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.

 

IT'S OFFICIAL: Even conspiracy web sites acknowledge it was flight 77 that hit the Pentagon

page: 21
20
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by eyestotheskies
 


No, not really. If you read it, it is very clear and precise... If you are relieved to find out the OS is right, you are a good american /person. If you are disappointed that all of your work and skepticism was proven wrong, your a bad person. There is no other way that a logical person could take the words I typed.

No worries, like I stated, I think it is a comprehension problem... The same problem that is evident in most 9/11 conspiracy theorists (questioners) arguments.




posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Resurrectio
reply to post by backinblack
 


I am going to take a guess... I am not a physicist or an expert, but here goes.

On impact the fuel containers would burst open and ignite from all of the sparks/fire resulting in a giant fireball (It was an enormous fire ball). Now, the fuel that was near the center mass of the plane would have followed the nose into the building, resulting in the fire inside the building.

Seems like such an easily explainable situation... Instead of asking all of these "How did this happen" ... You folks should work on proving ONE SINGLE fact..

Arguing with truthers is like running in the special olympics... Even if you win your still..... you know the ending!

Favorite Truther quotes


Indeed. The Truthers are also like the IRA; they believe that the government has to be right about everything, while they only have to be right once.
The beauty of the troofer bafoonery is that even if the US government built an exact replica of the WTC complex out in the desert somewhere, and then recreated the attacks then the subsequent collapse. The troofers would still claim that the entire thing was rigged.

People are entitled to their own opinoins, but they are not entitled to their own facts.





I really do find it amusing how much the "truthers" hate Chomsky for his out-of-hand dismissal of their insanity. They all turned to the legendary radical critic of the US government, and he told them to see a psychiatrist. I love it.



edit on 2/16/2011 by Resurrectio because: (no reason given)


Let's say I'm not convinced. Of course you'd say and lump me in with the Truthers and say like "You're never gonna be convinced..."
And in MY CASE (my case Alone, speaking and thinking for Myself) that may be True because I DETECT STAGING in *some* Pentagon photos yes... and well, I can't deny that so easily - or AT ALL.

But say I was an alien from Mars or Nibiru and I just got here and have to catch up on recent human history and I ask you to show me, prove to me, what happened that day at the Pentagon. What's your best evidence? What's the best you got? Prove it to me that a passenger jet hit it so I won't zap all humans with my space based ray gun...

Go on give it your best shot.

PROVE IT. (Oh and I don't think I need to remind you that saying it's "Official" that a plane hit it is in no way Proof that one did. I could say the moon is made of green cheese, you just gonna take my word for it? Didn't think so!)

I say I don't know who did 9/11. Really. I don't know. But I do know that *some* of those Pentagon photos were 'staged' and so what does that tell me?

It tells me that Suspect Number One is Donald Rumsfeld. Why? Because his office is/was in the Pentagon and he was there that day seen in Pentagon photos and even on the lawn. That's why.

Think about it. Bin Laden is/was not in D.C., he's in Pakistan (I think 6 feet under btw but that's another thread) and he's big on kicking Soviets out of Afganistan and helping his family out with their massive Middle East construction company.

Sure, he's made a few 'videos' but as you can tell from them he's no Steven Spielberg or Michael Moore. No. And when it comes to stills he ain't no Ansel Adams either. Those 'staged' photos are good, it's not bin Laden's specialty, and he was nowhere near the Pentagon that day, Rumsfeld was....

About the FBI confiscating videos, what... did they not have enough footage of their own?!!

"Quick, something just whacked the side of the building Rumsfeld's office is NOT on! You know, the side we planted all those explosives and airplane parts. Get over the highway and grab the Citgo tapes, we need to see what that was immediately!"


Right? If they had cameras they knew what 'hit' it and would not need the Citgo tapes... confiscating the Citgo tapes is not to see what hit the Pentagon, but to prevent seeing what hit it (if not a 757) or the showing that nothing hit it and not because they were wondering what did hit it and all their cameras were down and so there was a mad dash to find out by reviewing the neighbour's tapes.

At the very least, IF something hit it, they know EXACTLY what it was.

Oh and I haven't forgotten about you and your buddy "Steve Riskus" the first shooter (photographer) on the asphalt overpass (grassy knoll) scene that fateful day.

