Sgt Lagasse Stands By Placement of the Plane

Welcome!

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

Pages:
1
…
6
7
8
9

Sgt Lagasse Stands By Placement of the Plane; After Seeing The PentaCon
Topic Started: Feb 27 2009, 04:38 PM (3,416 Views)
HeadLikeARock	Mar 25 2009, 08:09 AM Post #151
Posts: 345 Group: Members Member #438 Joined: 03/25/08	Domenick DiMaggio Mar 24 2009, 07:37 PM add in that mcgraw also admitted to you guys on film he never saw the plane actually striking any lightpoles too..... Please explain why is that suspicious that he didn't see the lightpoles being hit, given that they were behind him? He was very clear on what he did see, which was the plane crashing into the Pentagon.
Posts: 345 Group: Members Member #438 Joined: 03/25/08


HeadLikeARock	Mar 25 2009, 08:29 AM Post #152
Posts: 345 Group: Members Member #438 Joined: 03/25/08	Craig Ranke CIT Mar 24 2009, 08:39 PM Domenick DiMaggio Mar 24 2009, 07:37 PM add in that mcgraw also admitted to you guys on film he never saw the plane actually striking any lightpoles too..... Precisely. As mentioned earlier, did he have a clear view of the ightpoles? If not, why is it suspicious that he doesn't recall seeing them knocked over? Quote: Not to mention he admitted growing up in the area, was a DoJ attorney for 5 years, was allegedly on his way to preside over a funeral at ANC yet supposedly didn't know the massive building he was next to was the Pentagon! Does being a DoJ attorney render someone's witness testimony ineligible? Is it not possible that he just wasn't really paying much attention to his surroundings, as he was concentrating on getting on the correct road after his wrong turn? Quote: He has plenty of credibility since of course he is also admittedly inspired by a Vatican sponsored radical fundamentalist secret society that is historically well known to have permeated the intelligence community and Washington elite! Guilty by association? Isn't that a logical fallacy? If this makes him suspect as a witness, why are the Pentagon police officers statements not treated the same way? Have you considered the possibility that they could be assets leading you on a false trail to cover up what really happened? I've at least given due consideration to these possibilities. Quote: Yeah headlikearock.....I guess it makes perfect sense to dismiss the 13 north side accounts primarily because of McGraw! I think you're over-simplifying my rationale. And as I've stated, it's rationale I've used to come to my own decision. Do you see me on this or any other forum arguing that CIT are definitely wrong because of X, Y, Z? All I've said is that personally, I am not convinced. Why does it bother you that I don't agree with your conclusions? A separate point on Sgt Lagasse's statement. I'm going from memory here, so correct me if I'm wrong. Didn't he say he was talking to his dog in the back of his car at the CITGO? Wouldn't that have put his back to the alleged flight-path he saw? Yet he later stated that the plane couldn't have flown SoC because he didn't have eyes in the back of his head. (I'll clarify this later when I have a chance to look at the interview again). This sounds contradictory to me. I need to verify it before I can comment further.
Posts: 345 Group: Members Member #438 Joined: 03/25/08


Miragememories	Mar 25 2009, 08:49 AM Post #153
Posts: 753 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08	HeadLikeARock "Critical thinking I have no disdain for at all." Do you call what you are rambling about below to be "critical thinking?" HeadLikeARock "A separate point on Sgt Lagasse's statement. I'm going from memory here, so correct me if I'm wrong. Didn't he say he was talking to his dog in the back of his car at the CITGO? Wouldn't that have put his back to the alleged flight-path he saw? Yet he later stated that the plane couldn't have flown SoC because he didn't have eyes in the back of his head. (I'll clarify this later when I have a chance to look at the interview again). This sounds contradictory to me. I need to verify it before I can comment further. " HeadLikeARock "All I've said is that personally, I am not convinced. Why does it bother you that I don't agree with your conclusions?" So why do you feel so compelled to keep re-stating your lack of conviction? MM
Posts: 753 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08


