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.

 

What hit the pentagon on 9/11/01?

page: 14
20
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 


Alright Lilly, clearly we've now branched off from talking about what hit the pentagon. You also mention that you no longer wish to discuss jthomas. That's fine, but I find that your points were worth answering, so I created a new thread, in case you or anyone else would like to see my response:

Caricaturizing one's opponents doesn't help 9/11 discussions




posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by u4itornot
Have you ever looked at the passenger list on this plane, it is an odd coincidence that you had so many high level people on one plane with a low passenger load. Check out this link as it details those on the plane and their importance in the military and defense field.

portland.indymedia.org...


[edit on24-9-2009 by u4itornot]


I thought it might help re- posting some info. concerning these scenarios you speak of. This is not the entire article. If you pull up the rest it has a lot dealing with the Raytheon fellows.

This article comes from-----


Tom Flocco.com
tomflocco.com...


Witnesses link missile to small military jet parts found at Pentagon on 9/11
Date: Monday, May 23 @ 01:59:41 EDT
Topic: 9-11 Attacks

Missile & remote control systems added to small jets before 9-11; same parts found at Pentagon

Two civilian defense contractor employees--told to remain silent--say other workers quietly retro-fitted missile and remote control systems onto A-3 jets at Colorado public airport prior to September 11 when similar A-3 parts much smaller than a Boeing 757 were found at Pentagon

Presidential candidate says scores of retired and active military and intelligence officials would testify before current grand jury probing government involvement in 9/11 attacks

by Tom Flocco

Fort Collins, Colorado -- May 26, 2005 -- TomFlocco.com --
According to two civilian defense contractor employees working at commercial corporate facilities at Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport (left), in the months before the September 11 attacks U.S. Air Force defense contractors brought in A-3 Sky Warrior aircraft under cover of darkness to be completely refitted and modified at the small civilian airport in Colorado.

The revelations are important evidence for a reportedly ongoing secret 9/11 probe because widely available Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) photographs taken during the attacks clearly show that the few aircraft parts found at the Pentagon belonged to a small jet very similar to a modified A-3 Sky Warrior--not the American Airlines Boeing 757.

It is not known whether all members of Congress are aware of the under-the-radar-screen grand jury proceedings, who has already testified, and whether the probe is purposefully being kept from public knowledge, according to government intelligence sources.
The two witnesses say that separate military contractor teams--working independently at different times--refitted Douglas A-3 Sky Warriors (above) with updated missiles, Raytheon's Global Hawk unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) remote control systems, fire control systems, engines, transponders, and radio-radar-navigation systems--a total makeover, seemingly for an operation more important than use as a simple missile testing platform for defense contractor Hughes-Raytheon.



The employees asked not to be identified for personal safety reasons and fear of job retaliation; but both told 2008 independent presidential candidate Karl Schwarz (left) "the Air Force brought in separate teams to do top-secret military work unrelated to commercial aviation at our airport, and we were told by our bosses not to discuss what we had seen with anyone."

The witnesses were quite fearful about several recent "suicides, car wrecks--mysterious deaths--directly related to the aviation experts" working on the systems that were installed on the A-3’s at Fort Collins-Loveland--having breached the government-blocked information flow at great personal risk, according to Schwarz--but providing more evidence for a New York 9/11 investigation.

Schwarz, a former Republican from Arkansas now living in Georgia and running as an independent to clean up government corruption and crime told TomFlocco.com that he met with the employees for about an hour in February to discuss the issue.

The witnesses told Schwarz that each jet was placed in a hanger just big enough for a work crew and one A-3 Sky Warrior; and "we were under strict orders not to discuss what the military teams were doing or what we saw."

The presidential candidate told us "there are about 150 retired and active U.S. military and federal intelligence officers who will come forward and testify regarding government involvement in the September 11 attacks--but only if there is a serious criminal grand jury."