EVERYONE should Google him, go on, don't take my word for it.

See it's like this. If the Pentagon videos are being witheld because of what they show or don't show then they are being reluctant in releasing them maybe. But they couldn't very well be reluctant in releasing photos because that would be suspicious. So they had to release photos and some videos of the Pentagon aftermath etc.

But if the hit videos are suspect then it's likely that the Pentagon photos and aftermath videos released are released reluctantly. They have to show the aftermath but if no plane struck the Pentagon then they can only show photos reluctantly and therefore there may be discrepancies and anomalies in them.

The Pentagon photos are IMO 'reluctant' releases and should be examined very very carefully. It's the "thinnest" skin of the Official Story covering. They had to show Pentagon photos after not showing Pentagon videos etc.

Now who are "They"? I dunno, but I'm thinking Rumsfeld might know... I just know *some* of those photos were staged and unless some photogrphers are going to cop to having staged them (Which I think hasn't happened, but just might, Prediction) then we got a serious problem on the lawn and with the "Official Story".

Cheers



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by NWOwned
 


You would be better suited to ask someone else.. I was there I saw it... So I don't need to or haven't gotten into the pentagon pissing match. Just like you know what color, make and model your car is, I know what I saw that day.

Ok, I googled him... What am I supposed to see? Truthers picking him apart and attempting to discredit him? really? When will you people grasp a hold of reality... Clinging to this fantasy is a wormhole, you'll never be able to solve.
edit on 2/16/2011 by Resurrectio because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Resurrectio
reply to post by eyestotheskies
 


No, not really. If you read it, it is very clear and precise... If you are relieved to find out the OS is right, you are a good american /person. If you are disappointed that all of your work and skepticism was proven wrong, your a bad person. There is no other way that a logical person could take the words I typed.

No worries, like I stated, I think it is a comprehension problem... The same problem that is evident in most 9/11 conspiracy theorists (questioners) arguments.


It is not as clear and precise as you would like to think it is. I dont want to get personal so all I will say is go back and read it with an open mind and reconsider.

You seem to see this as a battle between the 'OS believers' and 'truthers' as you Americans seem to call them. One side is good and one side is bad. I'm not in either camp.

As a distant observer my view is whether a terrorist organisation penetrated the unwitting US military defenses and flew a plane into the Pentagon, or whether it was somehow an inside job, they are both pretty bad scenarios. How does believing one possible account or the other make a person good or bad?



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 11:45 AM
link   
reply to post by eyestotheskies
 


Please point out where I said that being a truther is good or bad... Please be specific... Now, with that being said, I think that some theories are ridiculous and plain ignorant. BUT, I have never judged a persons "good or bad" based on whether or not they believe the OS.

Imagine someone telling you what color your hair is, when they have never seen your hair. Or telling you how tall you are, without ever seeing you... I was there .. I SAW THE PLANE HIT.... So when someone comes on here and says it was a missile or NO PLANE AT ALL, I have to resort to thinking they are either intentionally riling things up, or are very very ignorant....

I have several issues with 9/11 and what happened.. But, with 100% certainty, I can tell you a plane hit the pentagon. I also think 2 planes hit WTC... I dont believe the holograms or CGI- I dont believe thermite or mini nukes... I think we had more info than our Govt. is telling us.. I think we shot down 93.. But that is as far down the rabbit hole, my logic will let me go.



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Resurrectio
reply to post by eyestotheskies
 


Please point out where I said that being a truther is good or bad... Please be specific... Now, with that being said, I think that some theories are ridiculous and plain ignorant. BUT, I have never judged a persons "good or bad" based on whether or not they believe the OS.

Imagine someone telling you what color your hair is, when they have never seen your hair. Or telling you how tall you are, without ever seeing you... I was there .. I SAW THE PLANE HIT.... So when someone comes on here and says it was a missile or NO PLANE AT ALL, I have to resort to thinking they are either intentionally riling things up, or are very very ignorant....

I have several issues with 9/11 and what happened.. But, with 100% certainty, I can tell you a plane hit the pentagon. I also think 2 planes hit WTC... I dont believe the holograms or CGI- I dont believe thermite or mini nukes... I think we had more info than our Govt. is telling us.. I think we shot down 93.. But that is as far down the rabbit hole, my logic will let me go.


