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.

 

Independent Investigation Into Pentagon Attack Yields Alarming Information

page: 81
215
<< 78  79  80    82  83  84 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 



Originally posted by pteridine
If witnesses to the flight path are valid,


Some witnesses, yes. The one's whose testimony is consistent with the majority of the other witnesses.


Originally posted by pteridine
then witnesses to the impact are equally, if not more, valid.


Not if their testimony is not only inconsistent with the majority, but even inconsistent with other testimonials they've made in the past. Lloyd England is a very good example, but there are others I believe.


Originally posted by pteridine
The flight path is a matter of witness estimation


It's one thing to be off by a few degrees; quite another to be standing in the Citgo Gas station and see the plane fly over the north side instead of the south side. As a Pentagon police officer said, he'd bet his life that he saw it coming from the north side, and his partner also independently confirmed it came from the north side. Furthermore, this only adds to other facts, such as something we've talked about before, which I still believe would have been an impossible pull out of a dive the pentagon plane would have had to have made if it had been coming from a south of the citgo gas station approach. Another point is that in the only other alleged instance I have heard of a plane hitting a light pole, upon hitting -1- light pole, the plane crashed; the light pole was -not- severed from the base, but instead was cut (and not completely) from where it was hit. The clean cuts of the light poles at their bases suggests to me that they were severed with something like a blow torch. Furthermore, as others have pointed out, there has never been any photographic evidence that any light pole was ever in Lloyd England's taxi cab, and there is also a lot of people who don't believe that the light pole could have been impaled in his car in that way, considering the speed at which it would have had to have been going, combined with the speed of Lloyd's car, and without even scratching the hood of the car, no less.



Originally posted by pteridine
but the impact witnesses do not have to estimate flight path at all.


Ofcourse not. That's the job of investigators who actually want to find out what happened.


Originally posted by pteridine
Where did the plane hit? Look at the damage.


The damage is only truly indicative of one thing; that if a plane were to have hit the pentagon, it would have had to have made a south of the citgo gas station approach. Since most of the witnesses place the plane on a north of the citgo gas station approach, however, it suggests that the damage to the pentagon was caused by other sources, most likely explosives, in my view. There are even witnesses who claim to have smelled cordite, which is indeed an explosive. I have heard that others at the pentagon maintained that the plane didn't crash into the pentagon but "kept on going". Unfortunately, at this point in time, I don't know any of the names of these individuals; understandably, I should think. If you know anything of the history of "Able Danger", then you should be all too aware of what the military has done to whistleblowers, such as Sibel Edmonds.


Originally posted by pteridine
The entire flyover-with-timed-explosives theory is weak beyond belief.


I maintain that the flyover theory is the strongest theory out there. But feel free to try to persuade me otherwise.




posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by scott3x
I maintain that the flyover theory is the strongest theory out there. But feel free to try to persuade me otherwise.


Want to know something Scott? I no longer believe people like you when yo say things like this. There is no willingness to find out what happened at the Pentagon Sept 11, 2001.

Solidly confirmed by witnesses, records, forensics, everything imaginable, a plane with many passengers too off from Dulles Airport, parts of their bodies were found among the same plane's wreckage in the Pentagon little more than an hour later. The plane was tracked in the air, many people saw it flying close to the ground towards the Pentagon and saw a crash or the immediate aftermath.

Most of the witnesses and clean-up crews as well as medical staff are ordinary people from all walks of life.

Nothing substantial has emerged in 8 years that conflicts with what is known except attempts by some guys in California to sell videos creating doubt in the minds of willfull conspiracists.

I'm willing to bet you have never seriously examined the overwhelming amount of hard data and evidence of the plane crash. It would conflict too distressingly with your chosen fantasy.

People like myself just don't want to see kids led down the garden path laid out by predatory opportunists and nut cases trying to spread false information of a very significant attack on the US. It's malicious and idiotic. It invites the rejection of common sense, science, real history - in favour of cult-like ignorance and blindness.