Craig Ranke CIT	Mar 25 2009, 09:40 AM Post #154
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	HeadLikeARock Mar 25 2009, 08:29 AM I think you're over-simplifying my rationale. And as I've stated, it's rationale I've used to come to my own decision. Do you see me on this or any other forum arguing that CIT are definitely wrong because of X, Y, Z? All I've said is that personally, I am not convinced. Why does it bother you that I don't agree with your conclusions? I am not over-simplifying it at all. I am exposing how you are forced to abandon logic, critical thinking principles, and true skepticism in order to dismiss this evidence in favor of the official story. I am showing you how your "rationale" is not rational. You have already admitted that you have no independent evidence for your beliefs other than the interviews that we have conducted. You have already admitted that you are willing to dismiss evidence for a very serious crime based on nothing but pure faith in the govt and media. Naturally that's your prerogative but that makes us the true critical thinking skeptics with our claims rooted in sound independent verifiable evidence and YOU the irrational conspiracy theorist who prefers to ignore evidence in lieu of his faith. I don't know who you are and what you do outside of this forum but it bothers me that you are willing to dismiss hard evidence of a crime based on your irrational faith because the crime is a matter of life and death of world historical proportions where countless 10's of thousands of innocent people have been slaughtered as they continue to be murdered to this day based on this lie that YOU support. You better believe it bothers me. Quote: Didn't he say he was talking to his dog in the back of his car at the CITGO? Wouldn't that have put his back to the alleged flight-path he saw? Yet he later stated that the plane couldn't have flown SoC because he didn't have eyes in the back of his head. (I'll clarify this later when I have a chance to look at the interview again). This sounds contradictory to me. I need to verify it before I can comment further. How does talking to his dog in the back seat dictate which way he was facing? Lagasse told Dick Eastman in June of 2003, less than 2 years after the attack, that he was on the starboard side of the craft. But guess what?? We don't rely on Lagasse or ANY single witness! If Lagasse was so ridiculously mistaken about the location of the plane in relation to the ground on which he was standing (and that he frequents on a daily basis) then it is irrational to suggest that Brooks, Turcios, Middleton, Stafford, Prather, Carter, Aman, De La Cerda, Boger, Stephens, and others would scientifically validate him on this detail. Why is your faith in the govt and media so strong that you are willing to argue against scientifically validated independent hard evidence implicating their involvement in a crime of mass murder? Edited by Craig Ranke CIT, Mar 25 2009, 09:41 AM.
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


Craig Ranke CIT	Mar 25 2009, 09:50 AM Post #155
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	But I will add that yes that does put his back to the APPROACH of the plane and Lagasse was quite clear about this. He did not see the plane until it reached these electrical transformers. Obviously this has no bearing on the fact that he could not have seen the plane over the roof and through the building if it passed him on the complete other side of the property all together as required by the official story and NOT reported by any of the other witnesses.
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


Miragememories	Mar 25 2009, 10:01 AM Post #156
Posts: 753 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08	Nice post Craig. I had been wondering what was Lagasse's view of the SofCitgo official flightpath. As you so nicely point out, if Sgt Lagasse had no view of that SofCitgo flightpath, how could he have possibly not seen the the jet on a NoftCitgo flightpath! MM
Posts: 753 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08


bryan26	Mar 25 2009, 10:51 AM Post #157
troll Posts: 66 Group: BANNED! Member #1,067 Joined: 02/23/09	Avenger Mar 24 2009, 05:39 PM Quote: I can understand why people go with the 13 NoC witnesses. Ok, why do people go with the NoC witnesses? Coud it be because no one can come up with a plausible explanation for how their eyes could possibly have deceived them? At least a plausible explanation can be made for how they could have been fooled into believing the plane hit. You said yourself that you can't deny it's a possibility. Show us how it's possible that they really only THOUGHT they saw the plane north of the CITGO. Please give the plausible reason that they were fooled. I can't come up with one reason that anyone looking would think it hit if it hadn't.



Craig Ranke CIT	Mar 25 2009, 10:52 AM Post #158
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	HeadLikeARock Mar 25 2009, 08:09 AM Domenick DiMaggio Mar 24 2009, 07:37 PM add in that mcgraw also admitted to you guys on film he never saw the plane actually striking any lightpoles too..... Please explain why is that suspicious that he didn't see the lightpoles being hit, given that they were behind him? He was very clear on what he did see, which was the plane crashing into the Pentagon. Poles 3, 4, and 5 would have been right in front of him. Unless he lied about the plane flying directly over him.
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


