9/11 Truth!

[speedbump]

Yeah, because the current Christian president did an awesome job.

[hotzester]

Lemme guess. You dislike "the current Christian president" because:

1. He lied in order to start a war.
2. There were no WMDs.
3. He stole the election in 2000.
4. He's raising gas prices to line the pockets of his oil buddies.

Am I missing anything?

[kaboobie92]

you people and your conspiracy theories.. ridiculous. And to the people that think 9/11 is staged, why then would the terrorists have taken the blame for it, and evidence of the planning found?

[residentialevil]

I'm a conservative/libertarian type.

First of all....Bush is not a conservative. He never has been, he's always been a Moderate at best. No one has really said that but I fear that is coming. And I cringe every time the news and pundits call him one.

Second, overall I think Bush has been a poor President. Not Jimmy Carter bad but worse than Clinton and probalby even his father. And definitely worse than Reagan.

Third, if you think only Bush, Cheney, and their "buddies" could pull of 9/11 as an inside job, then I think you're quite frankly one of the most retarded people alive. For that to be an inside job, most of Congress and the Pentagon would have to be in on it. So first of all if you truly believe this, then stop JUST blaming Bush. Blame the entire United States Federal Government. That would make you sound just slightly more intelligent.

Now as to Iraq....Bush lied. Is that all you can say. There is PLENTY to criticize this Administration about how the war has gone, and you can do that without once going to the "BUSH LIED" routine. Do I think we went in a bit haphazardly? Yep, I think we made up our mind and in some cases saw what we wanted to, but remember we had intelligence reports that stated these things. So quit acting like Bush made stuff up.

And for the love of all that is holy, have the sense to realize that again, if you're going to blame leaders for this mess, you'd be a lot more intelligent if you didn't just pick out the ones you don't like. Blame ALL who voted to go to war and supported it. Hold them accountable and stop letting them off the hook because NOW they say "Oh yeah.....Bush LIED! I would haven't voted for it now!". That's so effing lame, and so lame that people let them get away with it.

[fistor!@#]

To think people still believe this is astonishing. I've argued and argued on other message boards about the lunacy of the 9/11 inside job theory so many times, my head is still spinning. I'd think anyone who still believes it now has either just seen Loose Change for the first time or is one of those people who completely refuses to see the obvious, even when it's put directly in front of their faces.

Bottom line, though, is that willingly beleiving this garbage is a personal insult to the 3,000 who died on 9/11, as well as their families. In my opinion, of course.

[speedbump]

Lemme guess. You dislike "the current Christian president" because:

1. He lied in order to start a war.
2. There were no WMDs.
3. He stole the election in 2000.
4. He's raising gas prices to line the pockets of his oil buddies.

Am I missing anything?

1 and 2 are the same, but yeah those two.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5403731/

[Biff]

1 and 2 are the same, but yeah those two.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5403731/

"[T]here was plenty of evidence that Saddam had nuclear weapons, by the way. That is not in dispute. There is plenty of evidence of that."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Nov. 7. 2005

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." S
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" Rep.
- Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weap ons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members .. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

[speedbump]

You didn't read the report did you? It came out June 5, 2008 and has 117 conclusions reached by the Senate's Committee on Intelligence.

