Questions about the 9/11 Pentagon attack

reply to post by weedwhacker


Ok i wanted see you basically call him as nonsense...so i can understand where you come from...and i understand now...these people put their careers on the line...to state these things...and also i know he was talking about WTC...which was an easier task and yet you still seem to believe this was a simple task that any adhoc pilot could just pull off....ok

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by monkeySEEmonkeyDO
Wingspan for 757.... 124 ft

Width of Damage at Pentagon..... 65 ft

YOUR POINT??

You've got to be joking, even if you accept without question the 65ft measurement, that is the width of the collapsed section. The ground floor damage extended to much further than that.

Forget the fact that explosions move out, and cause further damage from the focus point....\

This only shows an explosion from the front of the building, and not deep into the building.. It proves that the explosion goes strait up and not into the building, which would prove that a fast moving plane flew into it. The WTC1-2 had large explosions on the other side of the sky scrapers, but not the Pentagon.






Supposedly Flight 77's landing gear created a huge seperate hole, but what this image shows is that there was no noticeable damage above the hole. The landing gear is connected to the plane with solid metal peices, and would usualy cause some kind of damage if flown into the building.



Hotel facing the Pentagon released video that fails to show ANY plane flying into that building, just an explosion.. The video was confiscated by the FBI, but later returned after a law suit.. The Penatgaon is one of the the most guarded buildings in the world, and has several hundred cameras outside, but NONE of those cameras show a plane flying into that building.
www.youtube.com...
SHOW ME A VIDEO THAT PROVES YOUR POINT, AND I'LL BELIEVE YOU!!

reply to post by GoodOlDave


You have to be a dam fool yourself to think a c-130 should chase a jet and report on it LMAO..

Yeah , that is what it was up too, good thing it was the best idea for defense in the area, what dam fool conspiracy sites do you subscribe too ??

Originally posted by GrinchNoMore
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

You have to be a dam fool yourself to think a c-130 should chase a jet and report on it LMAO..

It is an established fact that a C-130H was in the area at the time, particularly since Andrews Air Force base has an air transport wing of C-130s based there and C-130s are flying in and out all the time, so whether or not you yourself wish to deny it is utterly irrelevent. That one belonged to the Minnesota National guard, of the 109th airlift squadron, which took off from Andrews Air Force base on a return leg to Minnisota from the Carribean. The pilot, Lieutenant Col. Steve O'Brien, was asked by ground controllers to check on a passenger jet to their 10:00 position that they couldn't communicate with. They turned around and started to follow it when they saw the passenger jet hit the Pentagon. You can find out all you want about this with a simple 30 second google search so there isn't anything remotely secretive or sinister about the "mysterious second plane" everyone saw.

This whole "a plane never hit the Pentagon" bit is a ridiculous argument. Move along, nothing more to see here, folks..

reply to post by GrinchNoMore

.....a c-130 should chase a jet and report on it LMAO..

The C-130 did NOT "chase" the B-757.

Non pilots don't seem to comprehend the dynamics, and the concept of converging courses.

If I sat you down, with a chart (map) then it would be easy to show you how it works....you have to understand headings (and thus the ground track direction) and relative positions.

The C-130 had departed Andrews AFB, was on a heading, being radar-vectored to join its flight plan course, to the North and West of National Airport. As I recall, it was assigned the "Camp Springs Departure" procedure (link here) out of KADW. The takeoff was to the North, on Runway 1L. (There are ATC transcripts, and audio files, that I don't have links to atm, so going from memory).

Their heading was ~270 degrees, and on the final run at the Pentagon American 77's heading was ~060 - 070, after finishing his turn around, and descent from 8,000 feet. (Those all reference to Magnetic North...maps usually are aligned with TRUE North. Magnetic Variation in the DC area is about 12 degrees West).

The C-130, because of its heading, and position at that point in time, merely had to look to their 10 o'clock, and the Boeing was there, likely just finishing that turn, and about to go straight to the impact.

(BTW....hope you know how to use the "clock" for the references mentioned? Picture a clock face lying horizontal, you in the center, and 12 noon is always straight ahead, from your reference. Directly 90 degrees to your left, would be "Nine o'clock", to the right "Three o'clock", etc.)

