It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

New Pentagon Video Detailing Actual Flight Path Over Naval Annex

page: 19
23
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 03:51 PM
link   
Civility, decorum, and on topic discussion...

Sans personal attacks will be the order of the day.

Mod Note: 9/11 Forum Is Now Under Close Staff Scrutiny– Please Review This Link.

Thank you.

[edit on 1/7/2009 by Mirthful Me]




posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Ligon
 


Yeah, they say it was becasue of the generator fire.

I find it interesting that months later, the smell of jet fuel was still prevalent in the HCAV ducts.



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by CameronFox
 



Yeah, they say it was becasue of the generator fire.


Really? If you mean from burning diesel fuel...whilst JET-A and diesel are similar, to my nose they smell quite different when combusted.

On the ramp, I could walk by a GPU, or the fuel truck (both diesel engines) and the exhaust smelled quite different than jet exhaust...or the odor of fuel from an engine during the walkaround, when the airplane had just parked at the gate.....



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 04:28 PM
link   
The big question here is whether or not BigSarge will allow a very small group of internet posters who do not want the details of his story made public to successfully manipulate him with lies, strawmen, childish ridicule, and ad hominems on one hand and brown-nosing on the other.

They know you have a strong personal, emotional connection to the "official story" of the plane you saw having crashed into the building, BigSarge. They are trying to capitalize on your cognitive dissonance over the implications of where you and all of the witnesses with excellent vantage points in National Security Alert saw the plane.

Virtually ALL of us (myself included and no doubt CIT as well) had a substantial degree of emotional attachment to the official story and had to go through a very painful "rude awakening" when confronted with the undeniable evidence to the contrary. This is not information that any of us were happy to learn because of the horrifying implications.

Bottom line: Who here is asking you to meet him at Arlington Cemetary man to man and tell your story honestly for the camera in your own words?

The fact is that what you and all of the aforementioned witnesses saw prior to the explosion proves that the plane did not hit the building, regardless of how well deceieved you were by what you saw after the explosion.

It is not possible for all of the witnesses in National Security Alert to be simltaneously wrong in the exact same way, hallucinating the same north side flight path and hallucinating a bank. And by your own admission it likely would not have been possible for you to see the plane at all if it were on the official flight path (that is to say the very specific flight path on which it must have been to have hit the light poles and caused the observed directional damage to the building outlined in the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report.)

"Could the parts of an entire airplane, tons of luggage, IDs, etc. been planted in the Pentagon before hand? I guess it is possible, but highly unlikely." -BigSarge

"Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." - Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

[edit on 1-7-2009 by Ligon]



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by CameronFox
 


If you mean from burning diesel fuel...whilst JET-A and diesel are similar, to my nose they smell quite different when combusted.

Okay, but was your nose at the Pentagon on 9/11 to confirm which it was?

I certainly wouldn't know the difference and I'm sure many others wouldn't either.

Even if your expert nose was on the scene, it would not trump thirteen eyewitnesses independently placing the plane on the north side from a variety of excellent vantage points.

You're also forgetting about the exploding tanks of "aviation fuel"


We ran to the end of our building, turned left and saw nothing but huge, billowing black smoke, and a brilliant, brilliant explosion of fire." (...) One of the Pentagon's two fire trucks was parked only 50 feet from the crash site, and it was "totally engulfed in flames," Anderson says. Nearby, tanks full of propane and aviation fuel had begun igniting, and they soon began exploding, one by one.


Source: www.newsweek.com...

[edit on 1-7-2009 by Ligon]



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by BigSarge
Without providing more FACTUAL information, and not just that of so called eyewitnesses, it's going to be tough for you.

Those 'so called eyewitnesses' have names and they have appeared on camera to tell their story. Presently, BigSarge, you are nameless. There is no way to verify your story. The best that all of us in this thread can do is to take your word at face value.

With all due respect to you, by remaining nameless, you don't have as much credibility as the identified people who have told their story. You can state whatever you like, without repercussions and without being responsible for what you claim.