Small plane evidence moved at Pentagon

The approximate 16-foot entry hole at the outside facade of the Pentagon on 9/11 has been the subject of countless questions by those who say the hole was caused by an air-to-ground missile (AGM) fired from a small military jet rather than an impact from a Boeing 757.



posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Donny 4 million
 


Donny, when you keep bringing this bogus info, even after being informed repeatedly that it is false, and thet Tom Flocco is a liar, it is known as "trolling" and is contrary to the ATS Terms & Conditions.


Again, using bogus "facts" is tantamount to perpetrating a hoax. YOU may believe this "Tom Flocco" nonsense, and bring it up constantly in all sincerity. BUT, numerous attempts to suggest you take this "info" with the proper grain of salt are ignored.

The very evidence, real verifiable evidence, belies the truthfullness of "Tom Flocco." He, and his 'group' are demonstrated liars.


conspiracy gatekeepers
promote"no plane" hoaxes
a mixture of sincere (but wrong) advocates and deliberate disinformers
(whatever the motivations, it's not "truth")


www.oilempire.us/pentagon-truth.html

9/11 truth movement researchers debunk the "no planes" hoaxes
on this page:



Some sites promoting 9/11 hoaxes that supposedly expose official complicity are well-meaning efforts. The most effective covert operations are when the plotters are able to get outside forces (in this case, some of the 9/11 skeptics) to do their work for them without realizing that they are helping the covert operation.

It seems that some people have let the "no plane" meme travel for SO long that to backtrack on this point would be very difficult. Those who have staked their credibility in public about this find it hard to admit they were fooled.

Rumsfeld's "Pentagon missile" hoax has been debunked countless times by the media, eyewitnesses and even the 9/11 truth movement's best writers and investigators. But most groups that market themselves as "9/11 truth" still promote this disinformation, although in some cases their support is incompetent analysis not malice.

The "no Boeing at the Pentagon" theories became the most prominent claim from the "9/11 truth movment" in 2004 and 2005 -- due to a combination of flashy presentations making this claim that have led to media attacks that focus almost exclusively on this claim (while ignoring others with solid evidence). This effort to promote - and discredit - the "no plane" claim came during a tightly contested Presidential election campaign that risked having 9/11 issues disrupt the outcome. It also increased in intensity as the 9/11 skeptics increased their visibility through the Deception Dollar campaign, the March 2004 and May 2004 International Inquiries into 9/11 and other outreach efforts that reached significant percentages of the political opposition (in one form or another).

How united is the loose conglomeration roughly called the "9/11 truth movement?" There aren't any objective criteria required for claiming participation in it. There aren't any tests that one must pass in order to become a member. It is technically easy and inexpensive for anyone to create a website to say anything -- and there are many ways to mix real information with untruths in order to create the illusion of authenticity.

While nearly everyone who is a skeptic about the events of 9/11 is united in thinking that there was a deliberate effort by the Bush administration to allow it to happen, that is the main point of unity. Rigorous Intuition, written by Canadian author Jeff Wells, calls this claim "the flying wedge," since it is one of the most divisive issues among activists seeking to shift public consciousness about the "event that changed the world."

There are a variety of perspectives on the degree of technical assistance provided by the Bush regime to facilitate the attacks, some with considerable evidence, others without documentation. Some of this disagreement is among people with good intention, but not everyone uses the same standards to prove their claims.

It would be an oversimplification to judge "9/11 truth" advocates for or against this theory by their support for other claims regarding 9/11. But looking at other issues, good and bad, surrounding 9/11 truth activism does reveal patterns.

Those who don't buy the "no plane" claims are generally those who are familiar with the geography of the Washington, D.C. area, understand Peak Oil was a motivation, focus on the war games, and have shown an ability to engage in critical thinking to differentiate real research from crap research.

There are some sincere people who talk about war games and still believe "no plane," but those folks are generally not familiar with the geography of Arlington, and they absolutely do not talk about the 90 foot wide impact hole (caused by the engines and the bulky parts of the wings), the fact that hundreds of people saw the plane, or the motivation to keep the 9/11 skeptics divided and discredited.

It is ironic that the no plane promoters urge people to ignore the hundreds of eyewitnesses to the crash of Flight 77 even while recommending that alleged eyewitness testimonies that the Twin Towers were supposedly demolished with explosives.