bryan26	Mar 25 2009, 10:57 AM Post #159
troll Posts: 66 Group: BANNED! Member #1,067 Joined: 02/23/09	Craig Ranke CIT Mar 25 2009, 09:40 AM HeadLikeARock Mar 25 2009, 08:29 AM I think you're over-simplifying my rationale. And as I've stated, it's rationale I've used to come to my own decision. Do you see me on this or any other forum arguing that CIT are definitely wrong because of X, Y, Z? All I've said is that personally, I am not convinced. Why does it bother you that I don't agree with your conclusions? I am not over-simplifying it at all. I am exposing how you are forced to abandon logic, critical thinking principles, and true skepticism in order to dismiss this evidence in favor of the official story. I am showing you how your "rationale" is not rational. You have already admitted that you have no independent evidence for your beliefs other than the interviews that we have conducted. You have already admitted that you are willing to dismiss evidence for a very serious crime based on nothing but pure faith in the govt and media. Naturally that's your prerogative but that makes us the true critical thinking skeptics with our claims rooted in sound independent verifiable evidence and YOU the irrational conspiracy theorist who prefers to ignore evidence in lieu of his faith. I don't know who you are and what you do outside of this forum but it bothers me that you are willing to dismiss hard evidence of a crime based on your irrational faith because the crime is a matter of life and death of world historical proportions where countless 10's of thousands of innocent people have been slaughtered as they continue to be murdered to this day based on this lie that YOU support. You better believe it bothers me. Quote: Didn't he say he was talking to his dog in the back of his car at the CITGO? Wouldn't that have put his back to the alleged flight-path he saw? Yet he later stated that the plane couldn't have flown SoC because he didn't have eyes in the back of his head. (I'll clarify this later when I have a chance to look at the interview again). This sounds contradictory to me. I need to verify it before I can comment further. How does talking to his dog in the back seat dictate which way he was facing? Lagasse told Dick Eastman in June of 2003, less than 2 years after the attack, that he was on the starboard side of the craft. But guess what?? We don't rely on Lagasse or ANY single witness! If Lagasse was so ridiculously mistaken about the location of the plane in relation to the ground on which he was standing (and that he frequents on a daily basis) then it is irrational to suggest that Brooks, Turcios, Middleton, Stafford, Prather, Carter, Aman, De La Cerda, Boger, Stephens, and others would scientifically validate him on this detail. Why is your faith in the govt and media so strong that you are willing to argue against scientifically validated independent hard evidence implicating their involvement in a crime of mass murder? No one is putting faith in the govt or media. We are putting faith in what is possible in the world as we know it. You refuse to address the many impossibilities in your theories, because you know they invalidate them. Certain things that you claim simply are not possible on this planet. That is why I know the plane was not noc, it was soc. You rather focus on fallible human brains than what can and cannot be.



HeadLikeARock	Mar 25 2009, 12:19 PM Post #160
Posts: 345 Group: Members Member #438 Joined: 03/25/08	Miragememories Mar 25 2009, 08:49 AM Do you call what you are rambling about below to be "critical thinking?" Trying to figure out the detail of a witness statement? Yes, I'd say that is critical thinking. I'm not taking what he says at face value (faith), nor am I automatically ruling it out. Quote: So why do you feel so compelled to keep re-stating your lack of conviction? I'm not trying to convince anyone else that I'm right. That's because I'm not convinced I'm right. It's just what I believe, based on what I've seen and read, and what I've already admitted is my own personal incredulity at how the attack is alleged to have been executed. I think I stated my position quite well on a different forum a year or so ago, when I said I'd be willing to bet my house that Apollo wasn't faked, but only £100 that 9/11 wasn't a MIHOP operation. That's because there is conflicting evidence and testimony about 9/11, which always raises doubts.
Posts: 345 Group: Members Member #438 Joined: 03/25/08


Miragememories	Mar 25 2009, 12:29 PM Post #161
Posts: 753 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08	Sigh. I repeat HeadLikeARock. Why do you feel compelled to keep repeating your conviction? You've spoken, we don't need your echo. MM
Posts: 753 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08


