What made you first suspect that these 9/11 conspiracy stories were false?

page: 4
14
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 01:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by NWOwned
We must demand they prove their OS claims.

Prove a 757 hit the Pentagon... FOR REAL and not just say it, not just show obviously doctored and 'staged' post crash photos.


It's a fair question. Here's a compilation of eyewitnesses who were there and who personally saw the plane hit the Pentagon...

Eyewitnesses to the Pentagon attack

...and here is the best simulation I've seen of the attack and presents the evidence on which it is based...



So, right now are you thinking, "hey wait a minute, those damned fool conspiracy web sites never told me about any of this!" or, are you simply going to accuse all the witnesses of being secret government agents and all the evidence manufactured and planted? If it's the former, congratulations, you're starting to think for yourself, and if it's the latter, then why are you wasting my time asking for proof when you're simply going to invent whatever reason you need to for why you don't have to believe it?



I read your whole list of Pentagon eyewitness accounts and I actually expected to find, like I jokingly said: "2 1/2 eye witnesses" who would've mentioned seeing - and hence corroborating, a smoke trail being present (under the plane) over the Pentagon lawn on 9/11.

So you can imagine my surprise when I discovered that not a single eye witness even mentioned seeing such a thing. Hmm... surprise!

Imagine that.

Now let's say hypothetically, that a large pink 747 with the name 'Virgin' clearly on the tail, hit the Pentagon on 9/11. Got that image? Ok.

Now let's say we come to know this in part because a parking gate camera picks up 5 frames of said plane flying across the lawn. You still with me? Fine. This parking camera video isn't released immediately though, but takes a few years to surface and end up on youtube etc.

Now with the release of the 5 frame clip, some company, to make 9/11 more simple for the masses I guess, goes ahead and makes a Pixar-like animated video of a pink 747 with Virgin written on the tail flying into the Pentagon.

One that coincides with the gate cam view released long after 9/11.

Now you come along and in a single post you do two things, you give a link to a long list of Pentagon attack eye witnesses and you post as well, a little animated video showing the big PINK plane (smoke trail) right?

Just play along, there is a point to all of this.

Ok. Then I come by and I watch the video. A nice well made video of a big pink 747 Virgin plane scooting across the lawn, and oh look, it matches the 5 frame gate cam view! (The one released years later.)

But see I go even further, I even click on and begin to read your link to many many (didn't count then all) Pentagon attack eye witnesses, fully expecting to find at least, I dunno, 50% (or more) saying they all seen the big pink plane, but alas, what I actually discover is NO ONE EVEN MENTIONS IT!

How can this be explained?

If they're truly 'eye witnesses' then how come they all didn't see the big pink plane?! I mean that seems incredible to me that no one wouldn't mention it.

Just incredible.

Here's what I think happened.

No witness actually even seen a plane or they are lying about seeing the plane. They all say it's an American Airlines 757 plane, a regular flight that hits the wall and there's a big orange flash etc. 50% say the landing gear was up. Couple years later a gate cam video surfaces and enters the evidence record.

Except that the plane is a 747 and it's pink with the word 'VIRGIN' clearly written on the tail.

Now I check what the eye witnesses claim to have seen and discover no one mentions the big pink Virgin plane. I reason it's because who is going to say they saw that if they never seen it or their accounts are completely made up? No one.

So it's funny that the pink plane is in the gate cam video and then the animated video but no eyewitness ever mentioned it. You follow?

The reason is the accounts were all collected just after 9/11 and the video with the smoke trail (pink plane) was released later, so if you're going to go with the smoke trail being real then that calls into question all the eye witness reports because not a single eye witness mentions the smoke trail under the plane which is clearly visible from even the gate cam which you claim is too far away to even see the billowing generator, but I can clearly see the generator puffing away on the video clip.

It's a clear PERP mistake. The eye witness accounts not matching the gate cam video etc. Mistake. The gate cam video may be authentic too now because of this mistake. The animated video explanation is done to cover the smoke trail's actual origin by saying it's a smoking engine and not the missile it really is.


Cheers




posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 06:20 AM
link   
reply to post by NWOwned
 


Ahem, from what I'm reading from the various eyewitness accounts, here they are again, the plane was going quite fast. The simulation is an extremely slowed down version of events, so the smoke was probably pouring out of the engine for only a couple seconds.