It's that simple....they didn't have to "chase" anything....but, I see, that "argument from incredulity" (and the resulting attempt at "ridicule") is alive and well, and used often when "discussing" this most important topic. Generally, from those who profess to be on the "truther" side of the fence. :shk:

That only works on those who aren''t properly versed in all the details, and have experience to comprehend them.

ok to all those who say a plane hit the tower

here is a picture taken before the Pentagon collapsed. Please show me where there is a plane or anything? where did it go? How was the exit hole created when you see nothing ?

reply to post by TrueFalse


I suggest it's time to direct everyone's attention to a thread from six years ago, that definitively addressed your question (the photo you linked is talked about) and the OP's as well. It is far easier this way, and in future...instead of just repeating for each new person, who likely may have been tainted by so many of the other "conspiracy" sites out there, that post mostly garbage and lies:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by weedwhacker


oh come on, you cant be serious. First of all, the link is, as you mentioned 6 years old !!! alot has changed since then. For me i do not need anymore proof than this picture i posted. It says more than every explanation.

A good friend of my parents, who was an airline pilot for over 20 years was a Commision Report believer and he never looked at the other facts. Once when we talked about he didnt want to believe me that i said that no airplane hit the pentagon. After he watched this picture, he said, and this are his word "No f*****ing way, that picture is not from that hit." After i told him that it was, he said, it definately was not a plane, but had no clue what else it could be.

After he did a research by himself, and looked at all pictures of the found evidence (Rims, metal pieces etc.) he didnt know what to think. Normally after a plane crashes the first thing you show are the Engines, Wings, Cockpit, Seats, Luggage, etc) but there was nothing there. He said even if the parts wouldnt go through the walls, they would be scattered all around the pentagon over several hundred feet. And this would go into million little parts of pieces, scattered all over and beyond the pentagon.
As an example of a simmilar crash he took the Japan 1985 plane crash of a B747 which hit at full speed directly at a mountain where 524 people where killed. The news report stated such things as :

'One helicopter found what looks like the tail of the aircraft,' a defence ministry spokesman said. Debris was scattered over an area of at least three miles.

So three miles debris field? Where is that at the pentagon ? I mean we assume that the pentagon was as hard as rock (as in the official story, cause it made the plane "dissapear" in the wall) and yet at a simmilar crash we have debris scattered over 3 miles... the only thing we have are 4 photos of parts which till this day havent been identified as the Flights 77 parts.

His only conclusion was, that it was no plane that hit the pentagon. On the other hand he hasnt any clue of what could hit the pentagon. And thats a fact. NO PLANE HIT THE PENTAGON. But neither do we know what really had hit it.

Until we dont see any further evidence, for example the 70+ other recordings from all the cameras over washington d.c and ALL pictures which have been confiscated from photographers at the scene, the only fact we have is that NO plane hit the Pentagon.

and please stop refering me to 6 year old posts, as you can see im new here and i dont have the time to go trought old and oudated topics. thanks.

reply to post by TrueFalse


Don't be ridiculous! The age of the ATS thread isn't a problem....IT was made three years after 9/11, and NOTHING has changed since. The facts of the event are etched in history.

Arguably, the BEGINNING of this "conspiracy" nonsense began in 2002!!! (Did you know that??). By a (controversial) FRENCH "journalist" and author. How in hell did HE know "so much", so soon? (Hint...he didn't. He's a nutcase):

In 2002, he published the controversial work on the September 11 terrorist attacks—"9/11: The Big Lie"—in which Meyssan argues that such attacks were organized by a faction of what he calls "the US military industrial complex" in order to impose a military regime.

Wiki talks about Thierry Meyssan

(Hmmm....2002-2010, and so far, no "military regime" in the USA. Eight years on.....like I said, a nutcase, and a paranoid one, at that).

...the link is, as you mentioned 6 years old !!! alot has changed since then.

What "a lot" have changed? Details...or else, you're talking speculation, not fact.
The response showed examples of much misunderstanding, and that sort of thing is the reason the "debate" continues, and personal accounts of those who were actually there (available in many, many books written about it) are ignored.

For me i do not need anymore proof than this picture i posted.

The thread's author used that SAME photo (uncropped as much as your version is) in HIS thread, and discusses it. I'm wondering if you actually bothered to read the entire thing, or just looked at the date it was made, and fluttered your hands at it???

....friend of my parents.... an airline pilot for over 20 years..... he watched this picture, he said....(") that picture is not from that hit."

