments youve made here.

I have not once commented on the contents of the video in the sense you are projecting upon myself ...you also are projecting this upon KOF as well....she clearly came here not supporting or "posting" the video as you so Erroneously eluded to earlier

My deepest and sincerest apologies to all of those I offended. I admit that I was wrong and will never be able to live this down. Marilyn originally posted the video, not KOF.



she came here to ask WHY this video was placed in the conspircay section...neither her, or myself, were calling the video proof, truth, evidence, or anything else?

And I explained why it was placed in the conspiracy section: because it's a conspiracy.



Myself i hadn't even discussed ANY of the specifics of the video? I was here discussing whether a mans re-canting, of 9-11 is automatically called "conspiracy".

I have never once colluded with any of the posters in this thread, to purport the video as a truth, and theory? I haven't stated what, any of what was said was even relevant? what i stated is ,the burden of "Conspiracy" per Merriam Websters dictionary, has not been met...

Okay.



therefore what this man has said in the video, CANNOT be "Conspiracy Theory" he hasnt met the defintion of Conspiracy?

I don't think that a definition can describe an event any more precisely.

...... The only other thing i stated was that i felt most of what the man was stating were his personal experiences and his opinions as a Police Officer at ground zero

you continue to project that the defnition of the "TERM" conspiracy Theory" is what is at stake.......that's incorrect, as the definition of "Conspiracy has never been met ....without the conspiracy its only a "Theory"

So this is your thesis? Saying 9/11 was an inside job (as the title of the video proclaims) is only a "theory" but it cannot be called a "conspiracy theory" because there was no conspiracy?

Per Merriam Webster, a conspiracy is when people "join in a secret agreement to do an unlawful or wrongful act or an act which becomes unlawful as a result of the secret agreement". Consider the fact that for 9/11 to be an inside job (as the title of the video proclaims), it would require the help of demolition experts, the security firms guarding the World Trade Centre, Mayor Giuliani (who hastily disposed of the remains), much of the US air force, the Federal Aviation Administration and the North American Aerospace Defence Command, the relatives of the people "killed" in the plane crashes, the rest of the Pentagon's staff, the Los Alamos laboratories, the FBI, the CIA, and the investigators who picked through the rubble, I would say that this would meet the definition.



NO where in what i have sai have i purported this video to be ANYTHING least of which i have not colluded with anyone to try and Project that theory upon anyone

your misdirection is apparent and willfull many readers will not catch the Nuances in which you operate some will......
I wasnt "Putting forth" ANYTHING?

you sir on the other hand are putting Forth Non truths and misdirections....by implying that somehow i was? the only thing that i have steted is the obvious this was not conspiracy theory

this was a mans opinions and experiences being shared

Period ........

Okay.



the burden of conspiracy has never been met

Yes it has.



your crackpot idea that somehow this is a "Conspircay Theory " has been made NULL by the fact there was no collusion on the individuals part merly a re-canting of his experiences concerning the subject matter

No collusion of individuals? He's saying that 9/11 was an inside job. I just outlined above how many individuals it would've included if his theory was correct.

funny you complain of how 3 days have been discussing this yet you continue to muddy the pool with your theory and projection? why is that? like a crak pipe you cant seem to put it down.....i wonder why?

Why do I keep coming back? Simple, to defend my actions.

[USMC the Almighty]

First of all Mr USMC, it was Marilynj55 who posted the original video, and "Titled" it 9-11 inside job. ??

All that KOF did ,was come here to ask IF THIS POST should have been MOVED to the conspiracy section? Are you this incapable of following along?

She didn't post it for any such reason, as you have obviously mistaken,and then accused her of.

Secondly the above definition of conspiracy that i have Cited for you, is "DIRECTLY" from Merriam-Webster website?

Being there aren't two people, or more conspiring in this situation, your "counter" definition, of a the "TERM" "Conspiracy Theory" is NULL, as the conspiracy part of that has not been able to be established.

Fine mis-directive piece of work though,it will catch many who are, shall we say more naive than us off guard.


The definition of conspiracy hasn't been met PERIOD end of story.......your "definition of the "TERM" conspiracy theory is NULL

This is all addressed in my previous post.