Edit:

Milburn, Kirk
I was right underneath the plane, said Kirk Milburn, a construction supervisor for Atlantis Co., who was on the Arlington National Cemetery exit of Interstate 395 when he said he saw the plane heading for the Pentagon. "I heard a plane. I saw it. I saw debris flying. I guess it was hitting light poles," said Milburn. "It was like a WHOOOSH whoosh, then there was fire and smoke, then I heard a second explosion." - (Washington Post, September 11, 2001) -
edit on 4-10-2011 by Varemia because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by dillweed
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 
Nice try, Dave. My mother abandoned me.





posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 10:01 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Finally, you have the nerve to post a real picture of yourself. Sorry I ever doubted you.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by NWOwned
 

It's a clear PERP mistake. The eye witness accounts not matching the gate cam video etc. Mistake. The gate cam video may be authentic too now because of this mistake. The animated video explanation is done to cover the smoke trail's actual origin by saying it's a smoking engine and not the missile it really is.


Your analogy doesn't work. First of all, none of the witnesses are insisting there was NO smoke. They're not mentioning whether they saw smoke one way or the other. They only had a few seconds to see all this transpire so they're not going to go into excruciating detail of what they saw. They didn't describe the noise of the plane screaming over their heads either, so it would be absurd to insist the plane violated the laws of physics and had completely silent engines becuase "none of the witnesses mentioned the plane was making sound."

Second of all, the smoke trail isn't based upon eyewitness accounts. It was based upon flight recorder data indicating damage to the starboard engine If memory serves, even the "cruise missile" people acknowledge the image from the gate photo is smoke. It's just that they're saying this is smoke from the missile exhaust, so all you're doing is insisting your own claims are wrong, too.

Third, you're evading the main point in this. All the eyewitnesses specifically said it was a plane they saw. Not a missile, not a UAW, and not even a UFO, but a plane-

Steve Anderson, USA Today: "I witnessed the jet hit the pentagon on September 11. From my office on the 19th floor of the USA TODAY building in Arlington, Va., I have a view of Arlington Cemetery, Crystal City, the Pentagon, National Airport and the Potomac River… Shortly after watching the second tragedy, I heard jet engines pass our building, which, being so close to the airport is very common. But I thought the airport was closed. I figured it was a plane coming in for landing. A few moments later, as I was looking down at my desk, the plane caught my eye. It didn’t register at first. I thought to myself that I couldn’t believe the pilot was flying so low. Then it dawned on me what was about to happen. I watched in horror as the plane flew at treetop level, banked slightly to the left, drug its wing along the ground and slammed into the west wall of the Pentagon exploding into a giant orange fireball. Then black smoke. Then white smoke."


Mrs. Deb Anlauf, resident of Colfax, Wisconsin, was in her 14th floor of the Sheraton Hotel [located 1.6 mile from the explosion], (immediately west of the Navy Annex) when she heard a “loud roar”: "Suddenly I saw this plane right outside my _ You felt like you could touch it; it was that close. It was just incredible. “Then it shot straight across from where we are and flew right into the Pentagon. It was just this huge fireball that crashed into the wall (of the Pentagon)."

William Lagasse: "I saw the aircraft above my head about 80 feet above the ground, 400 miles an hour. The reason, I have some experience as a pilot and I looked at the plane. Didn’t see any landing gear. Didn’t see any flaps down. I realized it wasn’t going to land. . . . It was close enough that I could see the windows and the blinds had been pulled down. I read American airlines on it… I got on the radio and broadcast. I said a plane is, is heading toward the heliport side of the building."


...all of which makes your entire claims moot, smoke or no smoke. It would be one thing if these were shadowy, anonymous people you were accusing of being liars, but they're not- they're normal people who were simply in the area. Steve Anderson, for example, has since left USA Today and now works at IFC. He can reached through their web site. There's even a photo of him:

Web Site of Steve Anderson

His email is steve.anderson@icfi.com and his phone number is 1-703-934-3847. He's in their public relations department so he isn't trying to hide from you in any way. YEah, it's all grand fun to accuse people like Anderson of lying and being secret government agents behind their backs, but I invite you to contact him and accuse him of lying and of being a secret government agent to his face. Please CC my email so I can be in on it.

