Page 4 of 5

Re: Legal quandry, or maybe not

Posted: Sat Jun 06, 2015 9:30 pm
by Moving Sale
The stand down at Otis. Your turn.

Re: Legal quandry, or maybe not

Posted: Sat Jun 06, 2015 9:44 pm
by R-Jack
Moving Sale wrote:The evidience is that it was not reckless cause it worked on millions of tards like yourself. That's a FACT.
Stop getting hysterical. You're missing the point. You keep focusing on the result. I'm trying to make sense of the moment and the road it took to get there.

Out of the WTC and Petagon inside jobs.....which one was planned and performed better?

Re: Legal quandry, or maybe not

Posted: Sat Jun 06, 2015 10:58 pm
by R-Jack
MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:Oh, and I'm pretty sure they used Dots not Twizzlers. Try picking those things out of your teeth. Indestructible.


Image
Stop going hysterical. Dots? Pull your head out of your ass. It's clearly Twizzlers.

The only way they could've brought down WTC7 with Dots support is if the Necro wafer foundation cracked.......which I guess is possible.

Re: Legal quandry, or maybe not

Posted: Sat Jun 06, 2015 11:48 pm
by Moving Sale
R-Jack wrote:
Moving Sale wrote:The evidience is that it was not reckless cause it worked on millions of tards like yourself. That's a FACT.
Stop getting hysterical. You're missing the point. You keep focusing on the result. I'm trying to make sense of the moment and the road it took to get there.

Out of the WTC and Petagon inside jobs.....which one was planned and performed better?
Again nice white flag on the WTC7 issue nancy. BushCo knew there were millions of stupid tards on 9-10-2001 you freaking moron. The result is just proof you have millions of stupid companions.

Re: Legal quandry, or maybe not

Posted: Sun Jun 07, 2015 7:52 am
by LTS TRN 2
R-Jack, Mgo, Shlomo (b-juice)...it's okay...your surrender is accepted. Ease up on the pawing child-like attempts at humor and circle-jerk sarcasm.

You know..and that's a real start. :wink:

One day at a time.

C'mon, you're okay
Image


But I'm not ... :twisted:
Image

Re: Legal quandry, or maybe not

Posted: Sun Jun 07, 2015 2:34 pm
by MgoBlue-LightSpecial
Moving Sale wrote:The stand down at Otis. Your turn.
Nice white flag.

Re: Legal quandry, or maybe not

Posted: Sun Jun 07, 2015 3:04 pm
by Moving Sale
WTF are you talking about? Are you too stupid to even know the facts surrounding the Otis stand down? You are dumber than I thought and I had you pegged at room temp IQ.

Re: Legal quandry, or maybe not

Posted: Sun Jun 07, 2015 3:36 pm
by MgoBlue-LightSpecial
Sooooo where is the evidence, flag boy?

I'm waiting...

Re: Legal quandry, or maybe not

Posted: Mon Jun 08, 2015 12:38 am
by Moving Sale
So basic facts of 911 elude you.
Ok I will play. The planes at Otis were late due to a stand down that was the responsibility of BushCo. Now it's your turn... As it has been for the last few posts. What are you? Yellow?

Re: Legal quandry, or maybe not

Posted: Mon Jun 08, 2015 2:46 am
by MgoBlue-LightSpecial
Moving Sale wrote:The planes at Otis were late due to a stand down that was the responsibility of BushCo.
So a one sentence reply is your "evidence" that an entire administration was behind the 9/11 attacks?

Just how many dicks did you have to suck to pass the Bar?

Re: Legal quandry, or maybe not

Posted: Mon Jun 08, 2015 2:50 am
by Roger_the_Shrubber
Moving Sale as Prez during 9-11:

Air Force: Sir, we have 3, possibly 4 hi-jacked commercial planes with hundreds of people on board.

Prez Herve Villachez: Scramble F-14's and shoot them all down at once.

Re: Legal quandry, or maybe not

Posted: Mon Jun 08, 2015 3:10 am
by Moving Sale
MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:
Moving Sale wrote:The planes at Otis were late due to a stand down that was the responsibility of BushCo.
So a one sentence reply is your "evidence" that an entire administration was behind the 9/11 attacks?

Just how many dicks did you have to suck to pass the Bar?
Funny how you are accusing me of dodging when you have not even attempted to answer my question.