While it appears that you were on the scene and you have first-hand experience, you lack one important thing that the other 'so called witnesses' have - identity.

I'm surprised that anyone, whether they are a 'truther' or a 'government loyalist', would believe what you type, when your words can not be verified. Again, no disrespect to you, BigSarge. It's just how the internet works. I know, I've been on the internet long enough.

Thanks for sharing your story. I think all of us in this thread appreciate it.



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat
Do you see all of those qualifying adverbs or qualifying phrases I've underlined?

Yeah, I saw all of them, Reheat.

Do you know what they mean?

They mean that BigSarge isn't sure about the exact flight path that the plane flew. BigSarge allowed for the possibility that the plane may have been turning, may have been North of the Annex, may have been between the Citgo and the official South path and that he may not have seen it, if it were flying the official path.

BigSarge's statements, while being completely unverifiable, are at least wise enough to admit that he can't pin down the exact nature of the flight path.



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 07:32 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Just so you know, they do use jet fuel in diesel generators, specifically, JP-8. It's what we used in the army for generators, turbine and diesel alike.

I do not know what grade specifically commercial jetliners use. If it was a generator used by a civillian company, then perhaps they used regular diesel. It would be worth finding out.

But yeah, diesel and jet fuel have totally different smells. Straight diesel gives me a good headache and makes me a little nauseated. Jet fuel doesn't.



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by BigSarge
I also said, there is no way it was NORTH of the Citgo, because it was not that close to me.

So please, refrain from falsely re-telling the things I've said along the way and instead start providing direct evidence.


Well, your posts were plausible for me until you said this. I hereby declare troll, government shill, liar, or disinformation artist, take your pick. But I will not believe another word you say. Tezz has made a very good point as usual with the fact that Craig has witnesses with real names, and on site visual and audio testimony. You on the other hand get to say whatever you want with no responsibility to those statements whatsoever. In the Pentacon he even re asks the questions, just to be DOUBLE sure there were no misinterpretations, gray areas, or any room for errors in all those testimonies.

So if you think any reader should believe you over what Craig has already collected, and is putting HIS REAL NAME behind you fricken LOSE. BIGTIME. Your story keeps changing. Craig's has not. But he is in the unfortunate position of having to defend his arguments because his real name and reputation is at stake here. You lose nothing. No wonder you don't want to be interviewed.
That's because your lies will be exposed, when it comes right down to it. You bit off way more than you can chew trying to go up against someone armed with the real truth. :shk: Bah.


Craig, good luck on the 11th man, and my friends are still coming to meet you- wish I could go.
I know it will be a great presentation. As you know, there is no one who can prove you are doing anything but disseminating real truth, as long as you keep collecting real truth- at your own expense no less. Be empowered by those of us who will continue to stick by you no matter what.



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 10:02 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


Thanks T.A. but I wouldn't write off ole BigSarge just yet.

As I demonstrated in my response to him in this post, his initial statements before he claimed he watched the video or understood any of this evidence supported a north side approach.

Put yourself in his shoes.

Imagine you were so close to the event and actually saw the big plane and explosion while fully believing it hit. He admitted that he did not see it hit but deduced this so naturally he would believe it with all his heart.

And then imagine you toiled through all the destruction for days pulling out bodies of murdered innocents and you saw what you believed to be plane parts throughout the building.

Think of how all that would affect you and how you would feel.

Now imagine after all that you heard talk throughout the years of missiles and how that would make you feel!

In BigSarge's initial posts in this thread he actually assumed we were talking about missiles!

This is why I believed him when he said he hadn't watched the video when he confirmed his exact location at the cemetery to me.

Then imagine how you would feel after watching National Security Alert and there was nothing about missiles but all of these definitive honest witnesses, many of whom were only dozens of feet away from you and corroborate your account, yet all the information is laid out to you for the first time coherently explaining WHY this actually PROVES that what YOU witnessed proves a deception and how everything you believed with all your heart about that day is false.

I don't blame him one bit for reacting the way he has. It's perfectly understandable.

