And you know this how? Did Atta tell you about it? Were you buddies with Osama? Or are you once again making (*)(*)(*)(*) up to try and win a point even if you have to lie your ass off to make it? I am going with the last option. The luggage would have been in the hold and destroyed with the rest of the plane, but not available for reference. Your claims make absolutely no sense. I am betting even your fellow truthers are reading your crap going WTF is he THINKING! You've failed in every way possible in showing why it is absurd. Better luck next time.
The bags have to get checked.....being of ME descent they would know they have a good chance at extra security. Maybe you are too freaking slow to realize my points and I have plenty of sympathy but not a lot of patience. I guess you don't think a security check would raise eyebrows if passengers are seen with airline uniforms in their bags? You are a HUGE waste of time on this subject.......and you never had the balls to back up the claim they were all part of al qaeda...
Bull(*)(*)(*)(*). That is racial profiling and against the rules. Also, prior to 9/11 it wasn't all that big of a concern. So where is your evidence that prior to 9/11 anyone of Middle Eastern descent automatically gets flagged to have their checked baggage checked? Oh, I get your points. I also understand just how retarded they are. Even assuming the bag was checked, what in there was illegal? Are Arabic documents illegal? Uniforms? Funny, but I am pretty sure they look for things like bombs. Again, why would it? Is it illegal to have airline uniforms? Plus it is in their CHECKED LUGGAGE! How exactly are they suppose to get down into the hold, find their luggage, get the uniforms out, change into the uniforms and then..... do what again? Who do they need to fool? Oh, I backed it up. I gave you the 9/11 commission report which details every hijacker and how they were linked to Al Qaeda. Constantly lying about it only proves your extreme dishonesty and your willingness to lie your ass off no matter how bad it makes you look. Do you deny I linked you the 9/11 commission report? Do you deny the 9/11 commission report details evidence the hijackers were members of Al Qaeda? Feel free to answer truthfully and make a fool of yourself or lie your ass off yet again and make an even bigger fool out of yourself.
Run away little man. You failed yet again. You can't even correctly construct a sentence as shown by your post. It isn't my fault you make tons of ASSumptions you can't back up. OK, it IS my fault that I point them out and expose your dishonesty and the fact you have to lie in order to try and make a point, but I am not apologetic about that. So tell us again how you know exactly what Atta had memorized and what he didn't.
Keep on trying to defend the OCT. It only helps show why it isn't accurate. From all Truthers, thank you for showing how ridiculous one has to be to defend it. Are you ever going to show all hijackers were in al qaeda? I'm guessing you will keep dodging......
I didn't say everyone of ME descent automatically received extra security checks. But keep being dishonest.....it is what you do best. Your posts show you really are too slow to comprehend buy out of charity I will try one last time to try and help you understand. It is absurd to think Atta would carry any bags to the airport containing airline uniforms and information about the attacks and the other hijackers. It's obvious you are so agenda driven you are blind to basics and need to resort to constantly putting words in others' mouths. Your posts are a complete joke on the issue and reveal an embarrassing level of ignorance.
Did you or did you not say the bags HAVE to be checked? There is no wiggle room there. If they HAVE to be checked and the reason is they are of ME descent, then that does to mean everyone of ME descent automatically received extra security checks. It may not be what you meant, but it is what you wrote. I got it the first couple times you said it and then fell flat on your face when confronted by the facts. What risk was there? THE INFORMATION WAS IN ARABIC! And what security checker is going to go through notes to see if there is anything in there about hijackings even if he COULD read Arabic. As for uniforms, I've already explained that. You could not respond to it in any way, shape or form. You repeating your bull(*)(*)(*)(*) without addressing the refutation of your claim only shows you have nothing. Speaking of blind, why is it you don't address the flaws in your bull(*)(*)(*)(*)? I can't be the only one to notice you run whenever you see something you can't back up or explain.