The loudest promoters of the "no plane" hoax generally also pushes even more absurd claims -- missiles hit the WTC, the Moon Landings were faked, and Holocaust denial.



!!!!!! See? Nuts abound.....



9/11 truth activists who know the "No plane" claims are a hoax
9/11 activists familiar with northern Virginia's geography

nearly all reject the "no Boeing" theories, especially those who are not far removed from knowing eyewitnesses. The various "no plane / no Boeing" theories reflect a lack of knowledge of the northern Virginia area -- it is hard to imagine that anyone who has been stuck in traffic on the nearby roads during morning rush hour (and seen the incredible flood of cars) would believe that a missile or small plane somehow was mistaken for a large Boeing 757. It is also illogical to assume that the perpetrators would have risked flying something other than Flight 77 over this densely populated area (since a single photo would have exposed the plot).

In January 2006, 911truth.org published a claim that someone on the Washington Metro heard other passengers exclaiming that they had seen the Pentagon Missile while waiting for a train at the Pentagon Metro station -- which is underground (and therefore a plane or missile or anything else would not be visible in the subway station). Anyone familiar with this subway system would not have published this claim since it is obviously false.


Due some actual investigating. "Tom Flocco" is an outlandish liar, with a motive we can only guess at......
___________________________________________________________
More:


CORRECTION: 9-11 crash victim Barbara Olson NOT arrested in Europe
www.thetruthseeker.co.uk...
-- Tom Flocco Now Thoroughly Discredited. A Must Read!
Tom Flocco Now Thoroughly DiscreditedIntroduction – September 23, 2005

With many thanks to the reader who pointed out the following discrepancies which more or less confirm Tom Flocco's status as a prime disinformation agent.

We've had our suspicions for some time but the following proves them quite conclusively. First off, Poland and Austria do not share a common border, yours truly should have picked that up immediately but geography was never a strong point at school. Likewise the Italian lyra is no longer tenable currency, it ceased to be legal tender on February 28, 2002. Which makes claims about fake lyra currency all the more improbable along with everything else claimed by the recent guest on Jeff Rense's internet radio show.

Moreover, a reader has just informed us that location of events reported on Flocco's website has now changed. From being the Austrian Polish border, as originally reported, it's now moved to the Polish German border, which actually exists. Seems like Flocco got wind of his mistake and is now trying to recover his tattered credibility. Ed.

9-11 crash victim Barbara Olson arrested in Europe
www.tomflocco.com/fs/OlsenArrested.htm


I wouldn't be going around citing HIM anymore......







[edit on 26 September 2009 by weedwhacker]



posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by scott3x
reply to post by Lillydale
 


Alright Lilly, clearly we've now branched off from talking about what hit the pentagon. You also mention that you no longer wish to discuss jthomas. That's fine, but I find that your points were worth answering, so I created a new thread, in case you or anyone else would like to see my response:

Caricaturizing one's opponents doesn't help 9/11 discussions


Cool, I am glad my points seemed worth addressing to you. I am really glad that in my search for the truth about 9/11, you find defending a thread troll more important than discussing the facts of the day. You two will make a very cute couple. I have to appologize but I doubt I will be following. I really just do not care that much about someone who only haunts these threads to cause chaos, confusion, and spread lies. You seem to like it quite a bit though. If you were paying attention, he has stopped haunting these threads after about the tenth person told him he was making no sense and demanding things that could not be demanded only to cover up his fake evidence and constant lies. If you think that is valuable enough to defend, have fun.

By the way, thanks for acknowledging that we got off the topic of the thread after I pointed out how off the topic of the thread you were getting. It is little treats like that that explain your sick love for an obvious troublemaker. Have fun together and please let this thread just get back to the actual topic.



posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by scott3x
Nothing comes to mind. Like I said, I have found his best qualities are his relative civility and his refraining from claiming he has proof concerning any of his claims.