But I feel he has a good heart and is clearly an intelligent guy. I think he is already coming to terms with it and thinking about what he should do.

I think he'll do what's right.















[edit on 2-7-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 10:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
And then imagine you toiled through all the destruction for days pulling out bodies of murdered innocents and you saw what you believed to be plane parts throughout the building.


Well, imagine is right. Because we have three courses of action here.

1) We believe him and supposed official evidence of the plane parts being real, embedded into columns, and true.

If this is the case, then either

a) Some other kind of plane or missile hit and F77 flew over
b) F77 hit and your witnesses saw a different plane
c) the plane parts were planted theory goes out the window, along with the bombs in building theory.

2) We don't believe that he was really part of this, and is lying.

a) His refusal to give testimony to you, on site just like the other PentaCon witnesses, after viewing what you have already done, and in the entirely civil manner in which you did it, is particularly suspect. Why? Because he instead is going to come on to an internet forum and talk about it, when his testimony could be quite helpful (or not) in figuring out this world-changing event? That's just morally wrong, when literally even more people's lives are at stake here, and so many have already been lost after 9/11, supposedly BECAUSE of 9/11. In light of the failure that the 9/11 Commission was, Sarge needs to see the importance of his testimony and come forward.

3) Sarge agrees to meet you on site and testify, with signature. And heck, you're going to be right there in a week or two! If he does that, I will retract my statements. But how anyone could have the fricken nerve to ask you to provide some real evidence after all you have been through boils my blood.


And really Craig you don't need Sarge at ALL. You have everything you need already as far as I'm concerned, although it wouldn't hurt to find more people that can testify to the flyover. Someone had to be getting in their car in the huge south parking lot or close by and have seen it too. But that one flyover witness is so critical at this point, I'd get him to go in and at least do a video deposition with attorney and notary before they nail him. Your tape might not be enough to convince a jury. Then again it might be. A video deposition would be more solid though, for sure.



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican


1) We believe him and supposed official evidence of the plane parts being real, embedded into columns, and true.

If this is the case, then....

c) the plane parts were planted theory goes out the window, along with the bombs in building theory.


Huh?

Why?

I have always believed there were plane parts in the building.

Having a newly built special-secured top-secret room or two (custom designed to be any strategic shape, size, or location that they wanted) filled with plane parts and high explosives would be extremely easy for them to pull off during the renovation.

The contractors wouldn't even have to know. I'm sure PenRen contractors build whatever "secret rooms" they are told to build without asking questions and are routinely told to move big crates of stuff while they aren't supposed to know what it is they're moving.



2) We don't believe that he was really part of this, and is lying.


And really Craig you don't need Sarge at ALL. You have everything you need already as far as I'm concerned, although it wouldn't hurt to find more people that can testify to the flyover. Someone had to be getting in their car in the huge south parking lot or close by and have seen it too. But that one flyover witness is so critical at this point, I'd get him to go in and at least do a video deposition with attorney and notary before they nail him. Your tape might not be enough to convince a jury. Then again it might be. A video deposition would be more solid though, for sure.


All I am saying is that so far I think BigSarge is acting like just about anyone in his shoes would act.

Most would run away try to forget about it.

I have faith he has more courage than that and if he is honest I think he will do the right thing.

Point is I don't think it's time to pass judgment on him and I certainly am not convinced he is a "shill".

Give him some slack and let him sort out his feelings which would have to be really intense right now. The only reason the witnesses we interviewed so far have been willing to talk is because they were not yet aware of the implications of what they witnessed. The ones who do are too scared to talk.

If BigSarge agrees to an interview, unlike any of the others, he will already understand the implications and that changes everything. It requires A LOT of courage on his part.

This is not a decision that should be taken lightly. It will change his life as no doubt simply finding out about this information has whether or not he agrees to go public.

If I was him I would be extremely scared right now.

Hopefully he does what's right.



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 12:08 AM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


You just reminded me of the "flyover witness" again.

