If Not Plane Or Missle.......What?

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
2
3

If Not Plane Or Missle.......What?
Topic Started: Mar 3 2009, 03:02 PM (1,295 Views)
Aldo Marquis CIT	Mar 9 2009, 08:38 PM Post #51
Posts: 1,642 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08	Will you just admit that you are not interested in the truth, Espresso? Will you admit that you have no interest in reading or trying to understand what we've uncovered or what we are trying to tell you? WIll you admit that no matter what, you willl not conceded? Will you just admit that? You are going out of your way to force your belief into existence no matter what people tell you? Do you think I am stupid or inept or that I have no idea what I am doing or talking about? I am going to show you why you are not bright and stuck on fear based faith. Mkay? Quote: 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. No one saw the plane on the SoC path, no one saw the plane hitting poles. Don't you understand what deduction means? They saw poles lying on the ground, saw photos, or read news reports after the fact and then it turns into, "the plane hit some light poles on its way in" which turns into the pseudoskeptic, that would be you, saying "these witnesses saw the plane hitting light poles". People may have thought they saw the plane hitting light poles, but since they saw it approach on the north side, this would negate light pole strikes. Let's break your witnesses down to show you how wrong and irrelevant you and your line of thinking are... Mark Bright “It was very, very low -- at the height of the street lights. It knocked a couple down.” Again that is not proof of Mark Bright actually seeing them. That is Mark Bright saying the plane was at the height of the light poles and that he saw some broken lying on the ground hence him DEDUCING that it "knocked a couple down". Did you speak with him? Did you ask him which side of the gas station the plane flew on? Did you ask him if he actually saw poles struck or whether he is deducing it? Do you think he would agree with Sgt Lagasse and Brooks? Sorry, he is not a light pole witness. Chadwick Brooks Umm, he admitted on our video that he actually didn't see the light poles get struck and that he saw the plane approach on the north side of the Citgo. Sorry, he is not a light pole witness. Walker Lee Evey God you are pathetic. Seriously, you wonder why I get so goddamned angry with you people. As many times as I have posted it you choose to ignore it. GUESS WHAT CAPTAIN RESEARCH? LEE EVEY WAS AT HOME DURING THE ATTACK. HE IS NOT A WITNESS. HE WAS THE PEN REN MGR. Sorry, he is not a light pole witness. He is not even a witness. Kat Gaines More of your wonderful research. Well she called it telephone poles aaaaaaaand she was on the other side of the Pentagon genius, on Rt 110. You can't see the light poles from there. Sorry, she is not a light pole witness. Afework Hagos “It hit some lampposts on the way in.” Yup, he drove, walked past, or saw images of the light poles on the ground and DEDUCED that it "hit some lampposts on the way in". What are you not getting about actually verifying what they saw??? Did you speak with him? Did you ask him which side of the gas station the plane flew on? Did you ask him if he actually saw the plane strike poles or if he deduced them being hit after he saw the poles on the ground? You didn't? Sorry, he is not a light pole witness. D.S. Khavkin "First, the plane knocked down a number of street lamp poles, then headed directly for the Pentagon" Here is the view from her apartment. She did NOT see it "knock down a number of street lamp poles". She deduced it from later images and reports, DIDN'T SHE??? Sorry, she is not a light pole witness. Lincoln Liebner "It was probably about thirty feet off the ground, clipping the lampposts." Probably? Clipping lampposts or did he see them lying on the ground and ASSUME or DEDUCE that the plane "clipped lamp posts"? Absolutely. Well according to reporters, Lincoln also said the plane hit a helicopter at the heliport. He also illustrated an NoC flight path: Yet he didn't see the plane over south parking lot, like Roosvelt Roberts saw. Did you ask Lincoln which side of the gas station the plane was on? Did you ask him if he actually saw the light poles struck? Could he be a liar? Sorry, he is not a light pole witness. Don Mason Second hand from the ASCE report. He along with Frank Probst, by means of the ASCE, put the plane on a SoC trajectory. Yet their stories still don't hold water. Frank Probst and Don Mason, are