Mike



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by jthomas
Meanwhile.... AA77 still hit the Pentagon,

I don't care about that as much as what the alleged Flight AA77 did before it allegedly hit the Pentagon.


It took off, was hijacked, and was deliberately flown into the Pentagon.



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by tezzajw
 


Are you saying that if no one saw it, it didn't happen? No witness means no event?


Yes. And he also says that the over 1,000 people who saw, walked through, handled, removed, and sorted through the wreckage don't count.

It's the nature of the beast.



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by scott3x
reply to post by mmiichael
 


As to the flyover theory, and the idea that the light poles were removed without the aid of a plane, I believe as does CIT and PFT, that it's the most solid theory, based on things such as the flight path as well as many more things, that CIT and PFT bring up in their videos.

[edit on 20-11-2009 by scott3x]


What we actually know is that CIT and P4T cannot and will not support their claims that a "jet flew over and away from the Pentagon" no matter how many years we've asked them for positive evidence of a "flyover."

On that basis, CIT, P4T, and all other no-planers' claims were dismissed as fantasy years ago. Why some of you have such trouble separating reality from fantasy CIT "flyovers" is quite astounding.



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
he also says that the over 1,000 people who saw, walked through, handled, removed, and sorted through the wreckage don't count.

It's the nature of the beast.


As we know now, people responded to the notion of the world not being the centre of the universe and the evidence of it being round with disdain and insults. Of course that was centuries ago in less enlightened times when religion dominated understanding of the world not science and accurate reporting.

We have today, right here on this list, people who religiously believe demonstrably false information as an act of faith. They are terrified to find out the truth, burying their heads in the sand hoping it will go away if they ignore it.

Call hard facts the "Official Story" the "Inside Job" the "Cover-up"

Anything to maintain their frail self images as angry 'knowers of the real truth' and deny being foolishly deceived.



[edit on 20-11-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 



Originally posted by mmiichael

Originally posted by scott3x
I maintain that the flyover theory is the strongest theory out there. But feel free to try to persuade me otherwise.


Want to know something Scott? I no longer believe people like you when yo(u) say things like this. There is no willingness to find out what happened at the Pentagon Sept 11, 2001.

Solidly confirmed by witnesses, records, forensics, everything imaginable


Name specific witnesses, records and forensics and we can talk. The danger, I think, is in letting our imaginations get carried away...


Originally posted by mmiichael
a plane with many passengers too(k) off from Dulles Airport,


This, atleast, may be true. The question is, what happened to that plane? Surely you know that it had its transponder turned off; this means there is no confirmation that the plane that approached the pentagon was the same one that took off, allegedly as AA 77.


Originally posted by mmiichael
parts of their bodies were found among the same plane's wreckage in the Pentagon little more than an hour later.


People in this very thread are calling you out on that statement; they claim that it came from an uncomfirmed report. Are they mistaken?



Originally posted by mmiichael
The plane was tracked in the air,


I have heard that the plane could have been switched at some point.



Originally posted by mmiichael
many people saw it flying close to the ground towards the Pentagon


Many people saw -a- plane flying close to the ground towards the pentagon. The identity of the specific plane and the flight path to the pentagon are the issues in question, as well as whether or not the plane hit the pentagon or flew over it.


Originally posted by mmiichael
and saw a crash or the immediate aftermath.


CIT has done a great job of showing how the witnesses that believed that the plane crashed into the building make contradictory statements as to how it did so; this is suggestive of 2 things: 1- they didn't actually see the plane crash into the building but may have "added it in" later, after hearing reports. 2- They're outright lying. CIT did a much better analysis on this issue, perhaps someone will bring it up.


Originally posted by mmiichael
Most of the witnesses and clean-up crews as well as medical staff are ordinary people from all walks of life.


I'm not saying that a lot of people weren't simply fooled into believing that a plane did in fact crash into the pentagon. But a careful analysis of the evidence from an unbiased viewpoint will reveal that the plane simply couldn't have crashed into the pentagon. The fact that the government has to date only shown a very poor quality 5 frame video of the alleged event is, in my view, the key. Any good criminal knows that the more evidence an investigator has, the easier it is to figure out the truth; even faked evidence can have mistakes, and as I've mentioned before, they've already done enough of that, with the 5 frame video being dated September 12th, for instance. It would seem that you've never responded to this particular error; I must admit I'm curious as to why.