You seriously need to re-read some of things you are writing if you believe that I am misinterpreting everything you say.

Having said that I appreciate your openess to debate and I understand some of your frustrations with some of the whacky scenarios put forward by the truth movement. My logic tells me however that the rabbit hole is much deeper than the US government will ever admit, and probably deeper than you are prepared to consider (which is not a criticism of you).

Time to go now but thanks for the debate



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Resurrectio
reply to post by hdutton
 


How is that JFK conspiracy coming? Moon landing working out well? There will always be people that will find a conspiracy in everything.. Unfortunately the internet has given them a way to make money and gain acceptance from like minded people.

Like I have stated several times now.. All of you "truthers" - "questioners" will/would be severely disappointed to find out that the OS was spot on.. Remember this... a truly good American/person would be relieved!!


I am afraid I find it necessary to reply, even though I feel "over qualified" to do so.

It would seem you have me at a loss. I was not aware of the JFK assination or the moon landing being a part of this particular discussion. However, I will admit that I personally believe JFK is dead and, judging from the limited information to which I have access, men have landed on the moon.

I will conceed the point as to your being present at the pentagon on Sept 11. Based upon your statements, and the fact that I was not, I have no grounds upon which to argue this point.

As to you statement "implying" a truly good American would be satisfied with the OS. Let me say that I think the same thing could have been said at Jonestown as they poured up the koolaid. I would not question the color of you car or hair, so I would appreciate you not "implying" any questions concerning my own values as an American.

Just so you know.

My family has been living on this land since before it became the US of A. There have been members of my family serving in every conflict in defence of this land almost since we arrived. I, personally, have left blood, guts, and body parts on three continents in defence of this country. This being said, I firmly believe, I have as much or more right to question my government or my fellow citizens about anything which I see as deserving a better explaination and understanding than I have at the time.

If/when the final truth comes to light, as I do not believe it has as yet, I will be the least disappointed person you can find. You see I have first hand insites into many things which are not quite what they may seem, and it will be a good change of pace for me to find out the OS was the truth.



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by hdutton
 


Please please try and comprehend this.. It seems that truthers want me to say .. If you don't believe the OS, then your NOT a good American... Please please try and comprehend what I DID write...Because, I surely DID NOT write that!

If you found out that the OS was true, and you were relieved to find out that our Govt. was not up to tomfoolery, I would consider you a good American....

If you found out the OS was right and you were disappointed, IMO, you are not a good person,let alone a good American..

Can you comprehend the difference there? Jesus, I feel like I am teaching my 4 year old Trigonometry.

My point is this, truthers are so involved in this conspiracy, they have so much invested, many will be disappointed and crushed to find out their work was for nothing. Others will simply deny all evidence and go on with their delusion. People have thousands of hours invested in proving the OS a lie.... Instead of being relieved that it was actually an attack, and not our govt. doing this, those that believe the evidence will be disappointed
that their fantasy was all a delusion.

No where did I imply or say, that if you believe the OS your a good person, and if you don't your bad.

This all comes down to simple reading comprehension.. It's sad and frankly it's pathetic.


I would not question the color of you car or hair, so I would appreciate you not "implying" any questions concerning my own values as an American.


Can you please point to me where I questioned "my own values as an American."

Please and thank you!
edit on 2/16/2011 by Resurrectio because: (no reason given)

edit on 2/16/2011 by Resurrectio because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Resurrectio
 



On impact the fuel containers would burst open and ignite from all of the sparks/fire resulting in a giant fireball (It was an enormous fire ball). Now, the fuel that was near the center mass of the plane would have followed the nose into the building, resulting in the fire inside the building.

Seems like such an easily explainable situation... Instead of asking all of these "How did this happen" ... You folks should work on proving ONE SINGLE fact..


Did you watch the video weedwhacker posted that I was referring too?
If not then you are taking my question wrong..


edit on 16-2-2011 by backinblack because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


Maybe I did misunderstand.. I am going back to watch it now black... bbl with a comment. I can not tell you much I appreciate you... we 100% disagree, but are able to be civil. You my friend are the only proof I have, that some truthers are actually intelligent people, with a different view than my own.



