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.
How could he knowingly tell a false story to help cover up mass murder and not be complicit in the crime? I don't see how it can go both ways. Either he is one of the many alleged conspirators or he is an old man, who was in the wrong place at the wrong time
If he was threatened or told to suppress certain information, or tell a certain story. He doesn't have to be complicit in the crime does he?
Imagine if you were walking down the street minding your own business and you see a load of police men beating the shit out of someone on the ground, then one of them pulls a gun and shoots him in the head, so you walk to see what's going off, only to be grabbed by some of the officers, who put a gun to your head, get your ID off you, the police chief amongst them threatens you to keep silent about what you saw and if you say anything, they have got your details, know who you are, they will find you and fucking kill you if you say if it ever gets out, they give you a couple hundred bucks and tell you to fuck off, mind you own business and don't say shit.....or bang!
Does that make you complicit? Or just in the wrong place at the wrong time?
It is like you debunkers really don't think about things sometimes, groupthink is dulling your brain. lol
bryan26
I don't see how it can go both ways.
That is because debunkers see the world in black and white...when it is many shades of grey.
bryan26
Either he is one of the many alleged conspirators or he is an old man, who was in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Or what if he was chosen by the perps or paid to tell/keep a certain story as opposed to threatened?
Many shades of grey...not black and white.
bryan26
I don't see anything wrong with anything he has said.
I do not think you would see anything wrong if he said something along the lines of....."Well actually some guys picked up the light pole smashed it through my car window, gave me a few thousands bucks to get my car repaired and to tell the media and anyone else a plane that the plane that hit the pentagon, knocked a light pole through my car window."
How could he knowingly tell a false story to help cover up mass murder and not be complicit in the crime? I don't see how it can go both ways. Either he is one of the many alleged conspirators or he is an old man, who was in the wrong place at the wrong time
If he was threatened or told to suppress certain information, or tell a certain story. He doesn't have to be complicit in the crime does he?
Imagine if you were walking down the street minding your own business and you see a load of police men beating the shit out of someone on the ground, then one of them pulls a gun and shoots him in the head, so you walk to see what's going off, only to be grabbed by some of the officers, who put a gun to your head, get your ID off you, the police chief amongst them threatens you to keep silent about what you saw and if you say anything, they have got your details, know who you are, they will find you and fucking kill you if you say if it ever gets out, they give you a couple hundred bucks and tell you to fuck off, mind you own business and don't say shit.....or bang!
Does that make you complicit? Or just in the wrong place at the wrong time?
It is like you debunkers really don't think about things sometimes, groupthink is dulling your brain. lol
bryan26
I don't see how it can go both ways.
That is because debunkers see the world in black and white...when it is many shades of grey.
bryan26
Either he is one of the many alleged conspirators or he is an old man, who was in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Or what if he was chosen by the perps or paid to tell/keep a certain story as opposed to threatened?
Many shades of grey...not black and white.
bryan26
I don't see anything wrong with anything he has said.
I do not think you would see anything wrong if he said something along the lines of....."Well actually some guys picked up the light pole smashed it through my car window, gave me a few thousands bucks to get my car repaired and to tell the media and anyone else a plane that the plane that hit the pentagon, knocked a light pole through my car window."
Black & White thinking.....lol
This was his cab? You are alleging that the cab was damaged before 9:38am 9/11? This would be premeditated and not a spur of the moment threat to say one thing or another. He would have to know in advance that he was to be apart of something big. After the fact, he would know that he helped thousands die. He would be complicit for continuing with this false preplanted story. He would know exactly what he was doing. He is not some brainless person who doesn't know what this story means to the 9/11 event.
Are there any explosives capable of producing the damage in, out, and around the pentagon in one large explosion? There were not a series of varying explosions at the pentagon.
How could he knowingly tell a false story to help cover up mass murder and not be complicit in the crime? I don't see how it can go both ways. Either he is one of the many alleged conspirators or he is an old man, who was in the wrong place at the wrong time
If he was threatened or told to suppress certain information, or tell a certain story. He doesn't have to be complicit in the crime does he?
Threatened or not, if he is knowingly withholding information to protect the perpetrators, then he is complicit in the cover up.