Originally posted by mmiichael
Nothing substantial has emerged in 8 years that conflicts with what is known except attempts by some guys in California to sell videos creating doubt in the minds of willfull conspiracists.


Michael, if you've seen CIT's and PFT's work, I honestly don't know how you could come to such a conclusion. Who is this guy from California anyway? The director of loose change?


Originally posted by mmiichael
I'm willing to bet you have never seriously examined the overwhelming amount of hard data and evidence of the plane crash. It would conflict too distressingly with your chosen fantasy.


I could say the same to you, but I've never really been into such tit for tat games. I contend that I've examined quite a bit of it. But if you believe I've missed something, by all means, point it out.


Originally posted by mmiichael
People like myself just don't want to see kids led down the garden path laid out by predatory opportunists and nut cases trying to spread false information of a very significant attack on the US. It's malicious and idiotic. It invites the rejection of common sense, science, real history - in favour of cult-like ignorance and blindness.


Again, I could say the same of your statements, but I myself am not very fond of such insults. I ask that you join me in letting go of such terms and stick to the evidence.

[edit on 20-11-2009 by scott3x]



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by scott3x

It's one thing to be off by a few degrees; quite another to be standing in the Citgo Gas station and see the plane fly over the north side instead of the south side. As a Pentagon police officer said, he'd bet his life that he saw it coming from the north side, and his partner also independently confirmed it came from the north side.


And yet, if AA77 had actually flown over and away from the Pentagon you believe there would be no eyewitnesses out of the hundreds of people on the freeways, bridges, and in the parking lots, who saw or heard AA77 nor would there be any positive evidence that a "flyover" took place.

Tell us that you can claim to know that no one saw what Craig Ranke illustrated for you:



It's astounding that you no-planers actually believe that CIT can illustrate a flyover but guarantee that no one all around the Pentagon would actually see it. Do you not have a clue how irrational CIT's claims are? How do you possibly let yourself fall for them?



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 



Originally posted by jthomas
What we actually know is that CIT and P4T cannot and will not support their claims that a "jet flew over and away from the Pentagon" no matter how many years we've asked them for positive evidence of a "flyover."


Actually, they have. I believe there are 2 witnesses, but I don't remember their names. One was working at the pentagon; he believes that it was a second plane, but the fact of the matter is that no other plane but the one that approached it could have flown over the pentagon. Most importantly, however, is the solid evidence which shows that the plane couldn't have crashed into the building. If it didn't crash into the building, the most likely scenario is that it flew over it.


Originally posted by jthomas
On that basis, CIT, P4T, and all other no-planers' claims were dismissed as fantasy years ago.


Even detractors of their theory, such as Jim Hoffman's wife, admit that their theory has eclipsed the 'plane crash' theory within the truth movement. Ofcourse, you're not in the truth movement, so I wouldn't expect you to be aware of such things.



Originally posted by jthomas
Why some of you have such trouble separating reality from fantasy CIT "flyovers" is quite astounding.


You are again making an assertion; this time, the implication is that you have proof that CIT's flyover theory is fantasy. Do you have such proof, or do you just like to talk?

[edit on 20-11-2009 by scott3x]



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 



Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by scott3x
It's one thing to be off by a few degrees; quite another to be standing in the Citgo Gas station and see the plane fly over the north side instead of the south side. As a Pentagon police officer said, he'd bet his life that he saw it coming from the north side, and his partner also independently confirmed it came from the north side.


And yet, if AA77 had actually flown over and away from the Pentagon you believe there would be no eyewitnesses out of the hundreds of people on the freeways, bridges, and in the parking lots, who saw or heard AA77 nor would there be any positive evidence that a "flyover" took place.


I never said that. As a matter of fact, I've stated that there -were- witnesses to a flyover. Atleast one of these witnesses, however, came to believe that it was a "second plane". What they don't understand is that there -was- no other plane that was in that airspace at the time.