He is rude, he has lied, he has used entire posts to do nothing but mock or insult people and he has presented the dead pentagon workers saying they were proof of passenger bodies. I guess you missed all this the first few times he did it and the next few times that I mentioned it. You think he has anything valuable to say and is not rude, obnoxious, willfully lying, and utterly useless, have a ball!



posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by scott3x
I know he claims to believe that AA 77 hit the pentagon, but that's not the same thing as saying he has proof for it. And yep, I've definitely noted that rather large hour differential. Not sure if he has accounted for it.


Here is your problem right here son. You are not sure if he has accounted for it. That would be because you have not actually read all of his posts like it was suggested before you spend two pages defending him. No, he has not accounted for it. He has not accounted for anything.

He did not say that he believed that AA77 hit the Pentagon. He said over and over again that he knows that it hit the pentagon. He has said the evidence/proof is overwhelming. He has called anyone denying all that conclusive proof names and just tossed insults at them instead of making any cogent argument for himself at all.

He gave us all pictures of the dead men that worked in the pentagon and said they were just "some" of the proof of the passenger bodies that were found there.

He insists that it has been proven and that he has shown us this proof that AA77 hit the building. You are saddly mistaken here. You really need to go back and read the things he posted prior to your visit to see the whole pattern. So far the only one here that thinks he has not been rude, not lied, and not claimed to have proof is you. Ever wonder why that might be? Perhaps the rest of us have been reading along.

When you spend days posting on a thread "I already showed you proof" over and over and over without ever showingt that proof, what would you call that?

When you spend pages telling other people that they need to deomonstrate to him how it is that Lilly knows what she knows because otherwise he has no answer when noone was asking him about Lilly or what she said, what do you call that?

When you post one lousy link full of lies and disinformation and again claim that you have now shown PROOF without ever trying to defend the obvious flaws in the link, what do you call that?

I could go on and on but I see you are so hooked on this guy that nothing anyone says is going to get you to simply look for yourself. He added nothing to the discussion but took plenty away from it. It is nice to have him gone. Instead we now have a "truther" defending him for about 15 posts. I would really rather discuss 9/11 so I think you should both just stay in the cozy little thread you made for him.

You could just go back to before you got here and perhaps a few other threads and actually look at his behavior but I see how much easier it is to pretend he is not what the evidence shows and blindly defend him, even if it means saying things that are simply not true yourself, i.e he never claimed to have proof.


What a joke you and him are and have tried to make this thread. I smell tag team disinfo.



posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to K J Gunderson post #266, part 1
 



Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by scott3x
I know he claims to believe that AA 77 hit the pentagon, but that's not the same thing as saying he has proof for it. And yep, I've definitely noted that rather large hour differential. Not sure if he has accounted for it.


Here is your problem right here son. You are not sure if he has accounted for it. That would be because you have not actually read all of his posts like it was suggested before you spend two pages defending him.


You want to read his almost 2000 posts to find out if he's accounted for it, be my guest. I'd personally rather do other things.



Originally posted by K J Gunderson
No, he has not accounted for it.


I will assume that you have read his almost 2000 posts.



Originally posted by K J Gunderson
He has not accounted for anything.


He's certainly gotten a lot of responses, which leads me to the conclusion that he's at the very least made some attempts. K J, I think you know what side of the debate I'm on, but when someone is treated too badly on -either- side of a discussion I'm in, I feel that it's necessary to intervene.



Originally posted by K J Gunderson
He did not say that he believed that AA77 hit the Pentagon. He said over and over again that he knows that it hit the pentagon. He has said the evidence/proof is overwhelming.


Can you cite a post where he says that he knows it? Also, saying that one has evidence is not the same thing as saying that one has proof. Evidence can be shown to be false. Something that's proven is incapable of being false.


Originally posted by K J Gunderson
He has called anyone denying all that conclusive proof names and just tossed insults at them instead of making any cogent argument for himself at all.


I've seen insults tossed his way as well. This is my point. If people from both sides could simply be more civil, I think things would work better. As to arguments in defense of the official story, he tends to rely on a link or 2. I agree that he is heavy on offense but light on defense. I personally believe it's because defending the official theories is fairly difficult; in such scenarios, I think it's much easier to attack alternative theories.



posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to K J Gunderson's post #266, part 2
 



Originally posted by K J Gunderson
[jthomas] gave us all pictures of the dead men that worked in the pentagon and said they were just "some" of the proof of the passenger bodies that were found there.