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Resurrectio
reply to post by backinblack
 


Maybe I did misunderstand.. I am going back to watch it now black... bbl with a comment. I can not tell you much I appreciate you... we 100% disagree, but are able to be civil. You my friend are the only proof I have, that some truthers are actually intelligent people, with a different view than my own.


Thanks, it's also nice to be told I'm wrong without the attached insults like others..

But the video weed posted clearly shows fuel and wings entering..
I was merely asking him if he believes that vid is accurate as he entered it as evidence..



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Resurrectio
 


I would hope you would start reading your posts and replies before you hit the submit button.

Just so you will "comprehend" what I am writing about---

(((((((((((( "Like I have stated several times now.. All of you "truthers" - "questioners" will/would be severely disappointed to find out that the OS was spot on.. Remember this... a truly good American/person would be relieved!!" )))))))))))

I can't help but think something is "implied" by such statements.

Just as a side note. I learned trigometry when I was 15. (Gosh, that was 50 years ago) and my reading comprehension has wained very little with time.

But, seriously. I will always hope you and yours all the best anyway.
edit on 16-2-2011 by hdutton because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


BULLoney!!


I'll translate for the people at home..

Weedwhacker posted a video to prove the OS but when it is proven to the video is clearly WRONG.


There is nothing "wrong" with the video. Intelligent people can comprehend its point.



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Resurrectio
 


Resurrectio, you know, even I think some Truthers are really Whacked! And as well I think some Trusters are way too blind and accepting about what they are just merely told or shown etc.

If I were there and saw it and had to convince some alien about what happened I think it wouldn't be that easy to do. Would he believe me based on the evidence? Studying our species, one of the first things any alien would detect is our propensity to deceive as like a basic trait or something.
You know, generally, to deceive ourselves and others.

I mean look how the debate rages on.

If the OS was so truly believable and had no lingering holes or nagging questions in regular folks' minds, perhaps it would've died down by now.

What I'd like to ask you (since you saw the plane) was what exactly did you see? Can you take a moment please and recount it with SPECIFICS?

Like, if that was your van on the roadway with the open door seen in that roadway pic then you must've been driving yes? So can you pick up from just before the overpass what you saw and thought or said to your friends as the whole thing went down?

There are many 'eye witnesses' as you know who claim to have seen the plane hit but really they only 'deduced' it was a plane hit because they were over a hill or running the other way, or they saw a plane in the area then heard a BOOM and then ran to have a look and saw a big smoking hole and just thought, "Oh wow that plane must've crashed there!" You know.

But what I want to know, and hope you will clarify, is exactly where you were on the highway and what did you see? Did you hear a plane first and then look up? Did you see the plane clip any light poles? Were you and your friends all looking exactly right when the plane hit and saw the actual plane nose, fuselage, and wings TOUCH the exterior wall of the Pentagon? Not 'it crashed while you were under the bridge or the other side of the hill' etc. But exactly what it is you saw. Your van looked liked it was right across from the whole scene so what about timing?

Did the plane fly right over your van?!

Also, did you and your friends try to help? Try to run down and look even? Or were you prevented from venturing any closer? Can you go into that? If there were agents around? Or if you were told to stay back? Could you have run down and looked right in that hole yourself? How close did you get to the actual crash?

Anyway if you wouldn't mind elaborating on all this I'd really appreciate it.

Thanks

As for Steve Riskus the first photographer, I'm not really trying to attack or discredit him. I'm more like, "Well, he was the first on the scene with a camera, he took 13 shots and then left because he was scared..." Interesting. You looked at the 13 shots? He made no effort at all it seems to get closer to the action. The pic of your van may even be by him, and if you will notice it's from as far away from it as your van is from the Pentagon etc.

So I want to know who this guy is and what his account was. If it were me, first on the scene with a camera, man, you'd see some wicked close up pics. I would've got a close-up of the first FF spraying that hose across the lawn. Dead people strapped into airline seats would've been all over the news!! I would've went without sleep and coffee, I would've went to the Citgo or Walmart for more film! I would've shot that until my fingers bled.

But he took 13 crappy pics and then left... I'm just saying, that seems pretty strange to me.