I'm not convinced your recollection of this anecdote is entirely accurate, not the way you seem to recall it. Would depend on the timeline of any conversations you say you had with this man (and the years out of the cockpit, if he is retired...that matters too). My colleagues (other airline pilots, like myself) comprehend the extreme forces involved in all four impacts, and the results. The three that impacted structures are like NO OTHER AIRLINER crash in history. There is no precedent to compare to.

The next is the reason I doubt some of it:

After he....looked at all pictures of the found evidence (Rims, metal pieces etc.) he didnt know what to think.

Why not? Didn't he recognize (he should have) what would be the result of the incredibly high forces involved, and the deformation and destruction that would ensue? Could he not (with over 20 years of experience) see that those are obviously airplane debris?

Normally after a plane crashes the first thing you show are the Engines, Wings, Cockpit, Seats, Luggage, etc)

Again....that is the case, usually....because the impact speeds are relatively LOW....NOT at somewhere around 500 MPH. In addition, usually the airplane is travelling along the ground, at impact, hitting various obstructions, shedding parts and debris as it goes. NOT directly into the walls or facades of a structure. Where it will MOSTLY enter the building, as it is destroyed at the same time.

Now, this is where you contradict yourself, and where the hyperbole shows your bias:

...but there was nothing there.

Yes there was...you just, above, said he looked at the "..pictures of the found evidence (Rims, metal pieces etc.)" So, how can you now say "there was noting there"??

He said ...the parts .... would be scattered all around the pentagon over several hundred feet.

Some parts were. Not EVERY piece of debris was photographically catalogued, just for the benefit of the the few nuts who STARTED this silly "conspiracy" of "no plane at the Pentagon"....anyone there, that morning, if you had told them, then, that such idiocy would be talked about, STILL TODAY, they would have thought you were nuts.

And this would go into million little parts of pieces, scattered all over and beyond the pentagon.

"beyond"??? How? You should brush up on your physics lessons. Force. Mass. Acceleration (speed). Momentum. Trajectories.

As an example of a simmilar crash he took the Japan 1985 plane crash of a B747 which hit at full speed directly at a mountain where 524 people where killed.

Glad you brought that up, because it illustrates (like so many cases) just WHY people don't understand....because they take another airline crash example, and don't fully understand the details (but say that they do...and get it wrong each time).

The crash, JAL flight 123, did NOT "hit at full speed". They were trying to SAVE the airplane, after being faced with, tragically, was an uncontrollable airplane, due to the damage from the aft pressure bulkhead failure, the loss of all four hydraulic systems, and the damage from bent metal that impinged upon some flight control cables, jamming them. They certainly did NOT fly along at "full speed" in that situation, and more than the United DC-10, flight 232 (near Iowa City) did. It's dilemma-- control problems --was somewhat similar.

Here, some facts to show how JAL 123 has nothing in common with American 77:

...further measures to exert control, such as lowering the landing gear and flaps...

That right there says that they were at a fairly slow airspeed. I've never flown the 747, but like all large jets, there are airspeed limits for gear extension, and operation from up/down and back. Also, the slats/flaps have limiting speeds...usually lower than the gear limit speeds. Slats/flaps usually somewhere around 210-220 knots...certainly below 250 kts.

The final moments of the plane occurred when it clipped one mountain ridge then hit a second one during another rapid plunge, then flipped and landed on its back.

So, you see....it did NOT impact at "full speed", it was a series of impacts, and debris was shed along the way.
Interestingly, although this wouldn't be considered a "survivable" accident in the usual sense, FOUR people did. (Shows the chaotic, and unpredictable nature of ALL accidents). Fact that at least four survived means that the G-forces weren't that high, indicating a LOW-speed event. I'd imagine the fatalities were from blunt-force trauma --- crushing.

Full Wiki article, JAL 123

Further reading from airdisaster.com

Final seconds of Cockpit Voice Recorder (this is NEVER allowed for U.S. airlines, not sure how this got out....maybe from a Japanese source, in the investigation). You can hear the sounds of several impacts, near the end. Chilling, so discretion advised:

www.airdisaster.com...

... the pentagon....(..plane "dissapear" in the wall) and yet at a simmilar crash....

NO, not "similar" at all, in any way. Some parts of the airplane were shattered into small pieces, some carried through INTO the building. Physics, remember?? It depends on the mass of each piece, as well.