HeadLikeARock	Mar 25 2009, 12:39 PM Post #162
Posts: 345 Group: Members Member #438 Joined: 03/25/08	Craig Ranke CIT Mar 25 2009, 09:40 AM I am not over-simplifying it at all. I am exposing how you are forced to abandon logic, critical thinking principles, and true skepticism in order to dismiss this evidence in favor of the official story. I am showing you how your "rationale" is not rational. You have already admitted that you have no independent evidence for your beliefs other than the interviews that we have conducted. Isn't that all you've got? No independent evidence for your beliefs other than the interviews you conducted? And when the opinion expressed doesn't fit, then you theorise as to why? (Wheelhouse = attention-seeking liar; Boger = fell to floor before seeing crash, contrary to his statement; McGraw = liar due to previous job as attorney, and connections to Opus Dei; England = liar, coerced or otherwise; Lagasse = fooled about the impact). Quote: You have already admitted that you are willing to dismiss evidence for a very serious crime based on nothing but pure faith in the govt and media. You're misrepresenting what I've said. The eye-witness statements are contradictory (both internally and mutually). I don't automatically assume the impact witness statements are incorrect. I've seen the video and stills of the damage, and I don't think it's incompatible with a SoC approach. And I don't think the plan you put forward would be accepted when there is a much easier way of implementing it that is much more water-tight. Faith in the US Government? In 2001? Can't recall having a great deal. Quote: Naturally that's your prerogative but that makes us the true critical thinking skeptics with our claims rooted in sound independent verifiable evidence and YOU the irrational conspiracy theorist who prefers to ignore evidence in lieu of his faith. If that's what you want to think, knock yourself out. Quote: I don't know who you are and what you do outside of this forum but it bothers me that you are willing to dismiss hard evidence of a crime based on your irrational faith because the crime is a matter of life and death of world historical proportions where countless 10's of thousands of innocent people have been slaughtered as they continue to be murdered to this day based on this lie that YOU support. It's not hard evidence. It's contradictory witness statements. I most certainly do NOT support the war in Iraq, which is what 9/11 is supposed to have been used to leverage support for. I find it odd that the alleged perps were able to carry out this heinous crime, in an overly complex way, but they didn't have the wherewithall to cement their position by 'discovering' a massive stash of WOMD buried out in the desert somewhere, and plastering it across the news. Quote: How does talking to his dog in the back seat dictate which way he was facing? Lagasse told Dick Eastman in June of 2003, less than 2 years after the attack, that he was on the starboard side of the craft. But guess what?? We don't rely on Lagasse or ANY single witness! If Lagasse was so ridiculously mistaken about the location of the plane in relation to the ground on which he was standing (and that he frequents on a daily basis) then it is irrational to suggest that Brooks, Turcios, Middleton, Stafford, Prather, Carter, Aman, De La Cerda, Boger, Stephens, and others would scientifically validate him on this detail. Why is your faith in the govt and media so strong that you are willing to argue against scientifically validated independent hard evidence implicating their involvement in a crime of mass murder?[/wuote] I think I've already covered most of this.
Posts: 345 Group: Members Member #438 Joined: 03/25/08


HeadLikeARock	Mar 25 2009, 12:41 PM Post #163
Posts: 345 Group: Members Member #438 Joined: 03/25/08	Miragememories Mar 25 2009, 12:29 PM Sigh. I repeat HeadLikeARock. Why do you feel compelled to keep repeating your conviction? You've spoken, we don't need your echo. MM Is this one of the questions you are demanding an answer to, or are you being rhetorical?
Posts: 345 Group: Members Member #438 Joined: 03/25/08


HeadLikeARock	Mar 25 2009, 01:01 PM Post #164
Posts: 345 Group: Members Member #438 Joined: 03/25/08	bryan26 Mar 25 2009, 10:51 AM Please give the plausible reason that they were fooled. I can't come up with one reason that anyone looking would think it hit if it hadn't. Good questions. It can only be speculated on of course. And if they were fooled (about NoC), there may be different reasons as to why. Just a quick example. There were several witnesses at ANC, the park-workers. They all had a similar viewpoint. It's possible they were all fooled by a combination of perspective, panic, poor memory recall. No doubt in the intervening years they discussed what happened, so maybe there could be some overlap of shared memory. To elaborate. One of the ANC witnesses (I forget his name), said that he remembered the plane coming from where the Air Force monument now stands (it wasn't there in 2001). He was quite clear about the height too. From his perspective, that would have put it to the LHS of the Navy Annex SE corner. Yet on the photo, he drew it at the mid-point of the Navy Annex. Where exaclty did he remember it? How did his particular perspective affect his judgement of where it actually was? This is in complete contrast to another ANC witness who said it flew down the road north of the annex, from the direction of the Hilton (?) Hotel. The ANC witnesses also describe how they were running around in a state of panic, so who knows what they actually saw compared to what they remember? People make the argument that they can't all be wrong about the plane flying NoC, but why doesn't that argument also apply to where the plane came from in relation to the Navy Annex? There is a lot of disagreement there. Yet they didn't start to panic until after the plane appeared and they started running for cover. How can they be sure of the NoC approach if they were running around in a state of panic, but it's OK that they can have conflicting memories about where the plane first appeared in the sky wtr the Navy Annex? I know this is speculation. I don't have the answers. But they are questions I ask myself, while trying to retain as much objectivity and skepticism as I can about the whole incident.
Posts: 345 Group: Members Member #438 Joined: 03/25/08