This "everyone is a secret government agent" card the conspiracy theorists are constantly playing is getting old. It's just making up excuses for why you people don't have to believe what they're saying is true



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Saltarello
Funny you mention the first responders and ground zero workers, wich are being denied care for the condition they got from working there, when "it was safe" to be there.


Why is this funny? People are genuinely getting sick from the crap they were breathing in at ground zero. There isn't anything remotely funny about this.


Funny thing is, it wont help you to try putting all the eggs in one basket, thats we focus on building 7 and the pentacon, so you dont really have to disprove 1 theory, but some. If you or your kind realy had some backbone this issue and discussion would be over by now, but your futile efforts at covering and smearing are not working now are they?


This is an absurd statement. It's actually the case that after ten years, the truthers haven't been able to get any further with their conspiracy claims than when they started. They have miles of videotape of the towers collapsing from every angle, they have the blueprints to all the buildings, they have the procedures on how controlled demolitions work, and they have the chemical and explosive properties of thermite. You even supposedly have "thousands and thousands" of experts and professionals knowledgable about these things. With all this information, it would take you people about a week to put them all together and calculate out with mathematical precision how much explosives would be needed and where they would need to be planted, for the buildings to have collapsed in the way they did...but you don't and we both know you never will. AND, we both know why...


BECAUSE IT'S ALL MAKE BELIEVE!!!
edit on 4-10-2011 by GoodOlDave because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 03:51 PM
link   
Concerning the smoke from the engine.

500mph is 733 feet per second.
How far was the light poles from the impact point?
Which pole hit the engine vs the wing? The first pole? The last?
Did the engine start smoking 1/100 of a second after it hit the pole?Or did it take 1.5 seconds to start smoking?

I doubt there was much time to see any smoke at all.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 02:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
Concerning the smoke from the engine.

500mph is 733 feet per second.
How far was the light poles from the impact point?
Which pole hit the engine vs the wing? The first pole? The last?
Did the engine start smoking 1/100 of a second after it hit the pole?Or did it take 1.5 seconds to start smoking?

I doubt there was much time to see any smoke at all.


Did you watch the video? It's been posted and reposted 3 times...

According to it it's the third pole that initiates the 'smoke trail', this pole is on the Pentagon side of the roadway which leaves substantial smoke (witness the gate cam video) spreading the entire width of the lawn from the road to the impact point at the wall.

Just based on the 5 frame gate cam video it's clear there is a lot of smoke... by all accounts, stretching slightly diagonal from the light pole to the Pentagon across all the expanse in between. Note that the Pentagon is not at the edge of the road but set back a good ways etc.

So smoke the whole way over the grass etc.

Now that much smoke prior to impact, which can clearly be seen by a slow, far away, blurry "fisheye" gate cam camera is not going to be seen or mentioned by at least *some*, or at least *one*, person in a position to see it and comment, like those eyewitnesses who claim to have been on the roadway or various off or on ramps and much MUCH CLOSER than even the gate cam?

Take ATS member Shaun Hatfield (I forgot to include him in the eyewitness list - he'll do just fine), you may want to look him up. He and I had a little back and forth on his Pentagon "eyewitness" experience. He told a harrowing tale of driving his van down the road and having the plane come right across his windshield up in front of it and he watched as it impacted the wall. Skim through some of my previous posts where I ask him to tell his "eyewitness" story and be sure to count how many times he mentions a prominent 'smoke trail' occurring as he and two of his friends watched the plane cross the road, scoot over the lawn and hit the building.

Go on. I got all the time in the world...

He was right there, the plane almost hit him, surely he'd have seen the plane hit a pole and start smoking?

Want me save you the trouble? He NEVER MENTIONED A SMOKE TRAIL OVER THE LAWN prior to him watching the plane fly past the front of his van, left to right, over the lawn and into the building.

Imagine that.

Btw, I'm hereby entering my posts with Shaun into recorded evidence that he made no mention of a smoke trail over the Pentagon lawn to me in our exchange, with one caveat, and that is noting the date of this post in the event that Shaun starts to all of a sudden 'remember' lol

For crying out loud, a slow 5 frame gate cam can see a smoke trail over the Pentagon lawn on 9/11 but no humans in the vicinity, on various ramps or ON THE ROAD EVEN, watching it cross in front of their van and glide right into the building and don't even think to mention it. If it's so clear on the 5 frame video and NOBODY MENTIONED IT on the day, then what good are these "eyewitness" accounts?