How could he knowingly tell a false story to help cover up mass murder and not be complicit in the crime? I don't see how it can go both ways. Either he is one of the many alleged conspirators or he is an old man, who was in the wrong place at the wrong time
If he was threatened or told to suppress certain information, or tell a certain story. He doesn't have to be complicit in the crime does he?
Threatened or not, if he is knowingly withholding information to protect the perpetrators, then he is complicit in the cover up.
Speaking of coverups, Why don't you tell us about the origin of the institution for which you work ?
How could he knowingly tell a false story to help cover up mass murder and not be complicit in the crime? I don't see how it can go both ways. Either he is one of the many alleged conspirators or he is an old man, who was in the wrong place at the wrong time
If he was threatened or told to suppress certain information, or tell a certain story. He doesn't have to be complicit in the crime does he?
Threatened or not, if he is knowingly withholding information to protect the perpetrators, then he is complicit in the cover up.
The truth uses the noc witnesses to invalidate all other witnesses. Someone could easily use other witnesses to invalidate the noc witnesses. The physical evidence will sort out what acutally hit the building.
Well what are you waiting for? Get down there and dig up enough official south flight path eyewitnesses to invalidate the 13 CIT eyewitnesses placing the decoy aircraft Over the Naval Annex and North of the Citgo. Better yet, find enough official south flight path eyewitnesses to invalidate the 20+ eyewitnesses (many of them originally interviewed way back in 2001) placing the actual aircraft Over the Naval Annex and proving the official south Flight 77 flight path impossible. Videotape them, ask them some extensive questions, prove the 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY correct, and put the CIT investigators out of business. Why haven't you already left for Virginia?
This was his cab? You are alleging that the cab was damaged before 9:38am 9/11?
The only thing I can allege is that a plane didn't hit the light pole because the plane was NoC and this light pole didn't hit his cab.
Bryan26
This would be premeditated and not a spur of the moment threat to say one thing or another.
That depends if he was just in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Black and white thinking again.
Bryan26
He would have to know in advance that he was to be apart of something big.
Why would he know in advance if he was in the wrong place at the wrong time?
If he is was in the wrong place at the wrong time then he wouldn't realise it was part of something big until after it had all happened.
Bryan26
After the fact, he would know that he helped thousands die.
He didn't do it did he? He hasn't helped thousands die because he was never in a position to prevent it. All he can do is tell his story.
Whether his story is true is debatable considering the plane was not located at that position as described by the NoC witnesses and that they removed the pole without causing any noticeable damage to the hood.
Bryan26
He would be complicit for continuing with this false preplanted story.
Hence the need for an investigation.
Bryan26
He would know exactly what he was doing.
He might be aware hence the comment he made about it being bigger than him.
Bryan26
He is not some brainless person who doesn't know what this story means to the 9/11 event.
I have never argued he is brainless.
Bryan26
Are there any explosives capable of producing the damage in, out, and around the pentagon in one large explosion? There were not a series of varying explosions at the pentagon.
I'm not an expert but there are Rapid Wall Beaching Kits. Here is one in action.
The truth uses the noc witnesses to invalidate all other witnesses. Someone could easily use other witnesses to invalidate the noc witnesses. The physical evidence will sort out what acutally hit the building.
Well what are you waiting for? Get down there and dig up enough official south flight path eyewitnesses to invalidate the 13 CIT eyewitnesses placing the decoy aircraft Over the Naval Annex and North of the Citgo. Better yet, find enough official south flight path eyewitnesses to invalidate the 20+ eyewitnesses (many of them originally interviewed way back in 2001) placing the actual aircraft Over the Naval Annex and proving the official south Flight 77 flight path impossible. Videotape them, ask them some extensive questions, prove the 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY correct, and put the CIT investigators out of business. Why haven't you already left for Virginia?
Why does your question insist on people who saw the plane on either side of the Citgo? There is no soc or noc. That was made up. There is a plane that flew into the DC area, many saw it at different points, some saw it hit the pentagon. I don't think many witnesses were thinking soc or noc. Your question in not realistc.
The truth uses the noc witnesses to invalidate all other witnesses. Someone could easily use other witnesses to invalidate the noc witnesses. The physical evidence will sort out what acutally hit the building.