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Lillydale
 


Many witnesses saw the plane strike. How many saw a plane fly away? It is apparent that a plane struck the Pentagon.


I would agree with Pteridine. Not only that, I would add that the plane was most likely a Boeing 757 from American Airlines. Flight 77 that morning, to be precise.



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by scott3x


Originally posted by mmiichael
People like myself just don't want to see kids led down the garden path laid out by predatory opportunists and nut cases trying to spread false information of a very significant attack on the US. It's malicious and idiotic. It invites the rejection of common sense, science, real history - in favour of cult-like ignorance and blindness.


Again, I could say the same of your statements, but I myself am not very fond of such insults. I ask that you join me in letting go of such terms and stick to the evidence.



Scott, I've been called names and insulted dozens of times on this board by self-styled Truthers.

Thins get heated because when some of us just calmly and reasonably attempt to supply data and links verifying what we have said, the information is ignored.

In anything as vast as reporting a major event like this, misreporting, mistakes in transmission, poor memory, human error is bound to creep in. Most of this has been weeded out just as typos, spelling mistakes, bad grammar are taken out of the final version of a document.

What CIT and others have tried to do expand on the small inconsistencies among the reportage and engineer an alternative no plane crash scenario that simply does not concur with the other 99.9% of the hard data and testimony.

Many witnesses have gone on record on what they saw when the plane came in or when they worked on the clean-up, identification of passengers, etc. Anyone seriously wanting to verify what happened can contact them or their places of work directly.

There is no more question that Flight 77 was hijacked and flown into the Pentagon then there is that there was a hurricane in Louisiana. It happened, many people were there, there are tons of documentation and testimony.

If it was sensationalistic and there was a buck to be made, someone could go through the piles of photos and media reports on Katrina and minor inconsistencies and misreporting. They could then badger witnesses into making confused statements, produce videos claiming the government and media's reporting was faked, and that there was no hurricane. That it was some kind of money grab or whatever.

You'd see through a base manipulation like this. We see through the fakery and sham of CIT.



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by scott3x
You are again making an assertion; this time, the implication is that you have proof that CIT's flyover theory is fantasy. Do you have such proof, or do you just like to talk?
[edit on 20-11-2009 by scott3x]


Well, all of the CIT witnesses say the plane they saw hit the Pentagon, the data from the FDR found in the Pentagon is consistent with it hitting the Pentagon, all of the hand-written statements and recordings from IAD and DCA indicate the controllers had no observation of it past the Pentagon, radar data from 4 ASR's and 2 ARSR's indicate its fight ended at the Pentagon, and the bodies of the passengers from the plane were found in the Pentagon.

Yes, I would call that pretty solid 'proof' that CIT's flyover theory is fantasy.



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by scott3x
reply to post by jthomas
 



Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by scott3x
It's one thing to be off by a few degrees; quite another to be standing in the Citgo Gas station and see the plane fly over the north side instead of the south side. As a Pentagon police officer said, he'd bet his life that he saw it coming from the north side, and his partner also independently confirmed it came from the north side.


And yet, if AA77 had actually flown over and away from the Pentagon you believe there would be no eyewitnesses out of the hundreds of people on the freeways, bridges, and in the parking lots, who saw or heard AA77 nor would there be any positive evidence that a "flyover" took place.



I never said that.


Sorry, that is exactly what you are asking us to believe. So is CIT and so is P4T.


As a matter of fact, I've stated that there -were- witnesses to a flyover.


There are none. Even CIT misrepresented Roosevelt Roberts who did not see any "flyover." He couldn't from his position even if CIT's NOC flight path were true. And none of the so-called NOC "witnesses" ever saw a flyover.

BUT, if any of those NOC eyewitneses had actually seen a "flyover" than you are asking us to believe that none of the hundreds of people all around the Pentagon would have seen and reported a jet flying fast, loud, and low over and away from the Pentagon as an explosion goes off in the background.