"Conclusion 1. Most of the major key judgments in the Intelligence Community's October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), Iraq's Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction, either overstated, or were not supported by, the underlying intelligence reporting. A series of failures, particularly in analytic trade craft, led to the mischaracterization of the intelligence.(U) The major key judgments in the NIE, particularly that Iraq "is reconstituting its nuclear program," "has chemical and biological weapons," was developing an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) "probably intended to deliver biological warfare agents," and that "all key aspects - research & development (R&D), production, and weaponization - of Iraq's offensive biological weapons (BW) program are active and that most elements are larger and more advanced than they were before the Gulf War," either overstated, or were not supported by, the underlying intelligence reporting provided to the Committee. The assessments regarding Iraq's continued development of prohibited ballistic missiles were reasonable and did accurately describe the underlying intelligence.(U) The assessment that Iraq "is reconstituting its nuclear program" was not supported by the intelligence provided to the Committee. The intelligence reporting did show that Iraq was procuring dual-use equipment that had potential nuclear applications, but all of the equipment had conventional military or industrial applications. In addition, none of the intelligence reporting indicated that the equipment was being procured for suspect nuclear facilities. Intelligence reporting also showed that former Iraqi nuclear scientists continued to work at former nuclear facilities and organizations, but the reporting did not show that this cadre of nuclear personnel had recently been regrouped or enhanced as stated in the NIE, nor did it suggest that they were engaged in work related to a nuclear weapons program.(U) The statement in the key judgments of the NIE that "Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons" overstated both what was known and what intelligence analysts judged about Iraq's chemical and biological weapons holdings. The intelligence reporting did support the conclusion that chemical and biological weapons were within Iraq's technological capability, that Iraq was trying to procure dual-use materials that could have been used to produce these weapons, and that uncertainties existed about whether Iraq had fully destroyed its pre-Gulf War stocks of weapons and precursors. Iraq's efforts to deceive and evade United Nations weapons inspectors and its inability or unwillingness to fully account for pre-Gulf War chemical and biological weapons and precursors could have led analysts to the reasonable conclusion that Iraq may have retained those materials, but intelligence analysts did not have enough information to state with certainty that Iraq "has" these weapons.(BLACKED OUT) Similarly, the assessment that "all key aspects - R&D, production, and weaponization

[Biff]

You didn't read the report did you? It came out June 5, 2008 and has 117 conclusions reached by the Senate's Committee on Intelligence.

"[T]here was plenty of evidence that Saddam had nuclear weapons, by the way. That is not in dispute. There is plenty of evidence of that."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Nov. 7. 2005

[Wiener Poopie]

Lemme guess. You dislike "the current Christian president" because:

1. He lied in order to start a war.
2. There were no WMDs.
3. He stole the election in 2000.
4. He's raising gas prices to line the pockets of his oil buddies.

Am I missing anything?

You need to vote wienerpoopie for President



They are^^

[speedbump]

You didn't read the report did you? It came out June 5, 2008 and has 117 conclusions reached by the Senate's Committee on Intelligence.

"[T]here was plenty of evidence that Saddam had nuclear weapons, by the way. That is not in dispute. There is plenty of evidence of that."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Nov. 7. 2005

"Conclusion 24. In responding to a letter from Senator Carl Levin on behalf of the Intelligence Community in February 2003, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) should not have said that " BLACKED OUT of reporting suggest Iraq had attempted to acquire uranium from Niger," without indicating that State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) believed the reporting was based on forged documents, or that the CIA was reviewing the Niger reporting"

Look who was misinformed! Thanks for reading.

[Biff]

Hindsight. Thanks for reading.

[residentialevil]

And yet you still don't get the point that the ENTIRE CONGRESS is responsbile for this, not just Bush.

If you come back and tell me they were all lied to, then I say we have a Congress that is more dumbass that I originally thought, because they obviously didn't ask too many questions or try too hard to dispute anything.

[speedbump]

Hindsight. Thanks for reading.

I don't get it, is this an argument saying Carl Levin changed his mind and decided that there were no WMDs? It would be the best one you've made.

[speedbump]

And yet you still don't get the point that the ENTIRE CONGRESS is responsbile for this, not just Bush.

If you come back and tell me they were all lied to, then I say we have a Congress that is more dumbass that I originally thought, because they obviously didn't ask too many questions or try too hard to dispute anything.

What do you think this is, a third grade book report thrown together in a night? This committee started February 12, 2004. Yeah it's taken them a hella long time, but congress works slow. At least they did catch on.

[dasbow]

"Conclusion 24. In responding to a letter from Senator Carl Levin on behalf of the Intelligence Community in February 2003, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) should not have said that " BLACKED OUT of reporting suggest Iraq had attempted to acquire uranium from Niger," without indicating that State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) believed the reporting was based on forged documents, or that the CIA was reviewing the Niger reporting"

Look who was misinformed! Thanks for reading.