Well what are you waiting for? Get down there and dig up enough official south flight path eyewitnesses to invalidate the 13 CIT eyewitnesses placing the decoy aircraft Over the Naval Annex and North of the Citgo. Better yet, find enough official south flight path eyewitnesses to invalidate the 20+ eyewitnesses (many of them originally interviewed way back in 2001) placing the actual aircraft Over the Naval Annex and proving the official south Flight 77 flight path impossible. Videotape them, ask them some extensive questions, prove the 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY correct, and put the CIT investigators out of business. Why haven't you already left for Virginia?
Why does your question insist on people who saw the plane on either side of the Citgo? There is no soc or noc. That was made up. There is a plane that flew into the DC area, many saw it at different points, some saw it hit the pentagon. I don't think many witnesses were thinking soc or noc. Your question in not realistc.
Ooohhh! The irony......lol
Neither is your question realistic.......?
You are just crying because there are witnesses who put the plane NoC and this evidently betrays your rational thoughts, so out comes the irrational. lol
Why does your question insist on people who saw the plane on either side of the Citgo? There is no soc or noc. That was made up. There is a plane that flew into the DC area, many saw it at different points, some saw it hit the pentagon. I don't think many witnesses were thinking soc or noc. Your question in not realistc.
The truth uses the noc witnesses to invalidate all other witnesses. Someone could easily use other witnesses to invalidate the noc witnesses. The physical evidence will sort out what acutally hit the building.
Well what are you waiting for? Get down there and dig up enough official south flight path eyewitnesses to invalidate the 13 CIT eyewitnesses placing the decoy aircraft Over the Naval Annex and North of the Citgo. Better yet, find enough official south flight path eyewitnesses to invalidate the 20+ eyewitnesses (many of them originally interviewed way back in 2001) placing the actual aircraft Over the Naval Annex and proving the official south Flight 77 flight path impossible. Videotape them, ask them some extensive questions, prove the 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY correct, and put the CIT investigators out of business. Why haven't you already left for Virginia?
Why does your question insist on people who saw the plane on either side of the Citgo? There is no soc or noc. That was made up. There is a plane that flew into the DC area, many saw it at different points, some saw it hit the pentagon. I don't think many witnesses were thinking soc or noc. Your question in not realistc.
No it is not only made up. There is an official Flight 77 south flight path flying straight into the light poles and Pentagon interior damage path and south of the Naval Annex and Columbia Pike and low and inches above the lawn, as presented to the world in the 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY, and there is an actual decoy aircraft flight path Over the Naval Annex and North of Columbia Pike and banking to the right towards the Pentagon and high and above the light poles and overhead highway sign.
If Someone could easily use other witnesses to invalidate the noc witnesses, then why don't you get your butt down to Arlington and easily invalidate the NOC and ONA witnesses using other witnesses? Why can't you put your money where your mouth is and do what you claim you can easily do? Is it because your mouth is full of crapola and hogwash, and you have only a faith-based belief system to fall back on?
And of course there is the fake descending loop southwest of the Pentagon which nobody in Virginia witnessed and the actual loop around Reagan National, east across the Potomac, over DC, back west across the Potomac, and descending behind the Aurora Hills and the Crystal City buildings, and over the golf course which many people witnessed.
Why does your question insist on people who saw the plane on either side of the Citgo? There is no soc or noc. That was made up. There is a plane that flew into the DC area, many saw it at different points, some saw it hit the pentagon. I don't think many witnesses were thinking soc or noc. Your question in not realistc.
Your point? It isn't realistic because the Citgo is not central to what happened. If you ask people what side of the Empire State Building flt11 flew on, do you expect many to know or even care? It is pointless to expect people to take note of the Citgo, when the pentagon was hit. It is a false argument created to try and support nonsense.
The truth uses the noc witnesses to invalidate all other witnesses. Someone could easily use other witnesses to invalidate the noc witnesses. The physical evidence will sort out what acutally hit the building.
Well what are you waiting for? Get down there and dig up enough official south flight path eyewitnesses to invalidate the 13 CIT eyewitnesses placing the decoy aircraft Over the Naval Annex and North of the Citgo. Better yet, find enough official south flight path eyewitnesses to invalidate the 20+ eyewitnesses (many of them originally interviewed way back in 2001) placing the actual aircraft Over the Naval Annex and proving the official south Flight 77 flight path impossible. Videotape them, ask them some extensive questions, prove the 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY correct, and put the CIT investigators out of business. Why haven't you already left for Virginia?