Don't CIT supporters wonder why there is no animation demonstrating the "flyover witness" view?

Oh, there's a couple of graphics outlining Lane 1 of the South Parking Lot, but there is NO FLIGHT PATH or animation illustrating what Roosevelt Roberts said.

Really, you're so suspicious and critical of minor trivial details of the "Official Story" why aren't you curious or suspicious about this? It is a MAJOR omission and it has been stated that it is crucial to the entire theory. Without a flyover witness this entire charade falls flat on it's face. All that establishes these NOC or ONA flight path are witnesses and they all said the aircraft impacted and the physical evidence shows the aircraft impacted. Without a "flyover" witness there is nothing, nothing at all.

In fact, it would be helpful if someone knowledgeable of what Robert's said the aircraft did would just draw that flight path on a graphic and I'll do the calculations. It is so confusing I'm not sure that I understand what he said about where the aircraft flew. If it didn't hit the building it HAD to fly somewhere, unless you think it's still levitating to the west of the Pentagon.

CIT has been asked repeatedly to do this, yet they can't/won't. Don't you wonder why? Someone needs to help CIT put this together, so that others can be convinced of this earth shattering scientifically verified evidence that justifies a "National Security Alert".

This is a major omission from the video under discussion and I suspect those receiving the information from "Operations Accountability" are probably going to ask about this too.

Come on, surely someone understands what he said and can draw a simple graphic. I'll then do the calculations and they can be verified with anyone you choose and it will then be complete. Surely there is someone among all of these enthusiastic supporters who can help them out and avoid this gaping hole in the story....



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 12:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Reheat
 


We don't draw or create flight paths because we did not see the plane.

Roosevelt only told the Library of Congress and us what he saw because he did not understand the implications.

Hopefully BigSarge has more courage.

After Roosevelt realized the implications he became too afraid to talk and backed out of doing an on camera interview when we would have had him illustrate the path.

Luckily he already told the Library of Congress about this plane in 2001 and we were able to record independent confirmation of this in 2008 before he got too scared to keep talking.

So you are forced to accuse him of hallucinating this plane or lying to the officials and us but we sure as heck aren't going to illustrate or animate a flight path for him simply because you or anyone demands it. Go ahead and put "scare quotes" around him without referencing his name all you want but he is a real person and a real witness whose personal credibility you are forced to attack in order to defend mass murder.

The fact that he saw the plane AT ALL is enough and the witnesses that Erik Dihle mentioned are even MORE confirmation of what all the north side witnesses already proved beyond a reasonable doubt without ANY flyover witnesses.

You just keep moving the goal posts because you will never believe it no matter how much evidence gets uncovered.









[edit on 2-7-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 03:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
You just keep moving the goal posts because you will never believe it no matter how much evidence gets uncovered.


What evidence?

You have a building that holds over 25,000 people. You have a parking lot that holds over 2,000 cars.

You have a time frame, around 0930 on a regular Tuesday morning.

You have one very confusing and contradictory account that in no way, shape or form amounts to anything that makes sense, putting an airliner "50 to 100 feet" above that parking lot.

One account.

Even *assuming* this would ever get into some form of court, the "reasonable doubt" factor would weigh in like an elephant on one side of the scale and a flea on the other.

Its absurd.

Plus, you have said you do not "speculate", which is one of the funniest hings I have ever heard. When it comes to unanswered questions or "witnesses" that do not bend to your wacky ideas, you do nothing BUT speculate. "BigSarge" must be scared. Roosevelt became "too afraid to talk". Everyone else "deduced" the impact. So-and-so is a "government shill" or a "deep operative". Aircraft parts were "hidden in a secret room". "Frozen cadavers" were shipped in the night before. "Explosives" were set off inside the building. Lloyd is in on it. The MSM is in on it. Everyone is in on it.

You are not only digging your own credibility grave, you have hit bottom and are still digging.

Faster, please!

[edit on 2-7-2009 by trebor451]



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 03:43 AM
link   

posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


Thanks T.A. but I wouldn't write off ole BigSarge just yet.