Now, I'm not trying to discredit Steve but if I ask who he is and the answers start looking fishy and discrediting what should I do? What should we do? What would you do? What would you think? If I asked who some other people are and were doing and they start looking 'fishy' too what would you have me do? Ignore that? Just believe what I was told? Not question anything?

What do you think we all should do just stop asking questions?

Look, just because a plane crashed into the Pentagon doesn't mean it all still wasn't some kind of 'SHOW' designed for us to consume.

Cheers
edit on 16-2-2011 by NWOwned because: fixed sentence



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 08:15 PM
link   
Why do truthers patronize skeptic troll treads like this one?

.
edit on 16-2-2011 by ATH911 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 06:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by NWOwned
reply to post by Resurrectio
 


Resurrectio, you know, even I think some Truthers are really Whacked! And as well I think some Trusters are way too blind and accepting about what they are just merely told or shown etc.

If I were there and saw it and had to convince some alien about what happened I think it wouldn't be that easy to do. Would he believe me based on the evidence? Studying our species, one of the first things any alien would detect is our propensity to deceive as like a basic trait or something.
You know, generally, to deceive ourselves and others.

I mean look how the debate rages on.

If the OS was so truly believable and had no lingering holes or nagging questions in regular folks' minds, perhaps it would've died down by now.

What I'd like to ask you (since you saw the plane) was what exactly did you see? Can you take a moment please and recount it with SPECIFICS?

Like, if that was your van on the roadway with the open door seen in that roadway pic then you must've been driving yes? So can you pick up from just before the overpass what you saw and thought or said to your friends as the whole thing went down?

There are many 'eye witnesses' as you know who claim to have seen the plane hit but really they only 'deduced' it was a plane hit because they were over a hill or running the other way, or they saw a plane in the area then heard a BOOM and then ran to have a look and saw a big smoking hole and just thought, "Oh wow that plane must've crashed there!" You know.

But what I want to know, and hope you will clarify, is exactly where you were on the highway and what did you see? Did you hear a plane first and then look up? Did you see the plane clip any light poles? Were you and your friends all looking exactly right when the plane hit and saw the actual plane nose, fuselage, and wings TOUCH the exterior wall of the Pentagon? Not 'it crashed while you were under the bridge or the other side of the hill' etc. But exactly what it is you saw. Your van looked liked it was right across from the whole scene so what about timing?



If you took a ruler and drew a line from the far east corner of the pentagon out to the road.... I was roughly 150 yards behind that line when we heard the plane.(or a loud noise, and started looking around)..At that point my buddy in the back seat yelled and told us to look. The plane didn't fly directly over us, but more like 30 to 40 yards in front of us.. I saw it out of the drivers window coming in and strike the building out of the passenger window.




Did the plane fly right over your van?!
No - more like 45 degrees up and in front of us.



Also, did you and your friends try to help? Try to run down and look even? Or were you prevented from venturing any closer? Can you go into that? If there were agents around? Or if you were told to stay back? Could you have run down and looked right in that hole yourself? How close did you get to the actual crash?



As odd as it sounds, going down there never crossed my mind. I didn't see an agents. Nobody was told to stay back, or at least i didn't hear it. Yes we could have gone right up there. One of the people we were talking to said that there was talk of another plane, so we decided it best to gtf out of there in case another plane was coming.



Anyway if you wouldn't mind elaborating on all this I'd really appreciate it.

Thanks

As for Steve Riskus the first photographer, I'm not really trying to attack or discredit him. I'm more like, "Well, he was the first on the scene with a camera, he took 13 shots and then left because he was scared..." Interesting. You looked at the 13 shots? He made no effort at all it seems to get closer to the action. The pic of your van may even be by him, and if you will notice it's from as far away from it as your van is from the Pentagon etc.


I had seen the close up pic of my van before, but had no idea it was this guy that took it. Like I said, people were talking about another plane being hijacked, and people were getting back to their vehicles to leave. I completely understand him not getting closer.. I have stopped at several car accidents in my life, to help. I climbed a tree to get a ultralight pilot down after a crash when I was in my 20's... There was something about this that was terrifying.. The scale of this had my "help the wounded" motivation frozen.. Helping others was not a top priority for me at the time.