Why does your question insist on people who saw the plane on either side of the Citgo? There is no soc or noc. That was made up. There is a plane that flew into the DC area, many saw it at different points, some saw it hit the pentagon. I don't think many witnesses were thinking soc or noc. Your question in not realistc.
Ooohhh! The irony......lol
Neither is your question realistic.......?
You are just crying because there are witnesses who put the plane NoC and this evidently betrays your rational thoughts, so out comes the irrational. lol
There are many witnesses who say many things. Are all of them correct? If all of them are not correct, then the ones you worship can be wrong.
Why does your question insist on people who saw the plane on either side of the Citgo? There is no soc or noc. That was made up. There is a plane that flew into the DC area, many saw it at different points, some saw it hit the pentagon. I don't think many witnesses were thinking soc or noc. Your question in not realistc.
Your point? It isn't realistic because the Citgo is not central to what happened. If you ask people what side of the Empire State Building flt11 flew on, do you expect many to know or even care? It is pointless to expect people to take note of the Citgo, when the pentagon was hit. It is a false argument created to try and support nonsense.
Actually you are incorrect with that statement. The plane would have had to fly south of the Citgo to have made impact with the lightpoles.
I suggest you actually study the locations and topography before you make yourself look more foolish than you already have.
Why does your question insist on people who saw the plane on either side of the Citgo? There is no soc or noc. That was made up. There is a plane that flew into the DC area, many saw it at different points, some saw it hit the pentagon. I don't think many witnesses were thinking soc or noc. Your question in not realistc.
Your point? It isn't realistic because the Citgo is not central to what happened. If you ask people what side of the Empire State Building flt11 flew on, do you expect many to know or even care? It is pointless to expect people to take note of the Citgo, when the pentagon was hit. It is a false argument created to try and support nonsense.
Actually you are incorrect with that statement. The plane would have had to fly south of the Citgo to have made impact with the lightpoles.
I suggest you actually study the locations and topography before you make yourself look more foolish than you already have.
I agree that it would have to had flown south, but to say you can't find many who say it was soc, is to be expected. The Citgo was not the focus of anything that morning.
Why does your question insist on people who saw the plane on either side of the Citgo? There is no soc or noc. That was made up. There is a plane that flew into the DC area, many saw it at different points, some saw it hit the pentagon. I don't think many witnesses were thinking soc or noc. Your question in not realistc.
Your point? It isn't realistic because the Citgo is not central to what happened. If you ask people what side of the Empire State Building flt11 flew on, do you expect many to know or even care? It is pointless to expect people to take note of the Citgo, when the pentagon was hit. It is a false argument created to try and support nonsense.
Actually you are incorrect with that statement. The plane would have had to fly south of the Citgo to have made impact with the lightpoles.
I suggest you actually study the locations and topography before you make yourself look more foolish than you already have.
I agree that it would have to had flown south, but to say you can't find many who say it was soc, is to be expected. The Citgo was not the focus of anything that morning.
That is not what CIT is saying. The are saying that they can not find ANY which legitimately place the plane south of the Citgo, and had you actually viewed their work you would know this.
Why does your question insist on people who saw the plane on either side of the Citgo? There is no soc or noc. That was made up. There is a plane that flew into the DC area, many saw it at different points, some saw it hit the pentagon. I don't think many witnesses were thinking soc or noc. Your question in not realistc.
Your point? It isn't realistic because the Citgo is not central to what happened. If you ask people what side of the Empire State Building flt11 flew on, do you expect many to know or even care? It is pointless to expect people to take note of the Citgo, when the pentagon was hit. It is a false argument created to try and support nonsense.
Actually you are incorrect with that statement. The plane would have had to fly south of the Citgo to have made impact with the lightpoles.
I suggest you actually study the locations and topography before you make yourself look more foolish than you already have.
I agree that it would have to had flown south, but to say you can't find many who say it was soc, is to be expected. The Citgo was not the focus of anything that morning.
That is not what CIT is saying. The are saying that they can not find ANY which legitimately place the plane south of the Citgo, and had you actually viewed their work you would know this.
All impact witnesses are soc witnesses. All physical evidence supports soc. My point is that no one is going to give accounts in relation to the Citgo nor should they be expected to.