actually considered suspect witnesses. Did you ask Don which side of the gas station the plane was on? Did you ask him if he actually saw the light poles struck? Could he be a liar? Sorry, he is not a light pole witness. Stephen McGraw Um he admitted TO US that he "deduced" it or as I like to put it; he backed away from this lie because he was not even on the highway at the time the plane flew over: http://thepentacon.com/LloydEngland_AccompliceVideo.htm#FromLawtoLord Mary Ann Owens She is part of the USA Today parade, so she is considered a suspect witness first off. Second, here is her first account from 9/11: I was stopped in traffic beside the Pentagon, listening to the terrible news on the radio: A second plane had hit the World Trade Center in New York. The sound of the engines came so quickly I thought it was another helicopter landing. I looked left to see a large plane barely clear the I-395 overpass. Instantly I knew what was happening, and I involuntarily ducked as the plane passed perhaps 50 to 75 feet above the roof of my car at great speed. The plane slammed into the west wall of the Pentagon, perhaps at the third-floor level. The impact was deafening. The fuselage hit the ground and blew up. I could see office walls through the broken outer walls, then smoke and flames engulfed the west wall. Perhaps 10 seconds had passed since I first saw the plane. At first no one moved. Then debris began falling over the cars. No mention of light poles. But a year later: Up to that moment I had only experienced shock by the news coming from New York City and frustration with the worse-than-normal traffic snarl ... but it wasn't until I heard the demon screaming of that engine that I expected to die. Between the Pentagon's helicopter pad, which sits next to the road, and Reagan Washington National Airport a couple of miles south, aviation noise is common along my commute to the silver office towers in Rosslyn where Gannett Co Inc. were housed last autumn. But this engine noise was different. It was too sudden, too loud, too encompassing. Looking up didn't tell me what type of plane it was because it was so close I could only see the bottom. Realising the Pentagon was its target, I didn't think the careering, full-throttled craft would get that far. Its downward angle was too sharp, its elevation of maybe 50 feet, too low. Street lights toppled as the plane barely cleared the Interstate 395 overpass. ... Gripping the steering wheel of my vibrating car, I involuntarily ducked as the wobbling plane thundered over my head. Once it passed, I raised slightly and grimaced as the left wing dipped and scraped the helicopter area just before the nose crashed into the southwest wall of the Pentagon. If she is a genuine witness it sounds like she added the details about the light poles to her account. Again, if she is a genuine witness(a BIG IF), she very could be and would be deducing the light poles after seeing them on the ground. Did you ask Mary Ann which side of the gas station the plane was on? Did you ask her if she actually saw the light poles struck? Could she be a liar? Sorry, she is not a light pole witness. Wanda Ramey http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=324&hl= We interviewed her, she is not a viable witness for light poles or an impact. If anything, she is leaning more towards being an NoC witness. Noel Sepulveda “[It] struck a light pole…The plane tried to recover, but hit a second light pole and continued flying at an angle.” Noel Sepulveda may sound like he saw the plane hit the poles; but he does NOT specifically state it and he may be relaying what he was told. This is why first-hand confirmation is so important. Plus it allegedly hit 5 poles not 2. Is it really possible for the plane to "try to recover" at over 500mph? If any of the 5 poles really affected the flight of the plane that would have been devastating and there is no way it would have hit with such perfect precision so low and level and fast to the ground as depicted in the security video. There is a lot of reason to doubt the legitimacy of this account and we were not able to find him for verification. Did you askNoel which side of the gas station the plane was on? Did you ask him if he actually saw the light poles struck or whether he was going on second hand information? Could he be a liar? Sorry, he is not a light pole witness. Do you now understand what it takes to be a SoC or light pole witness, Sparky? Edited by Aldo Marquis CIT, Mar 10 2009, 03:00 PM.
Posts: 1,642 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08