AS TO what happens at such speeds, an airplane and a [mostly] immovable object:

Often-repeated YouTube video, an F4 in a test....it is moving at about 500 MPH, propelled on a track, for this test...into a concrete block:



What happened to the airplane structure???

4 photos of parts which till this day havent been identified as the Flights 77 parts.

YES, they have. Read CatHerder's OP, in that thread. The FULL thing.

On the other hand he hasnt any clue of what could hit the pentagon.

Your parents' "friend" probably doesn't have all the facts, as I (and many, many others) keep outlining. There is a ton of information --- valid information --- out on the Web, once you take your head out of the silly "conspiracy" sites.

....ffor example the 70+ other recordings from all the cameras over washington d.c and ALL pictures which have been confiscated from photographers at the scene....

That, yet again is a BALD-FACED LIE that is spread by those idiotic "9/11 conspiracy" websites.

Do some independent research, to learn. Oh, but I fear, with an attitude such as this:

.....and please stop refering me to 6 year old posts, as you can see im new here and i dont have the time to go trought old and oudated topics. thanks.

Odd, you say that, when (you tried) to use a crash of JAL 123, from 25 years ago!!!!

Look at yourself more closely, in order to not look foolish to others.....

reply to post by weedwhacker


You actually think that this all started from the opinion of one frenchman...sorry never heard of him...and personally for me it happen pretty much the day it happened for me as i am a structural engineer and when i saw the first steel structure fall.it happened and twigged my thoughts as to why the heck these steel structures fell in such away...i dont care wether planes hit or not...personally i do believe planes hit the structures...but as time has gone on i question the abilities of these pilots and as more time went on i started to look into the people who could have been involved...and then as the Bush campaign pushed to attack Iraq i became more and more alerted to the possibilities of this being a false flag operation as there have been in the past...and then i started to find huge Israeli connections...so you can and others can still believe that a few Arabs got lucky in four hijackings ..... got by the us military after the transponders of the planes got turned off and that they did not have the ability to take these craft out or come to fly in an escort fashion when there are automated systems that would have imediately informed NORAD of these planes in US Airspace.

The transponder is the plane's identity card. An aircraft that disposes of this identity card is IMMEDIATELY monitored, AUTOMATICALLY.

"If an object has not been identified in less than two minutes or appears suspect, it is considered to be an eventual threat. Unidentified planes, planes in distress and planes we suspect are being used for illegal activities can then be intercepted by a fighter from NORAD. [NORAD spokesman: www.airforce.dnd.ca...]

See also Facing Terror Attack's Aftermath, Boston Globe, where you will read: "Snyder, the NORAD spokesman, said its fighters routinely intercept aircraft."]

Thus, according to the official version, considering the conditions that prevailed on September 11, 2001, the "terrorists" actually gave the alert that SHOULD have led to almost instant interception FORTY minutes before the plane struck the Pentagon.

transponder oddity


Now i know people will say well ummmm mistakes were made...well there were far too many mistakes made...also because there were senarios going that were for bio terrorism attacks and there was a temporary command centre set up in New York for the next day ...is very coincedental.

At Pier 92 on the Hudson River, preparations are underway for a training exercise due to take place there the following day. The exercise, called Tripod, which had been scheduled months earlier, is intended to test how well New York’s Office of Emergency Management (OEM) can administer treatment in response to a biological-terrorism attack (see September 12, 2001).

Emergency Command

Now there are many questions to be answered as to what really happened...because you have some knowledge about aircraft and you are willing to keep throwing so much out there about things to make people look stupid it does not work...your not the most informed person on the planet and i am sorry but there are many people that just do not believe the OS. I am one of those professionals.
I have emailed your previous statements off to other pilots and i will be eargerly awaiting their replies. I will let you know what their responses are of course. I have also emailed Robert Balsamo himself and will await his comments also.
I search for truth because i have family that are fighting in these false flag wars created by this whole operation...and it is wrong.
If it frustrates you so much about these conspiracy sites then why would you even bother being here...cause if we are a bunch of nutters then why would you feel a threat in anyway from our movement...cause if you know exactly what the truth is then there is nothing to fear now is there.
The only ones that have anything to fear from people searching for the truth would be the criminals themselves would you not think?.

reply to post by plube


I'll try to remain brief, since so much of this is repetitive.

