Pentagon Survivor April Gallop: "It's obvious the official story was fabricated..."

page: 14
67
<< 11  12  13   >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 13 2010 @ 10:22 AM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.




posted on Oct, 13 2010 @ 10:32 AM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Oct, 13 2010 @ 10:47 AM
link   
reply to post by GlennCanady
 


Perhaps it is because I don't believe the nwo exists.

On the other hand, lies, misinformation, ignorance and manipulation regarding 9/11 abounds. Because I have developed some knowledge about it I like to chip in from time to time when I see an especially big whopper.



posted on Oct, 15 2010 @ 01:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Seti_Starr
 


Your totally right matey.. It looked exactly like an ANFO charge explosive was used



posted on Oct, 15 2010 @ 03:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by TCF-Despair
I was given the official report by the brits when i was in the regiment and it said no major plane wreckage other than the fuselage witch was not very damaged, or aviation fuel were found on site..


Except that the official report does not state that at all.... That is Just something that you made up!



posted on Oct, 15 2010 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by dereks
 


Yes it does
The official report that WE did.. says it looks like low explosive



posted on Oct, 17 2010 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


Wrong! Sorry Exponent Your accusation of 'bias' is lame and without basis. That dog don't hunt, as they say.

So, 'bias' you call it? You mean like how a trial jury becomes 'biased' when they've heard the evidence and convicted but now they are not making reasoned conclusions.... (in the eyes of Defendant) No, they are 'biased' because they exhibit no interest in claims of innocence from the perpetrators family and friends?

Typical faux-debunker excrement.

Official story is full of holes to the point of being just an impractical HOAX! and anyone who bothers to research it is now 'biased'... typical Delphi technique psychobabble denial.

You've been schooled in Delphi-techniques, I take it?




edit on 17-10-2010 by AntiShyster because: proper credit
edit on 17-10-2010 by AntiShyster because: add line
edit on 17-10-2010 by AntiShyster because: spe



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 05:52 AM
link   
reply to post by AntiShyster
 


I have no clue what the heck you're going on about here. I'm not suggesting someone is biased because they believe on balance of evidence. I'm suggesting they are biased because they believe despite the balance of evidence.

If you select a single witness and believe them over all else, despite their unreliability and despite the availability of better quality witnesses and evidence, then I will call you biased. It doesn't matter who you are.

I also have no clue what 'Delphi techniques' are. When I was a lad it was a programming language we used occasionally?






top topics



 
67
<< 11  12  13   >>

log in

join