Does he say the word proof? If so, I'd like to see it.



Originally posted by K J Gunderson
He insists that it has been proven and that he has shown us this proof that AA77 hit the building. You are saddly mistaken here. You really need to go back and read the things he posted prior to your visit to see the whole pattern.


I will grant that he might have changed his tune. But I've rummaged through enough posts already. I know that he has vehemently denied that he has claimed there is proof of anything recently, but if he used to say something else, I'd be interested in seeing it. However, this doesn't mean that I'll be reading hundreds of old posts of his to see if he did, in fact, do this. I've already let one thread go for now (Independent Investigation...) because I simply can't keep up in my cataloguing of all the new posts in the thread tree I've been doing of it.



Originally posted by K J Gunderson
So far the only one here that thinks he has not been rude,


I haven't claimed that he hasn't been rude. I have only claimed that he has been "relatively civil", which I maintain. I've seen much worse. Furthermore, I've seen that the alternate theory side has also been rude at times with him as well as others who go for the plane impact theory.



Originally posted by K J Gunderson
not lied, and not claimed to have proof is you. Ever wonder why that might be? Perhaps the rest of us have been reading along.


I've read a fair amount, but I will admit that it's possible that I've missed some things. However, until I see it with my own eyes, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.



Originally posted by K J Gunderson
When you spend days posting on a thread "I already showed you proof" over and over and over without ever showing that proof, what would you call that?


I'd call it as you say. Can you link to a post of him saying that?



Originally posted by K J Gunderson
When you spend pages telling other people that they need to demonstrate to him how it is that Lilly knows what she knows because otherwise he has no answer when no one was asking him about Lilly or what she said, what do you call that?


Can you be more specific here? Are you referring to his claim that Lilly had claimed to have proof that no passenger bodies were found?


Originally posted by K J Gunderson
When you post one lousy link full of lies and disinformation and again claim that you have now shown PROOF without ever trying to defend the obvious flaws in the link, what do you call that?


Again, if you can show me that he said that one or more of his claims have been proven, I'd believe you. But I need to see it first.

[edit on 26-9-2009 by scott3x]



posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to K J Gunderson's post #266, part 3 (last part)
 



Originally posted by K J Gunderson
I could go on and on but I see you are so hooked on this guy that nothing anyone says is going to get you to simply look for yourself. He added nothing to the discussion but took plenty away from it.


I disagree. I think that he makes people who disagree with the official story put in effort to make their case. And I think that's a good thing.



Originally posted by K J Gunderson
It is nice to have him gone.


Of his own volition I assume?



Originally posted by K J Gunderson
Instead we now have a "truther" defending him for about 15 posts. I would really rather discuss 9/11 so I think you should both just stay in the cozy little thread you made for him.


I would, if you had made your response in that thread. But you didn't, and you also brought up a few issues concerning what hit the pentagon, so I decided to respond here as well.



Originally posted by K J Gunderson
You could just go back to before you got here and perhaps a few other threads and actually look at his behavior but I see how much easier it is to pretend he is not what the evidence shows and blindly defend him, even if it means saying things that are simply not true yourself, i.e he never claimed to have proof.


Like I said, I'm tired of just looking over posts, especially when people are criticizing my views. If you think I'm mistaken and you want to persuade me that I'm mistaken, pony up the evidence, instead of just mentioning the term as if you'd already done so. Otherwise, it's just one more point of view without evidence to back it up.



Originally posted by K J Gunderson
What a joke you and him are and have tried to make this thread. I smell tag team disinfo.


Whereas I know that all you've done is jump to a false theory about me.



posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by scott3x
 


You have a serious issue. Try to follow along. Even though you claim he did not, he DID claim to have proof. He said he had evidence of passenger bodies and posted pictures of dead pentagon employess. He then claimed to have proof in the form of a link to some worthless page of disinfo some person just made up. He spent the majority of the thread demanding that other people prove a negative or that other people prove that lilly can prove a negative. He does not answer questions, he does not follow basic logic, and he has lied on several occasions.