More like "eyewitless" accounts!

It wasn't too quick for a far away lousy Radio Shack (I don't know make of camera so leave that dig out of any responses) camera but human eyes 10 times closer couldn't pick it up!

Amazing.

The only thing that's too quick that I can discern, is your feeble attempt to explain this all away...

Cheers

Oh yeah, one other thing I want to mention and since we're talking about the animated video (please do watch it all) is that at the very end of the video a video clip from the gate cam is allowed to play, when you look at that part, pay attention to the billowing smoke. The very rightmost vertical puffing column of black smoke is coming out of that 'generator' like a regular choo choo train. It's the generator Dave says I can't possibly see from that lousy video.

Maybe he didn't watch the video either, or not as closely as I did anyway.
edit on 5-10-2011 by NWOwned because: for style



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 08:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by NWOwned
Take ATS member Shaun Hatfield (I forgot to include him in the eyewitness list - he'll do just fine), you may want to look him up. He and I had a little back and forth on his Pentagon "eyewitness" experience. He told a harrowing tale of driving his van down the road and having the plane come right across his windshield up in front of it and he watched as it impacted the wall. Skim through some of my previous posts where I ask him to tell his "eyewitness" story and be sure to count how many times he mentions a prominent 'smoke trail' occurring as he and two of his friends watched the plane cross the road, scoot over the lawn and hit the building.

Go on. I got all the time in the world...



??? You already talked to a real live eyewitness who was there? So are you ADMITTING that it was in fact a plane that hit the Pentagon and not some cruise missile, UAW, UFO, or whatever it is those damned fool conspiracy web sites are insisting the gov't is covering up?

Then why the heck are you even trying to dismiss the animation video when you're acknowledging it's essentially accurate? OR, are you trying to play the "secret gov't agent" card and accuse Shaun Hatfield of covering up the conspiracy because he's saying things you don't want to be true?


Oh yeah, one other thing I want to mention and since we're talking about the animated video (please do watch it all) is that at the very end of the video a video clip from the gate cam is allowed to play, when you look at that part, pay attention to the billowing smoke. The very rightmost vertical puffing column of black smoke is coming out of that 'generator' like a regular choo choo train. It's the generator Dave says I can't possibly see from that lousy video.


Of course I watched it. I wached it at least fifteen times. I have a love for Japanese anime so this video amuses me even outside its conspiracy context. There's simply no way you can tell where the smoke is coming from in the black blur way off in the distance. The plane did hit the generator so I'l concede it may have been smoking, but it's a documented fact that fires were burning inside the building (which is to be expected, seeing thousands of gallons of Aviation fuel was dumped into the building) so the lion's share of the smoke was irrefutably from the buulding itself.

FYI if that was a generator, it would have probably been an outside emergency generator in case the power in the building ever went out. That would almost certainly mean it burned natural gas, and natural gas doesn't make that kind of smoke. Come to think of it, it wouldn't make much smoke at all.
edit on 5-10-2011 by GoodOlDave because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Junkheap
Pretty much as soon as the first conspiracy theory came out. Nineteen terrorists hijacking airplanes and flying them into buildings still remains the simplest explanation.

Also, no whistleblowers ever surfaced. If the government can keep 9/11 whistleblowers covered up, why can't they keep Fast and Furious ATF whistleblowers covered up?
edit on 30-9-2011 by Junkheap because: (no reason given)


Actually the very first conspiracy theory was that there were no Jews in the WTC because they were supposedly called by someone in Mossad to warn them not to go in. When it was proven there were many Jewish people killed that day in the WTC, no one recanted or even apologized for that. But that was the foundation of the entire conspiracy theory that now stacks up like pancakes.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lynda101
reply to post by Junkheap
 


I never have thought the views of a lot of intelligent people were false and the way TPTB are fighting so obviously to change people's perception of 9/11 only strengthens my view. I'm just glad the obligatory to persuade us we are al idiots, has finished.