How is asking you to back up your bull(*)(*)(*)(*) claims defending the OCT? I am asking YOU to defend your own claims. You can't, so like the little monkeys threatened at the zoo, you fling crap and hope nobody notices your failures and inadequacies. Do you deny I linked you the 9/11 commission report? Do you deny the 9/11 commission report details evidence the hijackers were members of Al Qaeda? I see you decided to lie your ass off and make a bigger fool out of yourself. Truthers are so predictable.
Keep running or answer the questions. Either way looks bad for you. First rule when you find yourself in a hole is stop digging!
I knew you couldn't prove they were all in alqaeda. Like I said, keep trying to defend the OCT. You are Truthers' best friend!!!!!
Do you deny I linked you the 9/11 commission report? Do you deny the 9/11 commission report details evidence the hijackers were members of Al Qaeda?
Keep dodging from proving they were all in alqaeda. Like I said, you are a great ally in the Truther movement. Thanks again!!
Do you deny I linked you the 9/11 commission report? Do you deny the 9/11 commission report details evidence the hijackers were members of Al Qaeda? You can keep running all you want. Everyone is seeing just how dishonest you are. It's GREAT! Two simple little questions you can't answer because it exposes you as a liar.
This is what annoys about these discussions at this point. Patriot911 linked to the 9/11 Commission Report which details evidence the hijackers were members of Al Qaeda. SkyStryker does not deny it nor can he apparently refute it. If he could he would have done so already. Instead, he demands that Patriot911, an anonymous Internet poster and private citizen, prove with evidence separate from the evidence in the 9/11 Report, that "they were all in al qaeda". Can Patriot911 do that? Most likely not. Why? Because he is an anonymous Internet poster and private citizen and wouldn't have access to any evidence outside of that already given in the 9/11 Commission Report. SkyStryker knows this and thinks he really has Patriot911 in a tight spot now. What does it prove? Well, what it REALLY proves is that SkyStryer has NOTHING and is grasping at straws and pretending that he scored some monumental victory because he has challenged someone to prove something akin to proving how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. I'm beginning to think that the Democratic Underground forum (or whatever it's called) had the correct idea in not allowing discussion of 9/11. It is pretty much settled history at this point and discussions about it are a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing waste of time.
The 9/11 Report does not contain all known information thus making it useless as a one stop shop evidence store. I want you or whoever to cite the evidence used by the Commission to support the claim all hijackers were in al qaeda. Simply linking the report is a major dodge so if you can't show all hijackers were in al qaeda then stop whining. People who call it "settled history" are ignorant or dishonest.
Quote honestly or not at all. If you can't show how all hijackers were in al qaeda then you should simply admit it instead of pathetic distractions.
People who clip quotes to the extent that the meaning is changed are dishonest. As I recall you got pretty upset with Fangbeer when he did not quote you completely even though what he DID quote did not change the meaning of what you said. Actually what I said was Nothing new has been offered in the last 10 years that would significantly change that. I'm not whining. Just observing how the truthers like to zone in on one MINUTE detail then act as if they have blown the conspiracy wide open because someone can't prove to their satisfaction that there are indeed 2 scoops of raisins in Kellogg's Raisin Bran.
Now that's ironic. Sorry, I should have left the quote out before my question. So, why DO you hide your online status? I'm curious.
If you think nothing new has been learned in ten years then you really have no business even attempting to comment on the issue. Since you jumped in on the issue of proving all hijackers were in al qaeda you should show they were or stop whining.
Bull(*)(*)(*)(*) and irrelevant. You don't ignore the evidence just because it might not contain all known evidence. That is a completely retarded position to take. I realize that is the only position you are comfortable with, but that is still no excuse. All the links are there. If you ever got off your lazy ass and looked you would know that. What do you call ignorant and dishonest people who pretend they know the truth even though there is no evidence to back up their "truth" and they have to ignore tons of evidence that directly refutes their "truths"? We call them truthers.
Why should anyone try to prove anything to you anymore? You've been shown the evidence and instead of refuting it or discussing it, you act like a two year old and pretend nothing has been presented. So far your two tactics are: Pretend nobody has presented evidence Pretend that since not every single last scrap of evidence is presented, that it is all worthless. There is only one worthless thing here. We all know who he is. Even you know if you were to be honest about it.