All of the things you praise him for -not claiming to have evidence, being civil, etc. are all things he has done; not only in this thread but many threads. Have I read all 2000 posts? I would have to say yes. Does 2000 posts seem like a lot to you? He has lied. He has been completely uncivil. He has claimed to have evidence that he did not have. He presented false evidence and never corrected himself after being proven wrong. He continued to offer the same link that was also proven to be a fraud. If you do not want to read the things he has done in this very thread, you should really stop defending him. Now I am sick of this conversation as well.



posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by scott3x
 


Seriously, Scott. I did ask nicely.



posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by scott3x
 


Scott, since you clearly do not know what the topic of this thread is, let me ask you something. Do you really think anything you are doing makes any sense? You have spent far too much time defending the credibility of someone else based on your idea that they are so bright and have so much to offer. Do you not realize that if any of that were true, he would not need anyone jumping to his defense? Apparently he had to call in his mom to tell us all he is an ok guy. I really think you should worry about you and the points that you can make about what hit the pentagon. Let your hero worry about himself.

p.s. you have been asked 3 times to just produce one good logical point he has made. You have admitted that you do not see any. That is the end of the discussion. If you want to defend his logic, it would help if you did not admit you could not find it yourself. You lose. Go back to bed.

[edit on 26-9-2009 by K J Gunderson]



posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to K J Gunderson's post #273, part 1
 



Originally posted by K J Gunderson
reply to post by scott3x
 


You have a serious issue. Try to follow along. Even though you claim he did not, he DID claim to have proof.


I've followed what you've said here quite well. I question if you've followed what I've said, however. IF he has said what -you- claim he has said, by all means, link to one or more posts where he's done it. Otherwise, all I've got is your word.



Originally posted by K J Gunderson
He said he had evidence of passenger bodies and posted pictures of dead pentagon employess.


Yes, but claiming one has evidence is not the same thing as claiming one has proof, as I've mentioned before.




Originally posted by K J Gunderson
He then claimed to have proof in the form of a link to some worthless page of disinfo some person just made up.


If you could simply link to this alleged post of his, I think we could move past this issue.



Originally posted by K J Gunderson
He spent the majority of the thread


While I haven't read every post in this thread closely, I've certainly followed it more than the "Independent Investigation" thread. I've created a thread tree of it from post 1, but that doesn't mean that I've read much more than the first few words for some of the posts that weren't addressing me. So perhaps something escaped me; I'm certainly willing to take a look at any post you may wish to link to of his.


Originally posted by K J Gunderson
demanding that other people prove a negative or that other people prove that lilly can prove a negative.


I have heard this claim that he's asked people give negative proof. I have yet to see this claim backed up, however.



Originally posted by K J Gunderson
He does not answer questions,


Given the amount of points addressed to him, I think it's clear that he can't answer everything.



Originally posted by K J Gunderson
he does not follow basic logic, and he has lied on several occasions.


I agree that some of his logic is erroneous, but I haven't seen any evidence as of yet that he's lied about anything. Note that saying something that isn't true isn't a lie if you yourself believe it; it is only a false statement or an untruth.



Originally posted by K J Gunderson
All of the things you praise him for -not claiming to have evidence, being civil, etc. are all things he has done; not only in this thread but many threads. Have I read all 2000 posts? I would have to say yes. Does 2000 posts seem like a lot to you?


Yes, it does. This doesn't mean that I haven't posted more than that in another forum (sciforums.com) under the same name, primarily debating the WTC building collapses, but it took me a year.



Originally posted by K J Gunderson
He has lied. He has been completely uncivil.


Proving someone has lied is relatively straightforward; if you have the evidence that he has done this, by all means, present it.

In regards to civility, I think it's hard to gauge what constitutes 'complete uncivility'. Furthermore, even if we were to come up with a standard and decide that he had indeed been completely uncivil, the other issue is; did one or more of his opponents act in the same way towards him? I'm not saying that 2 wrongs make a right, but I think what I'm trying to convey is best demonstrated by quoting the following rather famous quote:

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone".

