An attempted act of "TERRORISM"

1. I know its weird, but apparently he had explosive powder sewed into his underwear. Im not kidding. Something went wrong and all it did was burn him.

2. Attemping to blow up a plane isn't terrorism? What is?

don't question Alex Jones.

Why, is he related to MIKE JONES?!

MIKE JONES!!!!!

i didnt read this whole thread so sorry if i re-post anything.
ok so frist of all he was trying to blow the plane up and he was a terrorist. he used the same materials to create a bomb as the "shoe bomber".  but in this case he put the stuff in his underwear. (we have to now take our shoes off for security, what now? underwear? haha)  a back-up reason for him being a terrorist is that he got a one way ticket from amsterdam to detroit that was bought with cash and he had no luggage. When he attempted to light the bomb or whatever he burnt his testicles off, he was attacked by passengers when they realized what had happened.  what a dumbass. There are a lot more points and things to say about this but im not gonna talk anymore.
It sucks because now there are new rediculous rules that the FAA is making.  For example no carry-ons except for comp, cane, medication, etc. For me, i normally dont have enough room in my ski bag so i carry my boots on-board, i cant do that anymore.

So gay

It was a firecracker it was never going to blow up the plane

Loose change has it's flaws. I don't hold follow any specific "truth" movements. ho about instead of posting something like that. Post where jumister was right, post where I was wrong.

The problem is people like you can't look at things objectively. I don't care what you believe. There are plenty of people with differing ideas than me that I have no problem with. People like you never consider the other  possibilities. And if you do, you bring in your prior biases. Even if you belief something to be 100% bullshit you should look into it and try to prove it wrong/right. If nothing else it helps your argument and your understanding of both sides,

Calling me a moron without ever looking into anything I said is pretty common of the ignorant today.

Again your still die hard on talking about loose change or alex jones. The kind of people that mix facts with bs. Most of the "truth" movemtns have so many flaws. And that's probably why your writing off the plausibility of the official story not being fully truthful. All I said originally in the one thread was, there are enough holes in the official story to warrant an investigation, a second look. That never happened. There was no objective investigation. Weird things, and many coincidences.
Confiscating video evidence of any shots of the pentagon attack. The way building 7 fell, the failure of the report to even accurately describe how it fell. A plane crashes to the ground and there nothing but a hole and a some scraps. The first 3 steel structures to collapse from fire all on the same day in the same place. Magical fires that burned hot enough to melt steal. And the fire proofing all blew off. The fire was so intense that it somehow burned hot enough to melt steal, but an id can fly through the wreckage and to the ground. The one guy that couldn't fly a cessna. William Cooper. The fact that we have the biggest intelligence budget in the worl, osama was on our most wanted list, and we "couldn't" catch him. But some reporter and his camera crew had no trouble.

You make it sound like the official story makes complete sense, and there is all these coincidences plus the many more should easily be believed as truth.

Like I said I'm not loyal to any specific "truth" movements. Alex Jones is a complete asshole.

Omg, god it is hard to talk to someone so, so dumb! I can't believe how many times im just forced to straight up call you dumb, it makes me sound like an asshole.

I never said the full story makes sense. I just said all your "coincidences" can be fully, logically, debunked, and they are debunked. Pick up the Popular Mechanics debunking, the 9/11 comission report, basically any established piece of anything will have debunking. But you're probably too dumb to truly understand anything behind it. You hear the word "physics" and all of a sudden shit seems provocative to you.

You know nothing about intelligence. If you knew anything about anything, you'd know the CIA's capabilities were nearly wiped out by Senator Frank Church (D) and his democrat-majority committtee. They investigated too far into something you should never investigate in the first place, uncovered too many cans of worms, and left our country vulnerable and weak.

You actually believe that guy found Osama?????????


ok I;m gonna go ski so your idiocy doesnt rub off on me.

Hahahaha, like the cia pretty much has no power any more, yeah right. The time it took for 7 to collapse was listed wrong. They corrected it, but it still 100%.

As for our country being vulnerable and weak? Yeah, but no in the way your talking about.

As for you calling me dumb and all the other stuff you posted, you started dropping stuff right from the start. Which really did  of make you sound like an ass.

As for skiing I've been out 8+ hours a day all week. I just come home to see what you've posted to me, or what kind of lovely names your calling me.

one last post to close out the decade:

Go research the history of the CIA. The CIA from 1975-2001 was pretty much defunct, a mere institutional figurehead with Bush sr. steering the helm for a little bit. If you look at what the CIA was from its founding circa 1955 to 1975, they were some super legit doods, "allegedly" swinging some pretty shady stuff. In fact, JFK directed the CIA to deliver funds to the mafia to assassinate Castro. This is a fact uncovered during the committee hearings headed by Senator Frank Church (D-ID).

Because of the Church Committee, many programs (nearly all) were dismantled, and the CIA lost almost all of its capabilities after the Cold War ended. That was the reason we couldn't properly assassinate Osama bin Laden when we had the chance. In fact, we did have the technology at the time to kill him with predator drones.

In fact, the predator drone was developed specifically for the CIA, and not originally the USAF. When it was developed, RQ-1 it was called, it had munitions capabilities, but the CIA's covert operations were heavily restricted due to subsequent legislation from the church committee. Cofer Black, head of the CIA's counter-terrorism center had been a long time proponent of arming the predator drone.

Now, the infamous "we saw bin ladens face from a predator drone, why didnt we kill him???" question can be answered: At the time all of our predators were stationed in Pakistan for recon purposes only. Because of political pressure and Democratic congruency, no one allowed them to be armed. The CIA was restricted in covertly arming the predators while they were stationed on foreign soil.

Even in the winter of 2000-2001, Cofer Black suggested we arm the drones and kill specifically, Osama bin Laden. Finally under lame-duck president Clinton, the USAF was handed the predator drone for development in an attack role under the Big Safari program. But it was too late. Thank you Senator Frank Church. You are in part personally responsible for letting 9/11 happen.


Great I'm an ass. I'd rather be an ass from arrogance than ignorance.


Don't start a skiing comparison either. Don't start things youre bound to lose.

For your ending whatever jumister. God i wish this thread had just gotten deleted pages ago.

If you don't respond to him then it will just get buried along with the 900 Obama threads from this summer.


AH FUCK, now I am a hypocrite cause I am posting too... FFFFUUUUCCCKKKK!!!

if you create a thread, don't wish it to be deleted just because someone else knows more about the subject matter than you.

in fact, don't make blanket statements like "the country isnt vulnerable in the way [I, jumister] think it is" or implying things like "a self-proclaimed al-qaeda sympathizing nigerian on a declared mission in the name of allah and jihad, lighting a bomb on a packed commercial jet airliner, isn't an act of terrorism," if you're not prepared to back it up.

admit defeat, or continue on