If 'someone' engineered and benefitted from a catastrophe that killed over three thousand people, that
'someone' would be likely to have a small elite army of specialists so no whistleblowers there, nor more importantly would that 'someone' permit any whistlers to live.

For me it boils down to one issue, did a group of 'someones' gain something from this atrocity? Yes they did, they gave themselves a new mandate allowing them to push through laws that have restricted our personal freedoms and now allows government to monitor and spy on us all in a way never tolerated in the past.


And exactly what freedoms have been taken away? So you have to be patted down at the air ports, but that should be something you would be glad for because think of the alternative. So we have increased security. Better than no security. And again, what freedoms have been taken away?



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 09:47 PM
link   
You Dave, you did this for me. I said to myself, what is all this drivel about space beams and holograms, how did I get myself to this damn fooled conspiracy website? Of course, the complete failure of history's most expensive, best trained, most technologically advanced military and the suspension of known laws of physics and investigation when combined with total disregard to actual evidence or critical thinking is MUCH MORE PLAUSIBLE!!



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 08:50 AM
link   
reply to post by budaruskie
 


I love your signature line. That made me laugh reading it, almost as much as reading about space beams, holograms, no Jews in the buildings forewarned by Mossad, and every other conspiracy theory that they came up with.

The saddest thing is this, when it was proven there were indeed Jewish people who were killed in the WTC, not one single conspiracy theorist apologized. Not one single conspiracy theorist admitted it was false.

And because that was the very first conspiracy theory on which all the rest of the theories were founded on, it makes me take great pause at the rest. But will you hear a conspiracy theorist apologizing for spreading that bit of false information? No. Because if they did, then they have to apologize for every other theory.

I want to hear one single theorist apologize for that one. (I won't hold my breath though, because secretly they want to believe it).

So now what are they left with? Nanothermites. That is it. And nanothermites has been proven wrong. But they hold on to it even though they know it is wrong.

Could it be said that our government knew beforehand there was something going to happen? Yes, that could be said but not proven.

Could it be said that people of fundamentalist anti-American groups would do something like this? Yes, and they proved that very thing.



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by budaruskie
You Dave, you did this for me. I said to myself, what is all this drivel about space beams and holograms, how did I get myself to this damn fooled conspiracy website? Of course, the complete failure of history's most expensive, best trained, most technologically advanced military and the suspension of known laws of physics and investigation when combined with total disregard to actual evidence or critical thinking is MUCH MORE PLAUSIBLE!!


"Suspension of known laws and physics" my dog's butt. Everything has been laid out is a reasonable, plausible manner- the estimated temperatures of an enclosed fire fed by aviation fuel and a sh*tload of plastics based office contents, the known temperatures where steel loses its structural integrity, the specific construction of the building, the conditions of the steel recovered from ground zero, and about five miles of video of the collapse taken from every angle, plus the estimates of several different authorities on what factors caused the initial collapse. I myself support the Purdue theory that the imcompressible fluids aboard the plane acted like a wrecking ball and did more damage than NIST and FEMA are taking into account. I've been hit with four foot waves so I know from first hand experience how much power it would have.

On the other hand, these goofball conspriacy claiming are based entirely upon junk science, make believe expertise from make believe experts, and a an entire city dump's worth of abject paranoia, antiestablishment hatred, innuendo, and outright lies. PLUS, you people are all but admitting you're going by some weird Wile E. Cartoon version of the "Official Story" that doesn't remotely resemble what anyone is saying-

-the hijackers are all illiterate cavemen
-the hijackers are still alive
-interceptors were never scrambled
-there were no fires in WTC 7
-all the bomb dogs were pulled from the WTC the day before
-"pull it" is slang for controlled dmeolitions
-the fires melted the steel
-no one saw what it was that hit the Pentagon
-all the WTC steel was immediately shipped overseas

...and on an on the lies go. Let's face it, despite all your pretend expertise in physics, if a real engineer sat down with you and started discussing physics and materials engineering, your eyes would glaze over, and let's face it, there is no way shape or form you can say that it's "evidence and critical analysis" that led you to seriously believe armies of sinister secret agents planted everywhere are plotting to murder us all to frame some toilet of a country that not even the Soviet Union thought was worth fighting over. One or more of those damned fool conspiracy web sites put this idea into your head, and the OP's posting of an internet video recapping every internet rumor there is only confirms the fact.



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by WarminIndy
reply to post by budaruskie
The saddest thing is this, when it was proven there were indeed Jewish people who were killed in the WTC, not one single conspiracy theorist apologized. Not one single conspiracy theorist admitted it was false.

And because that was the very first conspiracy theory on which all the rest of the theories were founded on, it makes me take great pause at the rest. But will you hear a conspiracy theorist apologizing for spreading that bit of false information? No. Because if they did, then they have to apologize for every other theory.

I want to hear one single theorist apologize for that one. (I won't hold my breath though, because secretly they want to believe it).


I regret to say these conspiracy theorists have painted themsleves into a corner with nonstop circular logic and a never ending chain of conspiracies on top of secret plots on top of coverups, that they'll not only never apologize, they'll just turn around and invent more make believe to add to their prior make believe.

Case in point- Professional conspiracy mongor Tom Flocco made up a rumor that flight 77 passenger Barbara Olson was secretly alive and living in Europe, and was arrested with millions in Italian Lira. The guy was so much of an idiot that he didn't know Italy doesn't use Lira anymore- they use Euros- so in an attempt to backpeddle he simply made up ANOTHER conspiracy and claimed "secret agents fed him disinformation about Barbara Olson to make him look like a fool".

Thus, the main reason that made me suspect these 9/11 conspiracy stories were false- all the unrepentent lying the conspiracy mongors are doing. Just how many times have we seen someone claiming the hijackers were all "illiterate cavemen"?



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 11:18 AM
link   
There are indeed some ridiculous theories out there, but there are the some very basic things to my common sense mind that don't add up at all.

1. The media was calling this a trerrorist attack by Al Quada within an hour. And that's what remained the story to this day. They sure are smart. No need for even a bit of evidence to pinpoint the exact purpetrators right off the bat.The media are just that good.

2. A terrorist that did not do that well in flight training supposedly, was able to circle a jetliner around for an hour and then make a perfect circular and controlled decent with precision into the petagon. Nevermind that real pilots train for months and years to fly with such precision. I won't even touch on the lack of a video that would easily prove this really happened from what should be the most video recorded place in the country. (the video our there is junk, can't tell what you are looking at and so proves nothing to the public.)

3. Bush commmented to the media that we could, as a country, never have imagined such an attack, and yet the military was practicing for just such or similar a scenario that morning, and so were confused that what was going on was real or not.

4. The BBC reported that building 7 collapsed 20 minutes before it did. Hmmmm. Guess I'll just suspend any questionable intellect I might be harboring and pretend that they just reported this in the wrong way in some way.

5. Twin towers were Pulverized, yet conveniently a terrorist's passport was found right there on top of the rubble.

.....You know, it's really a waste of time to keep naming all the coicidences involved. You either prefer to believe it all happened as our government and privately owned media reported to you or you don't.

People knew what was going down there's no doubt, or our CIA, Federal Govt, and military are just that pathetic.

You pick.



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 11:49 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 12:15 PM
link   
reply to post by userid1
 
You can label me anything you want, It's not going to lend any credibility to the horsesh*t you've offered so far. You, and your band of players have played your hand, and anybody with half of a brain can see you're on the run. If somebody as insignificant as me can become such a bee in your bonnet, with as you say no 'proof', then how in the hell could you guys defend your position in a court of law. You all know damn well that you couldn't, and that's why it's so important to you to silence people like me here. I'm just looking for the truth, and you can't handle the truth. I have zero respect for anything you've had to say on this subject since day one, but I welcome everything you have to say, because like you, it's ridiculous.



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by dillweed
 


Then I'm sure you'll be happy to refute the Pentagon witnesses I supplied you - you remember, you said you would stop posting on the subject if I supplied you credible witnesses. Well I did - and you had no comment back.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Now you're posting incendiary remarks again without offering any evidence. I've got a hell of a lot more respect for Tupac - at least he walks it like he talks it when he posts.

If you really care about the truther POV, then be aware that Tupac is the adult between the two of you - step aside and let the adult talk.



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by userid1
 


The thing I'm not understanding is that those witness reports do not refute a plane attack. They simply add questions about the actual flight path.





new topics
top topics
 
14
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join