As I demonstrated in my response to him in this post, his initial statements before he claimed he watched the video or understood any of this evidence supported a north side approach.

Put yourself in his shoes.


I think he'll do what's right.



And don't overlook that BigSarge realizes that there is a real potential danger to coming out of an anonymous identity and showing his real name and real face publicly. BigSarge was in the military and he knows what happened to Pat Tillman and others who became a problem to the Military Industrial Complex. The US Military and the US Government do not hesitate to remove problems, and the abandoned POWs and MIAs of the NamWar stand as proof of exactly what our Government and Military are capable of.



BigSarge knows that the Military and the Government and the CIA and other intelligence agencies remove people when they become a problem to the Corporate profits for the Military Industrial Complex (aka New World Order Elitists) if the risk is not too great. Actually the greater the publicity; the greater the safety. If they figure out who the anonymous person is; well - nobody will miss an anonymous person will they?

Sometimes fear for ones own safety is the deciding factor in patriotic and moral decisions. Some of us will do what is right irregardless and many will not. It is obvious that many Pentagon 9-11 eyewitness are frightened to come forward. Most definitely the alleged official south Flight 77 flight path witnesses are frightened to come forward because the JREF braggerts were unable to find even one.

Whether they are frightened of the Government or the publicity for some reason, or afraid to put their names and faces to a lie publicly, or are in fact just fictional characters invented by a disloyal Mainstream News Media is up for debate. Surely many of them know of the tens of thousands of 9-11 internet websites investigating 9-11. Where is their patriotism if they are truly eyewitnesses? Why haven't they come forward publicly in the past several years?

It would be great if BigSarge and many others could overcome their fears and come forward in order to seek justice for the victims of 9-11. It would be the right thing to do. Even if you are committed witnesses to the official south flight path; come forward and show your faces and give your names and testimony like the brave eyewitnesses to the Over the Naval Annex and North of Citgo north flight path eyewitnesses. They were not afraid to be questioned and publicly identified. They did not attempt to hide their faces from the public.



[edit on 7/2/09 by SPreston]



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 08:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by Reheat
 


We don't draw or create flight paths because we did not see the plane.


What is this?




Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Roosevelt only told the Library of Congress and us what he saw because he did not understand the implications.


I thought you didn't speculate? Could it be that he's talked to LaGasse and finds your methods repulsive? No, you're clairvoyant and know what people think, so you can explain it to your minions, I'm sure.


Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Hopefully BigSarge has more courage.


So, Roberts' is a coward?


Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
After Roosevelt realized the implications he became too afraid to talk and backed out of doing an on camera interview when we would have had him illustrate the path.


Here you go speculating again when you recently said you only deal in facts. In essence you really don't know if he is a valid "flyover witness" or not, it's just speculation.


Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Luckily he already told the Library of Congress about this plane in 2001 and we were able to record independent confirmation of this in 2008 before he got too scared to keep talking.


Here you go speculating again. One would think that by now your minions would realize that you lie with impunity about not speculating when it's convenient. You've rejected people before because they didn't meet your standard of reliability, so how can you say his statements would not be rejected for the same reason?



Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
So you are forced to accuse him of hallucinating this plane or lying to the officials and us but we sure as heck aren't going to illustrate or animate a flight path for him simply because you or anyone demands it. Go ahead and put "scare quotes" around him without referencing his name all you want but he is a real person and a real witness whose personal credibility you are forced to attack in order to defend mass murder.


How do you know what I think? His statements are very confusing and I'm asking for clarification. After all you're touting him as a "flyover witness". You're going off the deep end simply because I asked for a illustration of what he said. I'm defending mass murder simply because I ask for clarification of what your witness said? I'm simply asking for the same standard of verification that you've demanded of witnesses in the past. You can do it, but I can't?


Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
The fact that he saw the plane AT ALL is enough and the witnesses that Erik Dihle mentioned are even MORE confirmation of what all the north side witnesses already proved beyond a reasonable doubt without ANY flyover witnesses.