Craig Ranke CIT	Mar 25 2009, 01:36 PM Post #165
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	Miragememories Mar 25 2009, 10:01 AM Nice post Craig. I had been wondering what was Lagasse's view of the SofCitgo official flightpath. As you so nicely point out, if Sgt Lagasse had no view of that SofCitgo flightpath, how could he have possibly not seen the the jet on a NoftCitgo flightpath! MM Here is an image looking towards the official flight path from the north side of the citgo: Obviously that image is further out than the back corner pump so Lagasse's POV would be blocked by the station even more as depicted in this animation: Here are the views from the front pump closer to the Pentagon showing how there really isn't that great of a view of the alleged impact point from there at all even from closer up:
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


espresso	Mar 25 2009, 01:51 PM Post #166
Posts: 124 Group: Skeptics Member #1,078 Joined: 03/05/09	Craig Ranke CIT Mar 24 2009, 05:50 PM Avenger Mar 24 2009, 05:39 PM Show us how it's possible that they really only THOUGHT they saw the plane north of the CITGO. Exactly. This is the crux of the matter. The fact is that it would be a RIDICULOUS and borderline insane mistake for any one of them to make. But it would literally take simultaneous mass hallucination for them ALL to make the exact same mistake. No. It would just require them to be wrong. They didn't have to hallucinate it to be wrong.



Craig Ranke CIT	Mar 25 2009, 02:01 PM Post #167
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	HeadLikeARock Mar 25 2009, 01:01 PM To elaborate. One of the ANC witnesses (I forget his name), said that he remembered the plane coming from where the Air Force monument now stands (it wasn't there in 2001). He was quite clear about the height too. From his perspective, that would have put it to the LHS of the Navy Annex SE corner. Yet on the photo, he drew it at the mid-point of the Navy Annex. Where exaclty did he remember it? How did his particular perspective affect his judgement of where it actually was? This is in complete contrast to another ANC witness who said it flew down the road north of the annex, from the direction of the Hilton (?) Hotel. The ANC witnesses also describe how they were running around in a state of panic, so who knows what they actually saw compared to what they remember? People make the argument that they can't all be wrong about the plane flying NoC, but why doesn't that argument also apply to where the plane came from in relation to the Navy Annex? There is a lot of disagreement there. Yet they didn't start to panic until after the plane appeared and they started running for cover. How can they be sure of the NoC approach if they were running around in a state of panic, but it's OK that they can have conflicting memories about where the plane first appeared in the sky wtr the Navy Annex? I know this is speculation. I don't have the answers. But they are questions I ask myself, while trying to retain as much objectivity and skepticism as I can about the whole incident. You remember incorrectly so your entire rant is based on a FALLACY. Darius Prather described it as being "between" the Air Force Memorial and the antenna thing, in other words right in the center of the Navy Annex, EXACTLY LIKE HE ILLUSTRATED, headed TOWARDS them and then BANKING. He was very explicit about the banking maneuver: So there is no discrepancy between what he drew and what he described. Middleton had a completely different vantage point and perspective from up the road on the north side of the Navy Annex so although he deduced the approach before the Navy Annex as being "straight down the middle of the road" he ALSO has it "right over the parking lot" of ANC like all the other witnesses. Do you know how we know their north side claim is not due to perspective error? Scientific validation. They were corroborated by ALL the citgo witnesses from the complete opposite perspective. Get it yet? I'm sure you do because it's clear now that you are deliberately misrepresenting the evidence in a desperate attempt to justify your denial of its legitimacy.
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


Craig Ranke CIT	Mar 25 2009, 02:04 PM Post #168
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	espresso Mar 25 2009, 01:51 PM No. It would just require them to be wrong. They didn't have to hallucinate it to be wrong. No. If they were wrong their accounts wouldn't match from a variety of all surrounding and opposing perspectives. You are in denial.
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


bryan26	Mar 25 2009, 02:12 PM Post #169
troll Posts: 66 Group: BANNED! Member #1,067 Joined: 02/23/09	Craig Ranke CIT Mar 25 2009, 02:04 PM espresso Mar 25 2009, 01:51 PM No. It would just require them to be wrong. They didn't have to hallucinate it to be wrong. No. If they were wrong their accounts wouldn't match from a variety of all surrounding and opposing perspectives. You are in denial. Yes they could, it happens all the time.