State Dept? You mean the guys that Liar Joe Wilson worked for? When reminded that we didn't possess the forged documents at the time he says he saw them, he said he 'may have been mistaken'.

In a July 2003 op-ed, Ambassador Wilson recounted his experiences and stated "I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat."[13] Although the president had cited "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa", British intelligence have failed to show any other source of information.

Wilson told The Washington Post anonymously in June 2003 that he had concluded that the intelligence about the Niger uranium was based on the forged documents because "the dates were wrong and the names were wrong." The relevant papers were not in CIA hands until eight months after Wilson made his trip. Wilson had to backtrack and said he may have "misspoken" on this.[14] The Senate intelligence committee, which examined pre-Iraq war intelligence, reported that Wilson "had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowcake_..._and_Plame

[Biff]

Hindsight. Thanks for reading.

I don't get it, is this an argument saying Carl Levin changed his mind and decided that there were no WMDs? It would be the best one you've made.

No, I'm saying that the standard, and misinformed, "go to" is to blame Bush for concocting reasons to go to war and lying to Congress but in the next breath the same people will call him an idiot.

He's either an idiot or a genius and folks like you amuse me to no end.

[speedbump]

I don't get it, is this an argument saying Carl Levin changed his mind and decided that there were no WMDs? It would be the best one you've made.

No, I'm saying that the standard, and misinformed, "go to" is to blame Bush for concocting reasons to go to war and lying to Congress but in the next breath the same people will call him an idiot.

He's either an idiot or a genius and folks like you amuse me to no end.

Did I ever call him an idiot? I think I just called him a bad president. You're great at generalizing me down to a specific group of people that you obviously hate. I know he went to Effing Yale, no one stupids gets in there.

[dasbow]

No, I'm saying that the standard, and misinformed, "go to" is to blame Bush for concocting reasons to go to war and lying to Congress but in the next breath the same people will call him an idiot.

He's either an idiot or a genius and folks like you amuse me to no end.

Did I ever call him an idiot? I think I just called him a bad president. You're great at generalizing me down to a specific group of people that you obviously hate. I know he went to effing Yale, no one stupids gets in there.

What he means is that there is a rather large coterie of individuals on the left who think President Bush is an idiot. The folks who called Karl Rove "Bush's brain", the people with bumperstickers that say "somewhere in Texas a village is missing its idiot', the people who photoshop George Bush to look like a chimp. You know the types. But it's funny that these same people all claim the 'Bush lied', and he 'duped Congress into going to war'. They think they're making a point, but it's not really helpful to say that your side didn't really look at evidence as they claimed, or they were snookered by a moron. So which is it? Did the senior Democrats on both the House and Senate Intelligence Committees look at the intelligence available (same stuff the President got) when they made all those statements? Are they lying now when they say the intel didn't support their vote in favor of war? Or did they get hornswoggled by someone they consider their intellectual inferior?

[speedbump]

Let's be clear here, I don't think Bush was the only one being the ringleader. One of the conclusions reached in the report is that Colin Powell's speech had a lot of assertions that weren't supported by the intelligence available.

I would rather not choose one of you painfully obvious straw mans.

[fistor!@#]

Let's be clear here, I don't think Bush was the only one being the ringleader. One of the conclusions reached in the report is that Colin Powell's speech had a lot of assertions that weren't supported by the intelligence available.

I would rather not choose one of you painfully obvious straw mans.

Do you believe the government was in on the plot, or that they knew of it beforehand and let it happen?

[fistor!@#]

Let's be clear here, I don't think Bush was the only one being the ringleader. One of the conclusions reached in the report is that Colin Powell's speech had a lot of assertions that weren't supported by the intelligence available.

I would rather not choose one of you painfully obvious straw mans.

Do you believe the government was in on the plot, or that they knew of it beforehand and let it happen?

I just read the entire thread. Sorry. You obviously don't believe the government staged 9/11. My question should've been directed to shaggy.