The article you snipped and cited (labelled "transponder oddities") by Laura Knight-Jadczyk contains quite a few misconceptions regarding transponders, and "reactions" by NORAD, especially in the environment that existed pre-9/11.

Her "claim" of a response in "two minutes" to a lost transponder signal is hogwash. Too bad, the link that she provides (and you copied) to an alleged "NORAD spokesman" (a link to a Canadian site, BTW) is broken. That link seems to have been moved, but you can link to their homepage, and probably find the new link (if it exists).

I have already posted this video, Page 1. Here it is again --- this is EXACTLY how it REALLY works (or, 'worked' back then), in the confusion of the moment, in day-to-day actual ATC operations. Everything these folks, from ATC, who worked that morning say rings completely true, to any pilot with enough experience under his/her belt:

Google Video Link

Now, just WHO IS this "source", this Laura Knight-Jadczyk?? Let's see:

Welcome to the Cassiopaean Website, the repository for the work of scientific mystic and PaleoChristian Shaman, Laura Knight-Jadczyk. Laura is married to theoretical/mathematical physicist Arkadiusz Jadczyk who introduces his wife’s work in the following extract:

The name “Cassiopaea” was given by a consciously “channeled source” which Laura accessed in 1994 after two years of experimental work. The source identified itself by saying “we are you in the future.” Modern physics does not provide us with practical means for this type of communication, and theories on this subject are not well developed; they are, in fact, inconclusive and controversial.

www.cassiopaea.org...

Sorry, but I can't help but at using HER as a "source" on anything......

But wait, there's more:

Quote:
"The Cassiopaean message is very simple – Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid. The Cassiopaean view of reality is one in which government mind control plots go hand in hand with evil and selfish reptoid aliens from the future who rape and abduct at will among the complaisant population.

Laura was a disturbed child with a dysfunctional home life, such as a kidnapping by her stepfather at age four, suicide attempts and other self-destructive behaviour, who grew into a disturbed adult, plagued by hypochondria and often unsure exactly who fathered each of her five children, and who in the end divorced her first husband because she believed he was a reptoid zombie."

There is a lot....a whole LOT more, from this site: www.truthaction.org...

AND, of course, another place to expose her for the (Nutcase? Fraud? Cult leader?) that she is:

www.cassiopaeacult.com...

You see the problem. Most rational and knowledgeable people don't get fooled by such things....other, normally clear-headed individuals CAN, and DO , however, fall for this junk....just because they sometimes have a predisposition to "want to believe" something (and there's a wide world of choices, besides 9/11, obviously, that fall into that category), and will latch onto any nonsense that happens to go along with a preconceived bias.

Originally posted by TrueFalse
His only conclusion was, that it was no plane that hit the pentagon. On the other hand he hasnt any clue of what could hit the pentagon. And thats a fact. NO PLANE HIT THE PENTAGON. But neither do we know what really had hit it.

The huge list of eyewitnesses who specifically saw that it was a passenger jet that hit the Pentagon beg to differ-

Pentagon eyewitness accounts

reply to post by weedwhacker


is that what you do is laugh at people...it was not the fact about a source it was what it is about the transponders...so are you saying that when the transponders stop sending a signal there will be no concern and that all goes well.
cause i have many recordings from the boston ATC and the converstaions that Joe Cooper is having with neads is very very interesting.

bit of pentagon stuff

reply to post by In nothing we trust


What an odd list of people, fascinating that the young boy on the flight's father worked in the office that the 'plane' hit, and took a 'rare day off' to go golfing on the morning the incident occurred.

Just way too strange, almost like something from magnolia

Originally posted by sir_slide
reply to post by In nothing we trust

 

What an odd list of people, fascinating that the young boy on the flight's father worked in the office that the 'plane' hit, and took a 'rare day off' to go golfing on the morning the incident occurred.

Just way too strange, almost like something from magnolia

I am sometimes truly staggered at the depths some truthers will sink to in pursuit of their fantasies. You seriously think this man allowed his son to go off on A 77 to be killed while he decided on a bit of golf for himself to keep out of the way ???

Well weedwhacker this is the response i got from Robert...i will post it to you as i recieved it.
these are the words from the emial i recieve from him in his reply.

It appears you are arguing with either a 14 year old, someone who doesn't understand equivalent airspeed, or both. Don't bother wasting your time.

Click here for analysis done by real, verified pilots.