You actually want us to believe that. You want us to think AA77 became instantly invisible as it flew over the Pentagon instead of appearing as this:


Tell us, scott3x, how you believe AA77 would be invisible to all those people over the Pentagon? Do you not think that is a silly belief? Why do you want us to accept your flyover belief instead of accepting the fact that no one saw AA77 fly over and away from the Pentagon because it never happened and no positive evidence has ever been presented that it did?

Maybe you believe in Judy Wood's "space beam" shooting from space to make AA77 invisible.



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by scott3x


I never said that. As a matter of fact, I've stated that there -were- witnesses to a flyover. Atleast one of these witnesses, however, came to believe that it was a "second plane". What they don't understand is that there -was- no other plane that was in that airspace at the time.


Hi Scott,

There is one alleged witness to a flyover. CIT clings to him like a cheap suit. The problem? Pilots 4 911 Truth put together a flight path that the plane would have had to take in order for it to be possible. (NOC and over the south parking lot. )

For this to happen, the plane would have had to fly to the right of the impact point. So, you see there would be no way to camoflage the plane through the explosion. (which in itself is idiotic)

Ask yourself this; Why has CIT and PFT failed to put out an animation of the flyover? Answer: Then don't want you to see it!



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 



Originally posted by mmiichael
Scott, I've been called names and insulted dozens of times on this board by self-styled Truthers.


I know. I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but I had a little war with some truthers here for a time, which was best seen in a 70+ post thread that's since been deleted (unfairly in my view, but it's in the past), precisely because I didn't like their approach. Things have cooled off now and I get along with atleast one of my detractors quite well now, but I haven't forgotten.



Originally posted by mmiichael
Things get heated because when some of us just calmly and reasonably attempt to supply data and links verifying what we have said, the information is ignored.


I don't get riled up when my statements are ignored. I just repeat and repeat and.. repeat. I -do- get riled up when I'm insulted, the worse insults, the more riled up, but fortunately there are moderators here that deal with this.. they may not always deal with it the way I like (thinking of that thread that got deleted), but they get the job done.


Originally posted by mmiichael
What CIT and others have tried to do expand on the small inconsistencies among the reportage and engineer an alternative no plane crash scenario that simply does not concur with the other 99.9% of the hard data and testimony.


Michael, where, precisely, do you get this 99.9% from? I personally believe you plucked it out of thin air. Let's stick to the facts. You say that it doesn't concord with most of the hard data? Show me. And no, not with links that have little if anything to do with the subject at hand, but with the -relevant- data to the subject we're discussing.


Originally posted by mmiichael
Many witnesses have gone on record on what they saw when the plane came in or when they worked on the clean-up, identification of passengers, etc.


CIT has done a fairly exhaustive study of witnesses to the plane and the crash. In it, they bring up the names of the witnesses, not just a bunch of numbers of witnesses who allegedly saw this or that, with the relevant background on each individual. Have you seen their work on the subject?



Originally posted by mmiichael
Anyone seriously wanting to verify what happened can contact them or their places of work directly.


CIT has attempted to do so for all of them, and reached a fair amount no less, which can clearly be seen in their video documentaries. Were you truly unaware of this?


Originally posted by mmiichael
There is no more question that Flight 77 was hijacked and flown into the Pentagon then there is that there was a hurricane in Louisiana.


Michael, such a statement is patently false. Who, exactly, is questioning this hurricane in Louisiana? Now contrast that with the masses who question the official story concerning 9/11, including many who question what happened at the Pentagon.


Originally posted by mmiichael
It happened, many people were there, there are tons of documentation and testimony.


Stating that "many people were there" proves nothing. Your allegation that there is "tons of documentation and testimony" that supports the official story is just that, an allegation. This isn't a court of law, so you're free to state whatever you like, but I, atleast, adhere to a higher standard of evidence besides what you personally believe. You say there's "tons of documentation"? Let's see it.



Originally posted by mmiichael
If it was sensationalistic and there was a buck to be made, someone could go through the piles of photos and media reports on Katrina and minor inconsistencies and misreporting. They could then badger witnesses into making confused statements, produce videos claiming the government and media's reporting was faked, and that there was no hurricane. That it was some kind of money grab or whatever.