noeffects	Mar 9 2009, 09:38 PM Post #52
Posts: 798 Group: Members Member #178 Joined: 01/22/08	bravo Aldo ! good post.
Posts: 798 Group: Members Member #178 Joined: 01/22/08


SPreston	Mar 9 2009, 09:39 PM Post #53
Patriotic American Posts: 1,229 Group: Members Member #122 Joined: 01/18/08	Espresso 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 Aldo Walker Lee Evey God you are pathetic. GUESS WHAT CAPTAIN RESEARCH? LEE EVEY WAS AT HOME DURING THE ATTACK. HE IS NOT A WITNESS. HE WAS THE PEN REN MGR. Sorry, he is not a light pole witness. He is not even a witness. Kat Gaines More of your wonderful research. Well she called it telephone poles aaaaaaaand she was on the other side of the Pentagon genius, on Rt 110. You can't see the light poles from there. Sorry, she is not a light pole witness. Gee whiz. Doesn't this troll Espresso ever get tired of displaying his stupidity? Get a life you fking traitor*.



bryan26	Mar 10 2009, 09:35 AM Post #54
troll Posts: 66 Group: BANNED! Member #1,067 Joined: 02/23/09	noeffects Mar 9 2009, 09:38 PM bravo Aldo ! good post. Not a great post. How can you categorically say no one saw the poles getting hit? You have not talked to every witness? Once again all witnesses whos statements support the plane hitting the pentagon are soc witnesses. The Citgo is not proof positive one way or the other. All physical evidence and workers in and out who collected debris and saw evidence are soc witnesses. There are way more soc witnesses than noc witnesses. You choose to focus on the Citgo, because you know most won't know anything about it. Then you go on a rant about no witness said soc. That is not investigation, it is manipulation. You choose to omit all physical evidence with a blanket statement but can't show that it was planted or faked. If it was planted or faked, you should be able to show at least one senario as to how it could have been done, or it is not possible. The cab had to be damaged before 9:38am 9/11 or it was struck by the light pole as reported. Is it possible that that damaged cab was placed in its place after the explosion, with debris and all? The flyover is impossible. You hang on people's statements but ignor the laws of the natural world. Which are more accurate, a person's perception or what is possible in the natural world? Use your brain and not your heart. There are no stationary explosives that can replicate the damage at the pentagon in one big explsosion. The trailor, the debris parts, the internal damage, the damage to three rings, etc. Something hit from the outside in.



JFK	Mar 10 2009, 10:38 AM Post #55
Posts: 4,150 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08	bryan26 Mar 10 2009, 09:35 AM noeffects Mar 9 2009, 09:38 PM bravo Aldo ! good post. Not a great post. How can you categorically say no one saw the poles getting hit? You have not talked to every witness? Once again all witnesses whos statements support the plane hitting the pentagon are soc witnesses. The Citgo is not proof positive one way or the other. All physical evidence and workers in and out who collected debris and saw evidence are soc witnesses. There are way more soc witnesses than noc witnesses. You choose to focus on the Citgo, because you know most won't know anything about it. Then you go on a rant about no witness said soc. That is not investigation, it is manipulation. You choose to omit all physical evidence with a blanket statement but can't show that it was planted or faked. If it was planted or faked, you should be able to show at least one senario as to how it could have been done, or it is not possible. The cab had to be damaged before 9:38am 9/11 or it was struck by the light pole as reported. Is it possible that that damaged cab was placed in its place after the explosion, with debris and all? The flyover is impossible. You hang on people's statements but ignor the laws of the natural world. Which are more accurate, a person's perception or what is possible in the natural world? Use your brain and not your heart. There are no stationary explosives that can replicate the damage at the pentagon in one big explsosion. The trailor, the debris parts, the internal damage, the damage to three rings, etc. Something hit from the outside in. And you have not talked to any witnesses. Edited by JFK, Mar 10 2009, 10:39 AM.
Posts: 4,150 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08


espresso	Mar 10 2009, 01:06 PM Post #56
Posts: 124 Group: Skeptics Member #1,078 Joined: 03/05/09	Aldo Marquis CIT Mar 9 2009, 08:38 PM Will you just admit that you are not interested in the truth, Espresso? Will you admit that you have no interest in reading or trying to understand what we've uncovered or what we are trying to tell you? WIll you admit that no matter what, you willl not conceded? Will you just admit that? I'll concede when each of your eyewitnesses agrees that due to their claim that the plane was north of the citgo (or over the annex) they understand that impact is impossible and furthermore reject their impact claims. As to the witnesses I presented... just stating "they deduced it" is handwaving away the evidence. For example Afework Hagos “It hit some lampposts on the way in.” "Yup, he drove, walked past, or saw images of the light poles on the ground and DEDUCED that it "hit some lampposts on the way in". You assume that he must have deduced impact...where is your source/evidene for this?



Aldo Marquis CIT	Mar 10 2009, 01:45 PM Post #57
Posts: 1,642 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08	espresso Mar 10 2009, 01:06 PM Quote: I'll concede when each of your eyewitnesses agrees that due to their claim that the plane was north of the citgo (or over the annex) they understand that impact is impossible and furthermore reject their impact claims. And that is what makes you a traitor your country or an enemy of mine, "espresso". They understand, as we've explained to you about Sgt Brooks for instance. Their belief or fear inaccepting or not accepting the inevitable and the obvious has NOTHING to do with the evidence. All of them stand by the north side flight path and would testify to it. If they missed the flyover, WHICH THEY OBVIOUSLY DID, then they can't testify to something they didn't see. You are moving the goal posts and you know it. Why don't you concede that they stand by where they saw plane and they understand where the light poles are at which implicates Lloyd and the US Gov't???? Quote: As to the witnesses I presented... just stating "they deduced it" is handwaving away the evidence. For example Afework Hagos “It hit some lampposts on the way in.” "Yup, he drove, walked past, or saw images of the light poles on the ground and DEDUCED that it "hit some lampposts on the way in". You assume that he must have deduced impact...where is your source/evidene for this? I can handwave, because A. I proved where the plane actually flew-north of the Citgo and B. I have proven that witnesses deduced light poles being struck and had to have because the plane approached on the north side of the Citgo!!! Where is YOUR source/evidence that HE ACTUALLY DID see a plane on SoC while it "hit some lampposts on the way in"??????????????????????? You make me sick, wasting everyone's time. Edited by Aldo Marquis CIT, Mar 10 2009, 02:08 PM.
Posts: 1,642 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08


