Where are AA77's wings?, page 4
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6    7  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 10 times


reply posted on 22-9-2009 @ 07:25 AM by TheAntiHero420
reply to post by jthomas


Well since the best evidence we have that a plane hit the pentagon is actually part of your avatar. With your CIT fly-over photoshopped in it, let me ask you something, does the government not kno how to use photoshop? As for physical evidence on the ground there is very little.



reply posted on 22-9-2009 @ 02:51 PM by TheAntiHero420
Originally posted by jthomas
Originally posted by TheAntiHero420
reply to post by jthomas


As for physical evidence on the ground there is very little.


Says you?



Yes, says me, but I'm not the only one. You should check out the clean up crew statements, i mean you referred to them in one of your many posts.

[edit on 9/22/2009 by TheAntiHero420]


reply posted on 24-9-2009 @ 06:11 PM by Lillydale
Originally posted by TheAntiHero420
Originally posted by jthomas
Originally posted by TheAntiHero420
reply to post by jthomas


As for physical evidence on the ground there is very little.


Says you?



Yes, says me, but I'm not the only one. You should check out the clean up crew statements, i mean you referred to them in one of your many posts.

[edit on 9/22/2009 by TheAntiHero420]


Maybe it is just the way I think but the fact that no one has come to this thread with any physical evidence is a little striking. There is not even a decent report on an idea of what might have happened. The best we got were a few wild guesses and some taunts. I am starting to think that there were no wings on whatever hit that building.


reply posted on 26-9-2009 @ 04:47 PM by Lillydale
reply to post by Badgered1


How is it that people like Cameron fox run around some 9/11 threads debunking everything in such an arrogant OS loving fashion and yet those same folks that are so brave and proud to promote the Official Fairy Tale do not even try to answer the simple questions.



reply posted on 2-10-2009 @ 09:56 PM by whaaa
reply to post by rush969



Do you realize that you just quoted yourself? There went your credibility as far as I'm concerned.

A flimsy fuselage can punch thru multi layers of the Pentagon.
But a multi ton jet engine crashes into a brick wall at 500mph and doesn't even leave a scuff mark? Please....

[edit on 2-10-2009 by whaaa]



reply posted on 3-10-2009 @ 12:00 AM by Lillydale
reply to post by rush969


You are going to have to try again. I most certainly did not say any of the things you quoted me as having originally posted above. The things you are saying look familiar though. Sorry if I am going to have to pass on discussing such a pointless question with someone who cannot figure out which part of the discussion he said and which part I said.


reply posted on 3-10-2009 @ 10:07 AM by rush969
reply to post by Lillydale


1.- The answer you were seeking has been provided.
2.- The information is all here. The ATS link and many other web sites have also been given to you.
There´s only one little question that I asked you.
How can you make a claim that the wings and engines didn´t leave marks or damaged the walls of the Pentagon?
Can you prove what you say? Provide an image of the “undamaged walls” maybe?



reply posted on 3-10-2009 @ 05:13 PM by Lillydale
Originally posted by rush969
reply to post by Lillydale


1.- The answer you were seeking has been provided.


Which answer? Where has it been provided?

2.- The information is all here. The ATS link and many other web sites have also been given to you.


Wow, so let me see if I got this straight. Two people (yes a friend of mine) mention that the fires were over 1000 degrees (i said 3000 to be specific but whatever) and that is seen as two people using the exact same words. They were different words, different sentences, different everything except heat and days but they are the same to you guys. Now, when EVERY OS PUSHER around here just answers questions by stating that the answers have already been given, what is that? Why is this statement tossed about by so many and never seen as the single monotone cop out that it really is?

Is it really satisfying to just say that answers have been given without ever actually finding them or posting them or referring to what they were?

There´s only one little question that I asked you.
How can you make a claim that the wings and engines didn´t leave marks or damaged the walls of the Pentagon?
Can you prove what you say? Provide an image of the “undamaged walls” maybe?


LOL, really? I can make this easy for you. Pick any picture of the building after the crash and tell me to point out where the marks DO NOT EXIST.

I see Jthomasitis is spreading.

You want me to prove something is NOT there, right? It seems to me that with all the photos, if there was wing damage, you could just point it out to us. Thanks.
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6    7  >>    ^^TOP^^



9-11 lecture at Basel University, Switzerland.
  Posted 15 days ago with 14 member flags
9/11 Actors re-visited
  Posted 9 days ago with 13 member flags
Building Collapses in Rio
  Posted 16 days ago with 6 member flags
new film "Human the film (2012)" covers all the bases and more!
  Posted 10 days ago with 6 member flags
Remains of 9/11 victim identified
  Posted 1 days ago with 5 member flags
you must try this youre self ????
  Posted 15 days ago with 4 member flags