[edit on 26-9-2009 by scott3x]



posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by scott3x
Does he say the word proof? If so, I'd like to see it.




I will grant that he might have changed his tune. But I've rummaged through enough posts already. I know that he has vehemently denied that he has claimed there is proof of anything recently, but if he used to say something else, I'd be interested in seeing it.


You are not even reading this thread. He has not vehemently denied having proof of anything ever here. He has not only never denied having proof, he has claimed over and over again to have already provided it.

Thank you very much. These little statements right here make it clear that you are either a liar or refuse to read English words. None of what you just said is even remotely true. It is the exact opposite of the reality. Yes he used the word proof. Go read some of the crap you are defending. I will not go back and find it for you. If it is too much trouble to read this thread from the beginning then feel free to keep looking stupid but try to look stupid on topic and take your little candle party to that other thread you made just for that.

Thanks in advance for letting him defend himself and you just talking about the topic and what you think about it from now on in this thread. You are a true gentlemen for leaving your romance at the door.



posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 05:13 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 05:18 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 05:33 PM
link   
Looking at the loop that the plane made, it looks as if this apparent fbi sting operation on the hijackers was to land the plane at national airport, and when people asked cheney if the orders still stand i think they meant 'are we still landing the plane by raytheon remote at national airport?' Nobody in our government wants to admit that 9/11 was a failed fbi operation, remoting the planes safely to airports near the targets and presesnting the hijackers as evidence that we need to go to war and increase security.



posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 09:53 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Weedy you got nothing at all---- REPEAT---- nothing at all, proving what I have posted about the retro-fitted A3 aircraft and the missing Raytheon execs is UNTRUE. Put it in your own words with some cross-examined evidence weedy.
Prove there was not retrofitted A3 bombers.
Prove the executives were not on manifests.
Stop the miss-use of the site space with drivel.



posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by evil incarnate
reply to post by scott3x
 


Scott, you are completely full of it. You must be Jthomas yourself because every single thing you asked for a link to is in this thread. You go on and on to claim that you have barely even perused each post but you know enough to know you have not seen these things? You are an amazing piece of work. Anyone that actually took the time to read this thread and read the stuff they are responding to and about, is going to find you very very entertaining. Ask for a few more links to posts that are pretty easy to find in this huge volume of pages.



I am with you here evil. These smoos have had their noses whipped through their own squallier of late. And they must morf into some new non responsive dis-info transformer. The tragedies of 911 are meaningless to them. The dead, the suffering survivors and the honor of every true American concerns them not.



posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 12:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
oh....and "registered pilots"???? whatever....


How much would you like to bet I can find Rusty Aimer, Ralph Kolstad,
or Rob Balsamo registered at FAA.GOV?

HOW MUCH do you want to bet "WEED"?

I'll tell you one thing for sure, I didn't find "Weedwacker" list on FAA.GOV!


Please pay attention: 768 MPH is equivalent to 667 knots. I have already presented this, yet you ignore??? WHY?


I didn't ask you for EAS at sea level! Since the first time I've been asking
for EAS at ALTITUDE! See page 13.

For some reason you had me agreeing with your sea level altitude for
EAS on a later page, however you confused me. I'll let that slide and
give you the benefit of the doubt.

Let's try again, what is the EAS at ALTITUDE (35,000 feet)!?

I'll bet you it's over Mach 1, and I'll prove it using an EAS calculator!


Additionally, the speed attained by the jets was only sustained for a very, very BRIEF time.


You better ready the NTSB study...becasue you ARE WRONG AGAIN.


BECAUSE of gravity, in the dive. The excessive speeds were accomplished....


I have some videos you might want to watch of this aircraft pretty much
level before it hits the tower. Are you sure you're ready to debate this
event?


Wanna read that NTSB study before replying? I;m hoping that someone
of your pilot status (if true) would pick up on these simple points and
wake up.

Sincerely.

[edit on 27-9-2009 by turbofan]



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join