reply to post by jprophet420
you're right, i apoligize for responding to your post, but i saw what you said as a general not directed at anyone post, so i just clicked reply to
give a reference to what i was talking about, it wasn't realyl directed at your and i am sorry for not specifying that before hand.
what my point was, is that if you come out and make such a big theory that it never happened, then you need to be able to have a theory for all the
events that transpired, like i said. the reason that the gov't explanation seems more accurate in many cases is because they can give you details and
verified and confirmed documentation of the things that happened.
sure it was done hasitly as i already said, but just because they rushed it doesn't mean it was slapped together in a hurry and they didn't bother
to verifiy anything, only fabricated stuff to corraborate their assertions.
nothing is done by answering a question with a question. but i never saw the OP ask the questions of whether or not it crashed there. he asserted from
the very begninning that it was irrefutable proof that there was a cover up, and people asked. if the plane didn't crash there, what happened to the
please stop skimming through stuff only to find something that you want to argue about.