[plungerhand]

It's all about the money, people. Middle class societies don't work in the global picture. It's becoming all too clear who the "Haves" and "Have Nots" are in this country....100 points if you can guess which side we're on....

[beergeek]

I don't think Bush lied. I think there were weapons, they were moved before we got there. All agencies were reporting the same info. It wasn't just Bush saying that they had weapons. Hilary agreed with going to war as did many others. Ask that one guy who called in all but 6 in his regiment are dead. Was there something there?

Ah, look whos the crappy conspirist, you have no evidence that there were any weapons at all so don't be discouraged if I disregard everything else you say here.

Whereas the 9/11 truth movement, they are getting evidence and doing the experiments filtering theories so nothing rediculous gets through like the government who filter all the facts pointing to them including the physics of the buildings collapsing, covering up the truth.
But too bad, everyone will know the truth soon enough and the government can't do a damn thing about it, the media can ignore them, the government can wiretap us and throw us in jail for no reason but we will perservere and undo the corruption.

I ask that people stop bashing me cuz it'll only make it worse when you find that I and so many others are right.
But then again,l this is the FBHW forum, eh go ahead, the radio show kicks ass.

Your request has been denied.

Not only do I bash you for your stupid beliefs, I hereby bash you for being a crappy speller.

I am now waiting to know the truth you will soon be uncovering, and welcome the disdain of the so many others who are also right.

You are a douche bag.

Move to a country you think is better than this one, and issue these kinds of complaints against it, and see how far you get.

Actually, calling you a douche bag is an insult to douche bags.

You're really more like the little "S" curve in the sink drain that holds the contents of a douche bag, once the douche bag has been dumped into the drain.

[Biff]

I don't know that the tone of that last retort is the sort of discourse we've come to expect here.

[dasbow]

I don't know that the tone of that last retort is the sort of discourse we've come to expect here.

Yeah, that was way too civil.

[jaydethespaz]

What I want to know about 9-11 is why it went from being Osama Bin Laden to "POOF!" Now we gonna get Sadam. Granted, I'm glad we got the dooshbag but WHERE THE EFF IS BIN LADEN?!!!!

[hotsauce]

I would like everyone to know that they did find WMD's in Iraq. so Bush did not lie.


http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080706/D91O8E100.html

[fistor!@#]

I would like everyone to know that they did find WMD's in Iraq. so Bush did not lie.


http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080706/D91O8E100.html

Uranium is not a WMD.

ETA:

This material was found 15 years ago by UN inspectors and is now being shipped out because they finally got a buyer - Canada.

Here's an interesting article addressing those who would claim that the "discovery" of already-known non-weapons grade uranium means Bush was right about the existence of WMD in Iraq:

http://openleft.com/showDiary.do;jsessio...aryId=6791

[shaggytheclown17]

I would like everyone to know that they did find WMD's in Iraq. so Bush did not lie.


http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080706/D91O8E100.html

Haha, looks like your bullshit debunk theory was just debunked, you stupid idiot 8P

But wtf dude, uranium isn't a wmd, before bush knew that they abandoned their nuclear weapons program years ago, they've switched to the enriching uranium which "may" lead to nuclear weapons.

Meaning Bush lied and should be impeached and put on trial for war crimes, his stupid war was illigal.

Anyone who doesn't at least contemplate the fact that they were in on the 9/11 attack are cattle for the American slaughter house.

[fistor!@#]

I would like everyone to know that they did find WMD's in Iraq. so Bush did not lie.


http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080706/D91O8E100.html

Haha, looks like your bullshit debunk theory was just debunked, you stupid idiot 8P

Shaggy, do you believe there were bombs in the buildings?

[shaggytheclown17]

Yeah I think there is enough witnesses and evidence including residue and iron sphears found.

May be somthing else, but the fact is that those two planes couldn'tve brought the towers down that perfectly.

If you see the videos then you know if any damage was done to the towers it was done to the upper n near mid side, they would've fallen over damaging many buildings around them, not fallen in their own foundation causing very little or no damage.