Full Film - 9/11: World Trade Center Attack,
pilotsfor911truth.org...

9/11: Speeds Reported For World Trade Center Attack Aircraft Analyzed
pilotsfor911truth.org...

Nasa Flight Director Confirms 9/11 Aircraft Speed As The " Elephant In The Room ",
pilotsfor911truth.org...

Captain Ralph Kolstad Interview Discussing 9/11: World Trade Center Attack
pilotsfor911truth.org...

Feel free to post this anywhere you like.

Hope this helps

was a good interview on there also....
so I am not just taking his word for things....But,other viewpoints are always a good thing...Now dont kill the messenger....as this was his exact message sent to me...so why not go onto the pilots forum and argue your points with him or send an email to him...cause your doing a good job of trying to baffle a lot of non pilots here with your point...and when i don't get something i go and learn...i am learning quickly...but i still would not be able to hijack a plane jump in the cockpit of a 767 and fly it...(I have flown my friends Cessna 172 though).
but that was while in flight so i would just call it an experience to remember but i certainly would not calim to have skills to competently fly a 767/757.
heck i would probably even mess up the landing of the cessna...lol

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by TrueFalse
His only conclusion was, that it was no plane that hit the pentagon. On the other hand he hasnt any clue of what could hit the pentagon. And thats a fact. NO PLANE HIT THE PENTAGON. But neither do we know what really had hit it.

The huge list of eyewitnesses who specifically saw that it was a passenger jet that hit the Pentagon beg to differ-

Pentagon eyewitness accounts

This is the first, and i am pretty confident, the last time that I agree with 'Good ol Dave'...

you can listen to phone call interviews with MANY Pentagon witness' here:
s1.zetaboards.com...

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by winston_jones

 

You referred in an earlier post to AA 77's flight data recorder supposedly showing that the cockpit door was closed all the time. You might therefore be interested in this item by rschop on democratic underground who has obviously investigated the matter carefully and quotes sources :-

www.democraticunderground.com...

You will see that he concludes that the cockpit door parameter was never recorded on this aircraft. I understand the fdr includes records of 11 flights prior to the fatal one and it would obviously be absurd that the door was in fact never opened throughout any of those flights.

Apparently the source in your link is confusing aircraft type with Data Frame Layout number.

Claim - P4T.... are not using the proper Data Frame Layout when showing the port location in his diagram. They are using 757-3, they should be using 757-2 which doesn't show a FLT DECK DOOR parameter. AA77 was a 757-2 airplane.

A- Those who make this claim are confusing the Data Frame Layout (DFL) number with Aircraft Type. 757-3b is the proper Data Frame Layout required for N644AA as listed here in the NTSB pdf for N644AA.

www.ntsb.gov...
(bottom of page 2)

United 93 was also a 757-200 aircraft, but used 757-4 Data Frame Layout.

www.ntsb.gov...
(also bottom of page 2)

DFL 757-3b (AA77) has the FLT DECK DOOR parameter which is why you see it listed under the parameters in the NTSB pdf and recorded in the data.

DFL 757-4 (UA93) does not list a FLT DECK DOOR parameter, which is why it is not listed in the NTSB pdf nor recorded.

Source - Click


In other words Alfie, your source doesn't have a clue. You really shouldn't parrot the first explanation you come across on the web from an anonymous source while also claiming you are a "skeptic" It might give people the impression you are not skeptical of anything, but blindly support anything your govt tells you.

Let us know when you find some evidence for your argument that the door was open on N644AA, a hijack occurred, and it hit the Pentagon. So far you and your kind have failed for more than 9 years.

Originally posted by TiffanyInLASo far you and your kind have failed for more than 9 years.

Yeah. Whereas it's been one success after another for P4T.

First there was the new 9/11 investigation. Then they impeached the president and put Cheney and Bush in jail. And I don't think I'll ever forget the look on Rob Balsamo's face when they gave him the congressional medal of honour.

But don't be too downhearted. You have sold some baseball caps to a few internet nerds.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by TiffanyInLASo far you and your kind have failed for more than 9 years.

Yeah. Whereas it's been one success after another for P4T.

It's good that you finally admit you have failed to provide evidence for your argument for over 9 years.

It may be why these lists grow.

patriotsquestion911.com...

So tell us Tricky, why do you still blindly support the OS when you know there is no evidence to support your argument? What is your incentive?