The specific people who should have managed the air defense on 9/11 were absent precisely while the attacks were occuring. Even though they were available in the days before and after the attack, they were missing exactly in the crucial hours of the hijackings. For better understanding, this is what the protocol said before 9/11 in case of a hijacking:
The air traffic controllers realizing the hijacking would inform their superiors, who in turn would alert the Hijack Coordinator of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The Hijack Coordinator would call the Pentagon, more precisely the Deputy Director for Operations (DDO) in the National Military Command Center (NMCC). The DDO in coordination with the Secretary of Defense then would give orders to NORAD, which would scramble fighter jets to intercept the hijacked plane. 1
So the top people responsible would be:
 the FAA ́s Hijack Coordinator  the DDO in the NMCC
 the Secretary of Defense
On 9/11 all three were absent from their command posts in the crucial hours between 8:14 a.m. (first hijacking) and 10:03 (last crash).
 Michael Canavan, the Hijack Coordinator of the FAA (and former Special Forces General) was not in the office but had flown to Puerto Rico; 2 Lynne Osmus, his Deputy, arrived in the office only after all the planes had crashed 3
 General Montague Winfield, the NMCC DDO (who in 2012 became Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense), was not at his post between 8:30 and 10:00 a.m.; Captain Charles Joseph Leidig, his Deputy, had just qualified for being DDO one month before; General Winfield had asked him the afternoon before if he would sit in as DDO from 8:30 on; Winfield returned to his post only after all planes had crashed 4
 Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld stayed away from the NMCC, too, and arrived there no sooner than 10:30 a.m., after all planes had crashed 5
This seemingly well-timed absence of key people is still unexplained. It obstructed the air defense effectively.


Now you MGOYellowLightSpecial.

Re: Legal quandry, or maybe not

Posted: Tue Jun 09, 2015 12:33 am
by MgoBlue-LightSpecial
Source?

Re: Legal quandry, or maybe not

Posted: Tue Jun 09, 2015 1:44 am
by Moving Sale
What's wrong? Too yellow to answer my question?

Anyway, here you go MGOYELLOWLIGHTSPECIAL ...
9/11 Commission Report, pp. 17-18 http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report.pdf
9/11 Commission, Transcript 2nd Public Hearing, 23.05.03, p. 77 http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/arch ... -05-23.pdf
9/11 Commission, Memorandum for the Record, Interview Lynne Osmus, 03.10.03 http://media.nara.gov/9-11/MFR/t-0148-911MFR-00910.pdf
9/11 Commission, Memorandum for the Record, Interview Captain Charles Joseph Leidig, 29.04.04 http://media.nara.gov/9-11/MFR/t-0148-911MFR-00684.pdf
Consensus 9/11, Point MC-8: The activities of Brigade General Montague Winfield between 8:30 and 10:30 AM http://www.consensus911.org/point-mc-8/
9/11 Commission Report, p. 44 http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report.pdf

Re: Legal quandry, or maybe not

Posted: Tue Jun 09, 2015 2:35 am
by MgoBlue-LightSpecial
I've had time to digest all of this and I'm completely with you. We need to take this evidence to the proper authorities IMMEDIATELY. Shoot me your contact info and we'll get started. Do you know any good lawyers?

Re: Legal quandry, or maybe not

Posted: Tue Jun 09, 2015 2:40 am
by Moving Sale
Nice Yellow Flag.

Re: Legal quandry, or maybe not

Posted: Tue Jun 09, 2015 2:46 am
by MgoBlue-LightSpecial
Bro, I'm in your corner. Enough with the petty internet squabbles. Time is of the essence...

We need to hop on a conference call now. I'm sending you and LTS a GoToMeeting link...

Re: Legal quandry, or maybe not

Posted: Tue Jun 09, 2015 3:31 am
by Moving Sale
Why would I want to talk to you? You're an idiot.

Re: Legal quandry, or maybe not

Posted: Tue Jun 09, 2015 4:39 am
by LTS TRN 2
Ditto, mgo. It's enough to implant the clear awakening in your dome. You know it's true. And this is how the truth will come out. Sure, you're just a speck, a meaningless grain of sand on a distant beach. But that beach is connected to the water, and the water reaches another land. And in that land, believe it or not, there are actually people of mind and conscience, people of moral imperative and positioned principles. Yours may well be a forgotten, never known existence of base futility, but the fact of your knowing is what counts. I salute you in your bland and tedious existence.

Sure, we did it...and we'd do it again..
Image

Re: Legal quandry, or maybe not

Posted: Tue Jun 09, 2015 1:44 pm
by MgoBlue-LightSpecial
Moving Sale wrote:Why would I want to talk to you? You're an idiot.
You still mad? You seem mad.

This isn't a time for anger. So take a deep breath, go outside, get some fresh air, get laid, do whatever you gotta do to rid your mind of this teenager angst because...















































































































































































































...WE'RE SITTING ON A MOUNTAIN OF EVIDENCE!


This is a slam dunk case you FOOL.

LTS is on board, we went over some basic strategy last night. Did you get the conference call number?

Re: Legal quandry, or maybe not

Posted: Tue Jun 09, 2015 2:00 pm
by Moving Sale
not wanting to talk to you doesn't make someone mad it makes them smart.