[Rokerijdude11]

Roker, the title of the video is "9/11 Truth: WTC First Responder on Says 9/11 was an Inside Job"

Are you really going to tell me that this video is not "9/11 conspiracy related"?

just because the "Author" titled it something dosent make it automatically so.only in a simple world friend

[Rokerijdude11]

Which is what Roker? If you have such a big problem with "this place" then leave.



My deepest and sincerest apologies to all of those I offended. I admit that I was wrong and will never be able to live this down. Marilyn originally posted the video, not KOF.



And I explained why it was placed in the conspiracy section: because it's a conspiracy.



Okay.



I don't think that a definition can describe an event any more precisely.



So this is your thesis? Saying 9/11 was an inside job (as the title of the video proclaims) is only a "theory" but it cannot be called a "conspiracy theory" because there was no conspiracy?

Per Merriam Webster, a conspiracy is when people "join in a secret agreement to do an unlawful or wrongful act or an act which becomes unlawful as a result of the secret agreement". Consider the fact that for 9/11 to be an inside job (as the title of the video proclaims), it would require the help of demolition experts, the security firms guarding the World Trade Centre, Mayor Giuliani (who hastily disposed of the remains), much of the US air force, the Federal Aviation Administration and the North American Aerospace Defence Command, the relatives of the people "killed" in the plane crashes, the rest of the Pentagon's staff, the Los Alamos laboratories, the FBI, the CIA, and the investigators who picked through the rubble, I would say that this would meet the definition.



Okay.



Yes it has.



No collusion of individuals? He's saying that 9/11 was an inside job. I just outlined above how many individuals it would've included if his theory was correct.



Why do I keep coming back? Simple, to defend my actions.

thanks for illustrating for us how it is you misdirect
i have said what i needed to . your simply ridiculous

[Rokerijdude11]

This is all addressed in my previous post.

ha ha ha with all the effectivness of a 6th grade poster

[USMC the Almighty]

ha ha ha with all the effectivness of a 6th grade poster

Okay, make all the childish insults you want, you acknowledge that I have fully explained my reasoning and that it was fair and correct?

[KeepOurFreedoms]

Bottom Line!!!

Yes 5 35.71%
No 9 64.29%

Time to move the post back to the original place it was posted.

[Rokerijdude11]

Okay, make all the childish insults you want, you acknowledge that I have fully explained my reasoning and that it was fair and correct?
ohhhh I learned this behavior from you and Palerider,we cant call names now can we? so we all do this instead! Kettle meet pot..................
my how things change for you when the shoe is on your foot?


your reasoning as i have stated is completly Flawwed and totally inaccurate.It was far from fair at all .it was skewed as you continue to spew about the definition of the "TERM" "Conspiracy Theory" there is no conspiracy present no collusion or corroboration or plots therefore there can be no "Conspiracy Theory"

wht you have been saying and doing in this thread certainly will not ,can not be construed as "Fair" you present a skewed story and then try to support it with even more biased opinion and thats what we are to call fair


nice try like i said i have dismantled your theory and yet you cling to it like a sinking ship in a noreaster

your really out of your league pal

[Rokerijdude11]

Which is what Roker? If you have such a big problem with "this place" then leave.

Im here to spread the truth and to keep posters from falling into the "hole" that you have dug


And I explained why it was placed in the conspiracy section: because it's a conspiracy.


not according to mirriam webster?








I don't think that a definition can describe an event any more precisely.



So this is your thesis? Saying 9/11 was an inside job (as the title of the video proclaims) is only a "theory" but it cannot be called a "conspiracy theory" because there was no conspiracy?
No ....Nice twisting of the concept though all that said it was inside job was the title.......i have repeatedly explained to you that this was NOT the main thrust of the interview? your too ignorant to watch it all for yourself? i can title a post anything......it dosent mean that the post necessarily meets the title? only in your skewed world
Per Merriam Webster, a conspiracy is when people "join in a secret agreement to do an unlawful or wrongful act or an act which becomes unlawful as a result of the secret agreement".
NO ......This is INCORRECT ,quit misleading the readers ! what you keep referring to is the definition of the "TERM" ....."Conspracy Theory" You have NOT ONCE shown the defenition of "Conspiracy" from merriam webster? why is that? I know why....because i already have and it shows the glaring error you are using in your judgemnet and the misdirecting fashion in which you are posting

perhaps i need to re-post merriam websters definition of "Conspiracy" becuase you havent posted it once yet you keep referring to it as you have ? you lose dude