That still doesn't explain why building 7 collapsed, no plane hit it, burning wrekage couldn't have possibly brought it down the same damn way.

[fistor!@#]

Yeah I think there is enough witnesses and evidence including residue and iron sphears found.

May be somthing else, but the fact is that those two planes couldn'tve brought the towers down that perfectly.

If you see the videos then you know if any damage was done to the towers it was done to the upper n near mid side, they would've fallen over damaging many buildings around them, not fallen in their own foundation causing very little or no damage.


That still doesn't explain why building 7 collapsed, no plane hit it, burning wrekage couldn't have possibly brought it down the same damn way.

Curious, how old are you? How did you first come to have these beliefs regarding 9/11?

[Wiener Poopie]

-30! WE HAVE A WINNER!

[shaggytheclown17]

Yeah I think there is enough witnesses and evidence including residue and iron sphears found.

May be somthing else, but the fact is that those two planes couldn'tve brought the towers down that perfectly.

If you see the videos then you know if any damage was done to the towers it was done to the upper n near mid side, they would've fallen over damaging many buildings around them, not fallen in their own foundation causing very little or no damage.


That still doesn't explain why building 7 collapsed, no plane hit it, burning wrekage couldn't have possibly brought it down the same damn way.

Curious, how old are you? How did you first come to have these beliefs regarding 9/11?


Eh, I'm 18 but nevermind, I'm tierd of dealing with pro Bush people, they can join the army and die with all the rest of those buttholes.

[Wiener Poopie]

Curious, how old are you? How did you first come to have these beliefs regarding 9/11?


Eh, I'm 18 but nevermind, I'm tierd of dealing with pro Bush people, they can join the army and die with all the rest of those buttholes.

-1 For being a anti-American bastard

And for the record I dislike Bush

[fistor!@#]

Curious, how old are you? How did you first come to have these beliefs regarding 9/11?


Eh, I'm 18 but nevermind, I'm tierd of dealing with pro Bush people, they can join the army and die with all the rest of those buttholes.

You seem a bit defensive. I've only asked you a couple questions.

If you don't want to talk about this, you probably should've not started the thread.

And I think you'll probably not be looked upon too fondly after calling our dead service men and women "buttholes".

You stay classy.

[speedbump]

Yeah I think there is enough witnesses and evidence including residue and iron sphears found.

May be somthing else, but the fact is that those two planes couldn'tve brought the towers down that perfectly.

If you see the videos then you know if any damage was done to the towers it was done to the upper n near mid side, they would've fallen over damaging many buildings around them, not fallen in their own foundation causing very little or no damage.


That still doesn't explain why building 7 collapsed, no plane hit it, burning wrekage couldn't have possibly brought it down the same damn way.

Why not? It was damaged on one side, which is clearly shown in pictures. The fires burned uncontrolled for 6 or 7 hours, and the building was only supported by 3 main trusses. Firefighters lift the building because it LOOKED like it was going to collapse, where they in on the "conspiracy" to?

[fistor!@#]

Yeah I think there is enough witnesses and evidence including residue and iron sphears found.

May be somthing else, but the fact is that those two planes couldn'tve brought the towers down that perfectly.

If you see the videos then you know if any damage was done to the towers it was done to the upper n near mid side, they would've fallen over damaging many buildings around them, not fallen in their own foundation causing very little or no damage.


That still doesn't explain why building 7 collapsed, no plane hit it, burning wrekage couldn't have possibly brought it down the same damn way.

Why not? It was damaged on one side, which is clearly shown in pictures. The fires burned uncontrolled for 6 or 7 hours, and the building was only supported by 3 main trusses. Firefighters lift the building because it LOOKED like it was going to collapse, where they in on the "conspiracy" to?

I think he's a bit too far gone to actually try to debate this with.

Hopefully he runs into a vet and has the balls to say what he said here.

[flyersfantn]

To the 9/11 troofers, all I have to say is this: