Originally posted by impressme
Put those trolls on IGNORE! don’t waste your time with the likes of them.

That doesn't really solve it unfortunately because people just quote them and respond to them, so even with their OPs removed, you still end up reading their nonsense.

Anyway, thanks to the OP for this thread. I'm sure everyone here is old enough and mature enough....well, most of us!...to be able to make up their own mind about what happened.

At the end of the day, a new investigation will take place and the truth will come out, so there's no point getting all worked up about it at this point in time.

Mark

Originally posted by evil incarnate
The funny thing is that while I may bot back this lawsuit 100%, there is no evidence whatsoever that a plane crashed there, let alone the plane they claimed it was.

Of course there is. That is one of the Troother's weakest arguments, one that they cling to though, like a tenacious little wombat.

What is your experience in aircraft crash scene dynamics? How can you state that without any training whatsoever in aircraft mishap scenes?

Tell us....what *should* a 757 look like after it slams into a concrete and brisk building at 500 mph? You claim to be an expert. Share, please.

Where is attorney William Veale going when he states "There are no photos of a wrecked airplane at the place..." when he is not privy to the FBI investigative and photographic evidence of the event? Sounds like he's not to smart. Any "lawyer" with a @gmail.com can't be all bad though, right???

How stupid does one have to be when they make the following statement:

b. As noted, there is no footage from numerous video surveillance cameras — reportedly 85 different tapes are being withheld by the U.S. Justice Department — which are known or reliably assumed to have been operating at various nearby locations where some or all of the plane and the crash could be expected to have been caught on tape.

...when this very topic as addressed directly by FBI agent Jackie McGuire and provided, in response to a request, that out of those 85, 56 "of these videotapes did not show either the Pentagon building, the Pentagon crash site, or the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon on September 11."

Of the 29 remaining videotapes, 16 "did not show the Pentagon crash site and did not show the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon."

Of the 13 remaining tapes which showed the Pentagon crash site, 12 "only showed after the impact of Flight 77."

Ignorance on parade.

[edit on 28-7-2009 by trebor451]

Originally posted by trebor451
I can't wait till you fools to "show up and confront...[me] in person..." since I "...insist on being complicit in the on-going cover-up"

You people don't have the cojones to do that.

Actually it would be impossible to do that since you are merely an anonymous internet poster as opposed to a real human who has the courage to back up his convictions with his real name and reputation such as the scholars, experts, military heroes, and concerned citizens referenced in the OP.

Furthermore you are not in a position of authority so your "opinion" on this matter is not actionable.

In other words, you are irrelevant to Operation Accountability and your illogical anonymous attacks on this information and anyone who endorses it simply help to keep the thread bumped.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Furthermore you are not in a position of authority so your "opinion" on this matter is not actionable.

What makes Hinks or Asner worthy authorities on what happened at the Pentagon and Boeing flight dynamics and AL77's flight path?

Why the appeal to authority?

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon

What makes Hinks or Asner worthy authorities on what happened at the Pentagon and Boeing flight dynamics and AL77's flight path?

Why the appeal to authority?

All concerned citizens are "worthy" of determining the legitimacy of the independent verifiable evidence presented in National Security Alert.

Accepting endorsements from respected American citizens is not an appeal to authority.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by trebor451
I can't wait till you fools to "show up and confront...[me] in person..." since I "...insist on being complicit in the on-going cover-up"

You people don't have the cojones to do that.

Actually it would be impossible to do that since you are merely an anonymous internet poster as opposed to a real human who has the courage to back up his convictions with his real name and reputation such as the scholars, experts, military heroes, and concerned citizens referenced in the OP.

Furthermore you are not in a position of authority so your "opinion" on this matter is not actionable.

In other words, you are irrelevant to Operation Accountability and your illogical anonymous attacks on this information and anyone who endorses it simply help to keep the thread bumped.

LOL...its easy to "back up your convictions" when you have none to start out with, as evidenced by CIT and PfT's support of this baseless, factless and meaningless Gallop lawsuit.

As far as my not being in a "position of authority", is that your excuse why you don't come after me? I have no doubt Cap't Bob has been tracking my IP addresses (before he banned me). I'm sure you can get that from him and start your own little investigation. Perhaps you'll find out my 25 yrs service with DOD here in the DC area might change your mind about me being in a "position of authority"? If you can't come challenge me with your bogus "Operation Accountability" send Aldo.

I'll bump a thread that has your comments in it any time. Sunshine, baby! The more people who see you senseless rantings the better.

In conclusion, your appeal to "scholars, experts, military heroes, and concerned citizens" is the ultimate gag line. Ed Asner? Griffin, a theologian? Lankford, a military vet who thinks there are SAM missiles at the Pentagon? You reference a bunch of losers and people who have *no idea what they are talking about*. The only thing Asner can claim to be is a sympathetic socialist idiot - the only interesting thing is that he DOESN'T play one on TV. Griffin has more errors in his books than Carter has liver pills. Lankford is proven ignorant of crucial and critical elements of the Gallop case. Tell me these aren't the best you have. tell me you are not basing your case on these people's "expertise". Tell me.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
We have Roosevelt Roberts Jr officially on record with the Library of Congress and independently confirmed reporting the plane flying away.

We have Erik Dihle officially on record with the Center for Military History stating what "people" immediately reported after the explosion:

You never let me down, dude! I can't wait for you to subpoena Roberts so he can tell us where Lane 1 is in South Parking and what he meant by "It was, uh. . . it was heading, um. . . back across 27. . . and it looks like. . . it appeared to me- I was in the south, and that plane was heading. . . like, um. . . southwest. . . coming out."

AND how a passenger aircraft could be "banking just above the, uh, light poles like" at "fifty feet or less than a hundred feet." and have NOBODY ELSE SEE IT AT ALL.

AND how Dihel, who said he had two friends who had three friends who had a cousin who's milkman said his barber thought his gardener said he saw something fly away.

Keep them coming!