Consider the fact that for 9/11 to be an inside job (as the title of the video proclaims),



as i have stated the title dosent always match the contents of the post this has been shown true in this video yet you cling to this childish technicality........im starting to really wonder more about you as time goes on
your not nearly as brite as i had originally thought? interesting

it would require the help of demolition experts, the security firms guarding the World Trade Centre, Mayor Giuliani (who hastily disposed of the remains), much of the US air force, the Federal Aviation Administration and the North American Aerospace Defence Command, the relatives of the people "killed" in the plane crashes, the rest of the Pentagon's staff, the Los Alamos laboratories, the FBI, the CIA, and the investigators who picked through the rubble, I would say that this would meet the definition.
well funny the video isnt talking about any of that? thats your drivel dropped into the equation to muddy the pool.....and the other thing i keep telling you is that neither myself or KOF have EVER commented on the validity of the video ....or any of its aspects other than the fact its not conspiracy when someone relates a story of what happened to to themselves to you in a video..............


take up the title as a seperate issue it was a lable given to the thread the video does not spend even half of its time on conspiracy







Yes it has.

really? who is the ex-police officer colluding with? where is his accomplice, or accomplice's in the so called conspiracy? you have an ex-police officer, relating his experiences that day, he also offers his OPINIONS on things that hapened that day

where is the conspiracy?



No collusion of individuals? He's saying that 9/11 was an inside job. I just outlined above how many individuals it would've included if his theory was correct.


again ill ask you DIRECTLY .............
WHOM did the ex-police officer Collude with to form this "Conspiracy".........


Why do I keep coming back? Simple, to defend my actions.
well sir "IF" you were correct 100% .............there would be NO NEED to do such? your simply proliferating the argument because your immaturity wont let you put it down ......your Bias is shining through ike a light in a dark tunnel

[USMC the Almighty]

Bottom Line!!!

Yes 5 35.71%
No 9 64.29%

Time to move the post back to the original place it was posted.

No. I couldn't care less about this poll. If I really wanted to, I would just edit it my favor, but I have no interest.

Perhaps if the votes were public or everyone who voted no explained their flawed thinking, but so far no one has been able to refute my logic.

[USMC the Almighty]

First, Roker, I did provide the definition of "to conspire" in the very post that you quoted:

Per Merriam Webster, a conspiracy is when people "join in a secret agreement to do an unlawful or wrongful act or an act which becomes unlawful as a result of the secret agreement".

Aside from this, you didn't say anything other than the title of the video doesn't match up with its contents. All anyone has to do is watch 1 minute of the video to see that it's a conspiracy theory video put out by conspiracy theory nuts.

I've made my position perfectly clear and backed it up with the dictionary definition of "conspiracy theory" and "to conspire". I have no need to further explain myself.

[KeepOurFreedoms]

No. I couldn't care less about this poll. If I really wanted to, I would just edit it my favor, but I have no interest.

Perhaps if the votes were public or everyone who voted no explained their flawed thinking, but so far no one has been able to refute my logic.

At least 9 people on these boards think it is your thinking that is flawed. And now we know you might just cheat to get your way.

Of course we have refuted your logic, you just deny it.

[USMC the Almighty]

At least 9 people on these boards think it is your thinking that is flawed. And now we know you might just cheat to get your way.

Of course we have refuted your logic, you just deny it.

Who are those 9 people? If they all come forward and refute my logic, then I'd reconsider. And I'm not going to cheat to get my way, I just don't care enough.

[KeepOurFreedoms]

Who are those 9 people? If they all come forward and refute my logic, then I'd reconsider. And I'm not going to cheat to get my way, I just don't care enough.

I have no way of knowing which 9. I'm looking at what the poll says. Of course you care, you keep coming back.

How many people does it take for the refuting to take on you?

[USMC the Almighty]

How many people does it take for the refuting to take on you?