So I want to know who this guy is and what his account was. If it were me, first on the scene with a camera, man, you'd see some wicked close up pics. I would've got a close-up of the first FF spraying that hose across the lawn. Dead people strapped into airline seats would've been all over the news!! I would've went without sleep and coffee, I would've went to the Citgo or Walmart for more film! I would've shot that until my fingers bled.


I'll be honest.. I drove that route for many many years, and had NO CLUE there was a citgo or a walmart anywhere in that area.. I'll have to take your word for it.



But he took 13 crappy pics and then left... I'm just saying, that seems pretty strange to me.


The pictures look pretty good to me. Why do people assume, they know how they will act in a situation, they have never been in? If I hadn't been there, and someone asked me if I would help in this situation, my answer would be yes... Obviously my actions contradict that... It is easy to be a arm chair hero..



Now, I'm not trying to discredit Steve but if I ask who he is and the answers start looking fishy and discrediting what should I do? What should we do? What would you do? What would you think? If I asked who some other people are and were doing and they start looking 'fishy' too what would you have me do? Ignore that? Just believe what I was told? Not question anything?


Yes, that is exactly what you and your band of theorists are doing. Dictating how he "should" have acted... Picking apart his past and present to discredit his proof.



What do you think we all should do just stop asking questions?


No, but you should learn to accept the answers, instead of trying to discredit the subject being asked the questions.



Look, just because a plane crashed into the Pentagon doesn't mean it all still wasn't some kind of 'SHOW' designed for us to consume.


This is possible... Like I stated... We are not being told everything about 9/11 .... BUT, we can't turn the entire day into a Saturday morning cartoon, simply because we have doubts.

Cheers
edit on 16-2-2011 by NWOwned because: fixed sentence



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 06:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Resurrectio
 


Good grief! Another one, I was there, I saw the plane, I have all the facts?
Probably never went on public record. That is no different than me stating I was there, I saw a missal fired into the pentagon, I was sitting in a car looking out my window on the interstate. Your statement is not proof enough we are seeking physical evidence such as serial numbers of crashed debris to prove they belong to said plane. Anyone can make a claim. Most people searching for truth have little faith in “hearsay information,” the fact is ALL people tell lies when it is convenient to them.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 06:37 AM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


Actuslly we are double suspicious of the "I was theres"
after all the OS has totally ignored the "I was theres" that illustrate the falacity of the OS.
so...
and where are all the Vids that were there....?



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 06:39 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


I really have tried to not say anymore on this particular thread, but I just can't help myself.

The reason for this particular rant is the "precieved" insistance of many people to place real faith and credibility on computer video simulations.

By their very name such displays are simply manipulations of pictures on the screen. They are NOT real. At best they can always be considered a depiction of the operators opinion of whatever it is they want you to see.

I am not trying to say that these particular simulations are in anyway trying to convey a situation which does not match the true events of the day. I am attempting to convey a sense of constant skeptism into the minds of those who might otherwise think that these are the absolute answer to the many questions which beg for some rational explainations. This is, of course, quite evident when seemingly solid images pass through other solid objects.

As I said, this is not to be taken as an indictment of any simulations which anyone may see. I just wanted to remind US ALL that at best these videos are only opinions of possible details which usually happen to quickly or are obscured from view by a witness.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 06:43 AM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 




I Have all the facts!

Where did I say this? Oh, this must be part of your over dramatized "flash" phrases, you use to subtly attack anyone who disagrees with you. Here is a little hint... Your not a "truth" super hero... Get over yourself.

Ok, so I wont tell my account, simply because you don't believe anything, unless it has a serial #??

Do you want to take a second, and jump up and down and scream at the top of your lungs? Should we pause for your rules? Maybe a little temper tantrum?

What should I do Impressme? Stop telling my account? What could I do, or anyone do, to prove anything to you?
because I don't have a piece of plane... (must have a serial # on it) I should go away?

You are allowed to spout off BASELESS theories, but a witness, is not allowed to tell their story?

On record? If I did go on record, you and your fantasy friends would pick me apart and call me a liar, or tell me I don't know what I saw.. frankly, I am glad I never spoke to the news... Last thing I need is a bunch of fruit loops harassing me like they do to anyone, that has an account that differs from their delusion!


edit on 2/17/2011 by Resurrectio because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join