Craig Ranke CIT	Mar 25 2009, 02:25 PM Post #170
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	bryan26 Mar 25 2009, 02:12 PM Yes they could, it happens all the time. Prove it. Should be easy if it "happens all the time". Provide me with an example where you have a simple right or left claim regarding something as obvious as a massive jet airliner at tree top level independently validated 13 times over from multiple surrounding and opposing perspectives yet they were all simultaneously wrong in the same way. Provide the evidence or you will have been exposed as a liar.
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


bryan26	Mar 25 2009, 02:36 PM Post #171
troll Posts: 66 Group: BANNED! Member #1,067 Joined: 02/23/09	Craig Ranke CIT Mar 25 2009, 02:25 PM bryan26 Mar 25 2009, 02:12 PM Yes they could, it happens all the time. Prove it. Should be easy if it "happens all the time". Provide me with an example where you have a simple right or left claim regarding something as obvious as a massive jet airliner at tree top level independently validated 13 times over from multiple surrounding and opposing perspectives yet they were all simultaneously wrong in the same way. Provide the evidence or you will have been exposed as a liar. You've been exposed as more than a liar. I don't have to look up the many cases of eyewitness mistakes and wrongfully convicted for you. It is a fact. As I have said before, there are no impossibiliies in the plane hitting the building from the soc path. There are impossibilties, that you won't address, that prove that noc and a cover up did not happen. End of story. If you are so certain, why not go public? This nonsense about the media and everyone being against you is the biggest joke going. Call a presser, or contact any media source. Tell them that you have absolute proof that the govt carried out the attacks of 9/11. They will at least hear you out. If what you have proves what you claim, you will be a hero within a few hours. If you have what you repeat daily, there is no excuse for not alerting the rest of the world. You owe it to the victims and your country.



Craig Ranke CIT	Mar 25 2009, 03:04 PM Post #172
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	bryan26, Thanks for proving you are a liar who can not back up a single thing he spews from his mouth with evidence. You have utterly demonstrated your complete lack of regard for evidence, science, skepticism, truth, and justice while proving your unyielding loyalty to faith, deception, murder, and war. Enjoy the sticky feeling of blood on your hands as you turn your back on your own nation out of cowardly denial.
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


bryan26	Mar 25 2009, 03:07 PM Post #173
troll Posts: 66 Group: BANNED! Member #1,067 Joined: 02/23/09	Craig Ranke CIT Mar 25 2009, 03:04 PM bryan26, Thanks for proving you are a liar who can not back up a single thing he spews from his mouth with evidence. You have utterly demonstrated your complete lack of regard for evidence, science, skepticism, truth, and justice while proving your unyielding loyalty to faith, deception, murder, and war. Enjoy the sticky feeling of blood on your hands as you turn your back on your own nation out of cowardly denial. That's really all you have? Ignor facts and demonize the opposition......conspiracist.



Craig Ranke CIT	Mar 25 2009, 03:17 PM Post #174
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	bryan26 Mar 25 2009, 03:07 PM That's really all you have? Ignor facts and demonize the opposition......conspiracist. Huh? I provide independent verifiable evidence for my claims. You lie and have refused to provide a shred of evidence for anything. That is the difference between us. I am a true skeptic and you are a true boot-licker. I am a warrior and you are a coward. I am a patriot and you are a traitor. I am a concerned citizen and you are war-crime-apologist. Let that sit like a knot in your wretched stomach because you have NOTHING to offer this discussion. Go back to pseudo-skeptic training school and learn how to back up what you say with evidence because you are looking mighty pathetic trying to argue your point with nothing but blind faith in what you were told.
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


espresso	Mar 25 2009, 03:54 PM Post #175
Posts: 124 Group: Skeptics Member #1,078 Joined: 03/05/09	Craig Ranke CIT Mar 25 2009, 02:04 PM espresso Mar 25 2009, 01:51 PM No. It would just require them to be wrong. They didn't have to hallucinate it to be wrong. No. If they were wrong their accounts wouldn't match from a variety of all surrounding and opposing perspectives. You are in denial. Matching accounts doesn't mean that they are right. You are the one in denial if you believe that these people are incapable of being wrong.



1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)


Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Skeptics · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
…
6
7
8
9