So, you really don't demand independent confirmation to draw a conclusion. You're just willing to speculate if it's needed to make your conclusions appear to be true. Roberts statements are AT BEST confusing and Dihle can't even remember saying what the CMH indicates he said or meant by his statements, yet you are willing to tout them as "flyover witnesses" anyway.


Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
You just keep moving the goal posts because you will never believe it no matter how much evidence gets uncovered.


I don't think you understand what "moving the goalposts" means. You've introduced new information and I'm asking for clarification of what was said and an illustration of the flight path. You have no standards for evidence? You repeatedly tout your evidence as "scientific" yet you can't even explain what these two witnesses meant by their statements.

You've rejected witness statements in the past for lesser reasons, yet you tout these two as your crucial "flyover witnesses" with no real clue about what they said or meant by their statements or if what they said was even possible. Some investigator you are!

[edit on 2-7-2009 by Reheat]

[edit on 2-7-2009 by Reheat]



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat
You've rejected witness statements in the past for lesser reasons, yet you tout these two as your crucial "flyover witnesses" with no real clue about what they said or meant by their statements or if what they said was even possible. Some investigator you are!

Yep, we've seen this before.

Wanda Ramey, who witnessed the plane striking the light poles, had her testimony eliminated by Craig because she had been taking medication to cope with the event and could not remember all of the details when asked seven years later.

But Erik Dihle gets a free pass when reporting HEARSAY.

What's also interesting is that the 2001 interviews that Craig routinely cherry picks for witness statements contain Sean Boger stating that he watched the plane impact with, fully enter and then explode inside the Pentagon. Nothing at all about NoC.

They never speculate, but they'll tell us that Boger must have deduced the impact.

All of the Route 27 witnesses, like Father McGraw, Sucherman, Wilson and others witnessed an impact, had their testimony eliminated by Craig because they supposedly couldn't have seen the plane from their location. But whilst attempting to demonstrate this, Craig made several fatal "errors", which when corrected reveal that the Route 27 witnesses would have had a prime view of the plane *and* the impact.

So of course, there must be another reason why those seven or eight people couldn't have seen the impact.... they're in on it!

But remember... CIT never accuse anyone specific of being involved...



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451

You have a building that holds over 25,000 people. You have a parking lot that holds over 2,000 cars.

You have a time frame, around 0930 on a regular Tuesday morning.



Precisely. 9:30 is prime time for people to be WORKING inside the building and not outside in the parking lot watching the skies OR even in the courtyard taking a break. Were there some people in the courtyard and south parking? Of course! But not "thousands".

I have seen how that parking lot is like Grand Central Station around 7:00 am but by 9:30 it's a full lot of EMPTY parked cars. This is a fact of life every day at the Pentagon. You ought to go sometime and see for your self.



You have one very confusing and contradictory account that in no way, shape or form amounts to anything that makes sense, putting an airliner "50 to 100 feet" above that parking lot.

One account.


Wrong.

The 13 north side witnesses prove a flyover no matter how much you ignore them and attack their crediblity from behind your anonymous screen name.



Even *assuming* this would ever get into some form of court, the "reasonable doubt" factor would weigh in like an elephant on one side of the scale and a flea on the other.

Its absurd.


Don't worry, we have plenty of other names of people scared to talk that can be subpoenaed.

But the 13 known north side witnesses already prove a deception beyond a reasonable doubt.

This scope of this crime is way too large for any normal court case anyway.



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by SPreston
...he knows what happened to Pat Tillman and others who became a problem to the Military Industrial Complex.


So Pat Tillman was in on it too! I shoulda known! He probably drove the truck that brought the frozen corpses to the Pentagon! Or he probably drove the truck that brought all the spare aircraft parts to the "secret rooms". Or he probably drove the truck that had all those pre-poured concrete pillars with aircraft parts sticking out of them. I'm sure he drove a truck.

That is the most hilarious accusation I have *ever* heard, but looking at the source, it is par for CITs course.



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join