Why does your question insist on people who saw the plane on either side of the Citgo? There is no soc or noc. That was made up. There is a plane that flew into the DC area, many saw it at different points, some saw it hit the pentagon. I don't think many witnesses were thinking soc or noc. Your question in not realistc.
Your point? It isn't realistic because the Citgo is not central to what happened. If you ask people what side of the Empire State Building flt11 flew on, do you expect many to know or even care? It is pointless to expect people to take note of the Citgo, when the pentagon was hit. It is a false argument created to try and support nonsense.
Actually you are incorrect with that statement. The plane would have had to fly south of the Citgo to have made impact with the lightpoles.
I suggest you actually study the locations and topography before you make yourself look more foolish than you already have.
I agree that it would have to had flown south, but to say you can't find many who say it was soc, is to be expected. The Citgo was not the focus of anything that morning.
That is not what CIT is saying. The are saying that they can not find ANY which legitimately place the plane south of the Citgo, and had you actually viewed their work you would know this.
All impact witnesses are soc witnesses. All physical evidence supports soc. My point is that no one is going to give accounts in relation to the Citgo nor should they be expected to.
Incorrect.
At the top left of every page here you will see a tab labeled "Movies".
I suggest you check out the one titled "The Pentacon Smoking gun version" to bring yourself up to speed.
I agree that it would have to had flown south, but to say you can't find many who say it was soc, is to be expected. The Citgo was not the focus of anything that morning.
Right, so get off your ass, get on a plane, go to Arlington, VA and make it the focus when you speak with witnesses who were there.
Why does your question insist on people who saw the plane on either side of the Citgo? There is no soc or noc. That was made up. There is a plane that flew into the DC area, many saw it at different points, some saw it hit the pentagon. I don't think many witnesses were thinking soc or noc. Your question in not realistc.
Your point? It isn't realistic because the Citgo is not central to what happened. If you ask people what side of the Empire State Building flt11 flew on, do you expect many to know or even care? It is pointless to expect people to take note of the Citgo, when the pentagon was hit. It is a false argument created to try and support nonsense.
Actually you are incorrect with that statement. The plane would have had to fly south of the Citgo to have made impact with the lightpoles.
I suggest you actually study the locations and topography before you make yourself look more foolish than you already have.
I agree that it would have to had flown south, but to say you can't find many who say it was soc, is to be expected. The Citgo was not the focus of anything that morning.
That is not what CIT is saying. The are saying that they can not find ANY which legitimately place the plane south of the Citgo, and had you actually viewed their work you would know this.
Why would it be necessary for an eyewitness to use the Citgo as a frame of reference? For example, if someone reported seeing the plane hit the light poles that would put it on the 'soc' flight path whether they mentioned the Citgo or not.
Why does your question insist on people who saw the plane on either side of the Citgo? There is no soc or noc. That was made up. There is a plane that flew into the DC area, many saw it at different points, some saw it hit the pentagon. I don't think many witnesses were thinking soc or noc. Your question in not realistc.
Your point? It isn't realistic because the Citgo is not central to what happened. If you ask people what side of the Empire State Building flt11 flew on, do you expect many to know or even care? It is pointless to expect people to take note of the Citgo, when the pentagon was hit. It is a false argument created to try and support nonsense.
Actually you are incorrect with that statement. The plane would have had to fly south of the Citgo to have made impact with the lightpoles.
I suggest you actually study the locations and topography before you make yourself look more foolish than you already have.
I agree that it would have to had flown south, but to say you can't find many who say it was soc, is to be expected. The Citgo was not the focus of anything that morning.
That is not what CIT is saying. The are saying that they can not find ANY which legitimately place the plane south of the Citgo, and had you actually viewed their work you would know this.
Why would it be necessary for an eyewitness to use the Citgo as a frame of reference? For example, if someone reported seeing the plane hit the light poles that would put it on the 'soc' flight path whether they mentioned the Citgo or not.
To prove or disprove the official fairy tale.
You are posting from close enough to that area, Why don't you find a witness which says it was south of the Citgo and record him/her from their location like Aldo and Craig did ?
I see you also did not watch that interview as Lagasse himself is adamant about the plane not being able to impact the lightpoles and actually tries to say that the downed lightpoles were in a different position... The same lightpoles which he states he did not see being downed.