Re: Legal quandry, or maybe not

Posted: Tue Jun 09, 2015 2:09 pm
by MgoBlue-LightSpecial
Moving Sale wrote:not wanting to talk to you doesn't make someone mad it makes them smart.
Are you pulling the white flag on this endeavor?

Re: Legal quandry, or maybe not

Posted: Tue Jun 09, 2015 3:06 pm
by Moving Sale
Are you retarded? You said you were convinced. My job is done. Now run along.

Re: Legal quandry, or maybe not

Posted: Tue Jun 09, 2015 3:30 pm
by MgoBlue-LightSpecial
On second thought, having a known pedophile on the team would destroy our reputability. Your services are no longer desired. In fact, we should end all communication immediately.

Re: Legal quandry, or maybe not

Posted: Tue Jun 09, 2015 3:40 pm
by Moving Sale
Nice I Know You Should But What Should I

Re: Legal quandry, or maybe not

Posted: Tue Jun 09, 2015 3:42 pm
by Goober McTuber
I kind of understand Moving Sale's pedophilia. A lot of guys aren't comfortable dating females that are taller than them. Hey, Moving Sale, just so you know, this lady is now available:

Image

Re: Legal quandry, or maybe not

Posted: Tue Jun 09, 2015 3:49 pm
by Moving Sale
So to recap the list of known pedophiles on T1B is:
R-Jack
Marty
AP
MGO and
goobs

Congrats on finally making a list. :meds:

Re: Legal quandry, or maybe not

Posted: Tue Jun 09, 2015 4:04 pm
by MgoBlue-LightSpecial
Moving Sale wrote:Nice I Know You Should But What Should I
Don't talk to me.

Re: Legal quandry, or maybe not

Posted: Tue Jun 09, 2015 4:12 pm
by Goober McTuber
Moving Sale wrote:So to recap the list of known pedophiles on T1B is:
R-Jack
Marty
AP
MGO and
goobs

Congrats on finally making a list. :meds:
IKYABWAI. Brilliant. Some of your best work.

Re: Legal quandry, or maybe not

Posted: Tue Jun 09, 2015 7:10 pm
by Moving Sale
MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:
Moving Sale wrote:Nice I Know You Should But What Should I
Don't talk to me.
We have already been thru this. You're and idiot. Why would I want to talk to you?

Re: Legal quandry, or maybe not

Posted: Tue Jun 09, 2015 7:11 pm
by Moving Sale
Goober McTuber wrote:
Moving Sale wrote:So to recap the list of known pedophiles on T1B is:
R-Jack
Marty
AP
MGO and
goobs

Congrats on finally making a list. :meds:
IKYABWAI. Brilliant. Some of your best work.
You're just pissed you got outed you fat, publicly naked, boy chaser.

Re: Legal quandry, or maybe not

Posted: Tue Jun 09, 2015 7:39 pm
by Goober McTuber
Nice white flag, Tiny.

Re: Legal quandry, or maybe not

Posted: Tue Jun 09, 2015 8:24 pm
by Shlomart Ben Yisrael
Moving Sale wrote:...fat...
Careful throwing that around, you fire-hydrant-shaped dullard.

Re: Legal quandry, or maybe not

Posted: Tue Jun 09, 2015 10:00 pm
by MgoBlue-LightSpecial
Moving Sale wrote:You're and idiot.
Archive.

Re: Legal quandry, or maybe not

Posted: Wed Jun 10, 2015 1:44 am
by LTS TRN 2
If all you've got is a typo, you must be really squirming....oh yeah, you are. :oops:

Re: Legal quandry, or maybe not

Posted: Wed Jun 10, 2015 2:46 am
by MgoBlue-LightSpecial
Why are you siding with the pedo? I thought we were a team? :x

Re: Legal quandry, or maybe not

Posted: Wed Jun 10, 2015 7:02 am
by LTS TRN 2
No, I replied "ditto" in proceeding to flay your sorry existence. But I saluted your futility. Remember? :wink:

Re: Legal quandry, or maybe not

Posted: Wed Jun 10, 2015 1:38 pm
by MgoBlue-LightSpecial
Okay, okay, I gotta come clean with you guys about something.......................I was just doing a bit. You know, for the sake of my own entertainment. I know, I know, we're not supposed to joke around here because this place is SUPER SERIOUS.



So let's get back to where we were, shall we? I believe Moving Sale failed to provide substantial evidence of his outrageous allegations. Let's just pick things up from there. Any questions for me?

Re: Legal quandry, or maybe not

Posted: Wed Jun 10, 2015 1:50 pm
by Moving Sale
That's because you were too busy diddling kids to read it.

Re: Legal quandry, or maybe not

Posted: Wed Jun 10, 2015 1:54 pm
by MgoBlue-LightSpecial
Wow, awfully quick on the draw there, eh sporto? Do you have that new Chihuahua Ankle-Lock app that alerts you every time I post?