Have you ever considered the idea that this didn't happen simply because there is no evidence that Hurricane Katrina didn't happen? If memory serves, however, there are a lot of allegations as to the sloppy and corrupt work of the cleanup operation during Bush's time, however.

[edit on 20-11-2009 by scott3x]



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by scott3x
Stating that "many people were there" proves nothing. Your allegation that there is "tons of documentation and testimony" that supports the official story is just that, an allegation. This isn't a court of law, so you're free to state whatever you like, but I, atleast, adhere to a higher standard of evidence besides what you personally believe. You say there's "tons of documentation"? Let's see it.


Scott,

All the information is there. You refuse to look at it. We have supplied links to sites that further link to other sources, people, organizations.

If you or anyone ever genuinely feels the need you could probably have a phone conversations or email exchange with, among others, people who watched the plane fly over their heads, were involved in the clean-up, examination of remains, whatever.Many have been quoted right here.

I'll say again, 99.9% of the data confirms a hijacked plane crashing into the Pentagon. Most of what is known comes from ordinary people. Everything from passenger DNA analysis, pieces of aircraft, I think recovered flight recorder, traffic controller radar, and all the people who watched it happen or were there within minutes.

I can't keep repeating the same thing. With all due respect, you choose to accept carefully selected pieces of manipulated data and testimonies, wild unsubstantiated speculation and inferences, that push a commercially driven agenda to sell a story of a non-existent flyover.

Obviously nothing will change that.

For your sake, one can only hope your ability to differentiate between actual fact and other people's fiction is working better in other aspects of your life.

Don't send any money as transaction fees to Nigerian bankers who claim they are holding millions in an account for you.


Mike



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 



Originally posted by mmiichael

Originally posted by scott3x
Stating that "many people were there" proves nothing. Your allegation that there is "tons of documentation and testimony" that supports the official story is just that, an allegation. This isn't a court of law, so you're free to state whatever you like, but I, atleast, adhere to a higher standard of evidence besides what you personally believe. You say there's "tons of documentation"? Let's see it.


Scott,

All the information is there. You refuse to look at it. We have supplied links to sites that further link to other sources, people, organizations.


I've supplied links as well, and spoken of CIT's and PFT's work. Have you looked at it? How about you supply or quote from -1- link that deals with the material of the OP of this thread, and we'll take it from there.



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by scott3x

Stating that "many people were there" proves nothing. Your allegation that there is "tons of documentation and testimony" that supports the official story is just that, an allegation. This isn't a court of law, so you're free to state whatever you like, but I, atleast, adhere to a higher standard of evidence besides what you personally believe. You say there's "tons of documentation"? Let's see it.


You have 8,000 people to interview about the Pentagon alone. Please explain why neither you or CIT have bothered to do so despite repeated requests for those people's statements for over three years. Why are you not interested in what happened at the Pentagon but then pretend there is no evidence that these people can provide you?

The fact remains that you are unable to provide a single piece of positive evidence demonstrating "any jet flew over and away from the Pentagon" as you, CIT, and P4T claim.

But you think it is perfectly all right to insult us and the families of the victims of 9/11 by making claims you neither can, nor have any intention of, backing up. Why do you fear the truth, scott3x?





[edit on 20-11-2009 by jthomas]



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by tezzajw
 

Are you saying that if no one saw it, it didn't happen? No witness means no event?

Yes. And he also says that the over 1,000 people who saw, walked through, handled, removed, and sorted through the wreckage don't count.

In the past, jthomas, you have failed to quote me a few times on the claims that you think I made.

This is another occasion. Your utter failure to quote me here will be your admission that you have, again, fabricated an alleged claim against me.

I suspect that your lack of knowledge with physics, confusing speed and acceleration, may be more than just a lack of knowledge in physics, as you consistently try to make false claims against me.



new topics

top topics



 
215
<< 78  79  80    82  83  84 >>

log in

join