Only 1

[KeepOurFreedoms]

Only 1

Well, you've already had more than one.

[USMC the Almighty]

Well, you've already had more than one.

I haven't seen it.

[KeepOurFreedoms]

I haven't seen it.

I'm not surprised you said that.

[Rokerijdude11]

No. I couldn't care less about this poll. If I really wanted to, I would just edit it my favor, but I have no interest.

Perhaps if the votes were public or everyone who voted no explained their flawed thinking, but so far no one has been able to refute my logic.

Not only did I refute, it I shredded it.

[Rokerijdude11]

First, Roker, I did provide the definition of "to conspire" in the very post that you quoted:

Just exactly how thick are you? I didnt ask for the definition of "To Conspire" either? wtf is wrong with you and your demented need to twist whats been stated? your unbelievable buddy. and you had the gall to call another poster thick?

i provided the defenition of "Conspiracy" from the Merriam Webster" dictionary...where you on the other hand have now misdirected twice the first being....."Conspiracy Theory" and now the second attempt with "To Conspire"



CONSPIRACY simple definition you have failed to grasp again showing us your either, utter stupidity, or astonishing arrogance?you continue to go on as though you have won the debate point? your amusing friend your lame theory has been shredded give it up

Aside from this, you didn't say anything other than the title of the video doesn't match up with its contents. All anyone has to do is watch 1 minute of the video to see that it's a conspiracy theory video put out by conspiracy theory nuts.

yeah thats probably about what you watched wasnt it? 1 minute . conspiracy nuts? hardly....American Patriots ....absolutly.......aside from this i have completly handed you your AZZ

I've made my position perfectly clear and backed it up with the dictionary definition of "conspiracy theory" and "to conspire". I have no need to further explain myself.

neither of your "TERM" definitions are valid you see.Because the definition of "Conspiracy" was NEVER established ....you will continue to explain because you have to you havent won as you seem to percieve as a matter of fact you let ROKER hand you your AZZ in an open forum

egg on face dude

and btw.........one man relating his experiences on that day doesn't fit your
"to conspire", nor does it fit your" conspiracy theory ".......and it dosen't fit the definition of conspiracy either...........

its a man telling what he saw and giving his opinions on what he saw and heard period no conspiracy at all ........only the title suggests a conspiracy

step right up three tries for a dollar

are you this thick in real life too?

[USMC the Almighty]

It has become entirely clear that you are either too stupid or too stubborn to understand simple logic. You've made your point to everyone that you don't think a video about the 9/11 conspiracy doesn't belong in the conspiracy forum. I've made my point. It's done. If you have such a problem with my moderation, you are free to leave and never come back.

[Rokerijdude11]

....you will continue to explain, because you have to....... you haven't won, as you seem to percieve it.As a matter of fact you let ROKER hand you your AZZ in an open forum


step right up three tries for a dollar

are you this thick in real life too?

and here you are again
transparent arent we

[USMC the Almighty]

and here you are again
transparent arent we

Would you like me to explain once again?

[KeepOurFreedoms]

It has become entirely clear that you are either too stupid or too stubborn to understand simple logic. You've made your point to everyone that you don't think a video about the 9/11 conspiracy doesn't belong in the conspiracy forum. I've made my point. It's done. If you have such a problem with my moderation, you are free to leave and never come back.

You're still just being goofy, or maybe you are very young.

[Rokerijdude11]

You're still just being goofy, or maybe you are very young.

yeah the young thing is starting to shine like a beacon in the fog i think.

No please don't bore us again with you lame attempts at explaining yourself...

there is no need to embarrass yourself any further....although we all know you will continue to post like a puppy with a bone

[Coyote]

yeah the young thing is starting to shine like a beacon in the fog i think.

No please don't bore us again with you lame attempts at explaining yourself...

there is no need to embarrass yourself any further....although we all know you will continue to post like a puppy with a bone

A bone....someone has a bone?


And it's not mine?:eek:

[Dr House]

Maddox sez there's no 9/11 conspiracy, so it must be true.

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons

-Dr House :cool:

[vyo476]

Ah, the good old days.

This reminds me of just how much I don't miss KOF and Roker and how much I do miss USMC.