Why does your question insist on people who saw the plane on either side of the Citgo? There is no soc or noc. That was made up. There is a plane that flew into the DC area, many saw it at different points, some saw it hit the pentagon. I don't think many witnesses were thinking soc or noc. Your question in not realistc.
Your point? It isn't realistic because the Citgo is not central to what happened. If you ask people what side of the Empire State Building flt11 flew on, do you expect many to know or even care? It is pointless to expect people to take note of the Citgo, when the pentagon was hit. It is a false argument created to try and support nonsense.
Actually you are incorrect with that statement. The plane would have had to fly south of the Citgo to have made impact with the lightpoles.
I suggest you actually study the locations and topography before you make yourself look more foolish than you already have.
I agree that it would have to had flown south, but to say you can't find many who say it was soc, is to be expected. The Citgo was not the focus of anything that morning.
That is not what CIT is saying. The are saying that they can not find ANY which legitimately place the plane south of the Citgo, and had you actually viewed their work you would know this.
Why would it be necessary for an eyewitness to use the Citgo as a frame of reference? For example, if someone reported seeing the plane hit the light poles that would put it on the 'soc' flight path whether they mentioned the Citgo or not.
To prove or disprove the official fairy tale.
You are posting from close enough to that area, Why don't you find a witness which says it was south of the Citgo and record him/her from their location like Aldo and Craig did ?
I see you also did not watch that interview as Lagasse himself is adamant about the plane not being able to impact the lightpoles and actually tries to say that the downed lightpoles were in a different position... The same lightpoles which he states he did not see being downed.
Yes, I watched the video and I know Lagasse did not actually see the light poles get hit but I wasn't referring to him.
My point was and is that using the citgo as a reference point is not a requirement. Anyone who saw the plane on the damage path or hitting the light poles saw the plane on the "soc" flight path whether they mentioned the citgo or not.
My point was and is that using the citgo as a reference point is not a requirement. Anyone who saw the plane on the damage path or hitting the light poles saw the plane on the "soc" flight path whether they mentioned the citgo or not.
Find some witnesses who saw the plane hit the light poles then, I started a thread on that very topic so you can add your information in there. With no witnesses, there is no evidence that a light pole ever came into contact with the cab - and schoolbook physics tells you that the tale of the light pole spearing the window is physically impossible, given the observed damage to the cab.
My point was and is that using the citgo as a reference point is not a requirement. Anyone who saw the plane on the damage path or hitting the light poles saw the plane on the "soc" flight path whether they mentioned the citgo or not.
Find some witnesses who saw the plane hit the light poles then, I started a thread on that very topic so you can add your information in there. With no witnesses, there is no evidence that a light pole ever came into contact with the cab - and schoolbook physics tells you that the tale of the light pole spearing the window is physically impossible, given the observed damage to the cab.
Eyewitnesses who saw the plane hit light poles:
Mark Bright Chadwick Brooks Walker Lee Evey Kat Gaines Afework Hagos D.S. Khavkin Lincoln Liebner Don Mason Stephen McGraw Mary Ann Owens Wanda Ramey Noel Sepulveda
As far as the damage to the cab being physically impossible, you've concluded that due to personal incredulity, not physics
My point was and is that using the citgo as a reference point is not a requirement. Anyone who saw the plane on the damage path or hitting the light poles saw the plane on the "soc" flight path whether they mentioned the citgo or not.
Find some witnesses who saw the plane hit the light poles then, I started a thread on that very topic so you can add your information in there. With no witnesses, there is no evidence that a light pole ever came into contact with the cab - and schoolbook physics tells you that the tale of the light pole spearing the window is physically impossible, given the observed damage to the cab.
Eyewitnesses who saw the plane hit light poles:
Mark Bright Chadwick Brooks Walker Lee Evey Kat Gaines Afework Hagos D.S. Khavkin Lincoln Liebner Don Mason Stephen McGraw Mary Ann Owens Wanda Ramey Noel Sepulveda
As far as the damage to the cab being physically impossible, you've concluded that due to personal incredulity, not physics
Research is your friend. Now I want you to list where these people were located, and the view they had of the light poles being struck.
As for personal incredulity, as I say there is no evidence that a pole ever came into contact with that cab. A pole dangling out of the front of the window would have helped.
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
8:55 PM Nov 24