Aldo Marquis CIT	Mar 10 2009, 01:46 PM Post #58
Posts: 1,642 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08	bryan26 Mar 10 2009, 09:35 AM noeffects Mar 9 2009, 09:38 PM bravo Aldo ! good post. Not a great post. How can you categorically say no one saw the poles getting hit? You have not talked to every witness? Once again all witnesses whos statements support the plane hitting the pentagon are soc witnesses. The Citgo is not proof positive one way or the other. All physical evidence and workers in and out who collected debris and saw evidence are soc witnesses. There are way more soc witnesses than noc witnesses. You choose to focus on the Citgo, because you know most won't know anything about it. Then you go on a rant about no witness said soc. That is not investigation, it is manipulation. You choose to omit all physical evidence with a blanket statement but can't show that it was planted or faked. If it was planted or faked, you should be able to show at least one senario as to how it could have been done, or it is not possible. The cab had to be damaged before 9:38am 9/11 or it was struck by the light pole as reported. Is it possible that that damaged cab was placed in its place after the explosion, with debris and all? The flyover is impossible. You hang on people's statements but ignor the laws of the natural world. Which are more accurate, a person's perception or what is possible in the natural world? Use your brain and not your heart. There are no stationary explosives that can replicate the damage at the pentagon in one big explsosion. The trailor, the debris parts, the internal damage, the damage to three rings, etc. Something hit from the outside in. It's like Bret08 all over again. LOL
Posts: 1,642 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08


bryan26	Mar 10 2009, 02:27 PM Post #59
troll Posts: 66 Group: BANNED! Member #1,067 Joined: 02/23/09	JFK Mar 10 2009, 10:38 AM bryan26 Mar 10 2009, 09:35 AM noeffects Mar 9 2009, 09:38 PM bravo Aldo ! good post. Not a great post. How can you categorically say no one saw the poles getting hit? You have not talked to every witness? Once again all witnesses whos statements support the plane hitting the pentagon are soc witnesses. The Citgo is not proof positive one way or the other. All physical evidence and workers in and out who collected debris and saw evidence are soc witnesses. There are way more soc witnesses than noc witnesses. You choose to focus on the Citgo, because you know most won't know anything about it. Then you go on a rant about no witness said soc. That is not investigation, it is manipulation. You choose to omit all physical evidence with a blanket statement but can't show that it was planted or faked. If it was planted or faked, you should be able to show at least one senario as to how it could have been done, or it is not possible. The cab had to be damaged before 9:38am 9/11 or it was struck by the light pole as reported. Is it possible that that damaged cab was placed in its place after the explosion, with debris and all? The flyover is impossible. You hang on people's statements but ignor the laws of the natural world. Which are more accurate, a person's perception or what is possible in the natural world? Use your brain and not your heart. There are no stationary explosives that can replicate the damage at the pentagon in one big explsosion. The trailor, the debris parts, the internal damage, the damage to three rings, etc. Something hit from the outside in. And you have not talked to any witnesses. I don't need to. By your logic nothing ever happens, unless we are able to personally talk to all witnesses, and see all evidence.



JFK	Mar 10 2009, 02:31 PM Post #60
Posts: 4,150 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08	bryan26 Mar 10 2009, 02:27 PM JFK Mar 10 2009, 10:38 AM bryan26 Mar 10 2009, 09:35 AM noeffects Mar 9 2009, 09:38 PM bravo Aldo ! good post. Not a great post. How can you categorically say no one saw the poles getting hit? You have not talked to every witness? Once again all witnesses whos statements support the plane hitting the pentagon are soc witnesses. The Citgo is not proof positive one way or the other. All physical evidence and workers in and out who collected debris and saw evidence are soc witnesses. There are way more soc witnesses than noc witnesses. You choose to focus on the Citgo, because you know most won't know anything about it. Then you go on a rant about no witness said soc. That is not investigation, it is manipulation. You choose to omit all physical evidence with a blanket statement but can't show that it was planted or faked. If it was planted or faked, you should be able to show at least one senario as to how it could have been done, or it is not possible. The cab had to be damaged before 9:38am 9/11 or it was struck by the light pole as reported. Is it possible that that damaged cab was placed in its place after the explosion, with debris and all? The flyover is impossible. You hang on people's statements but ignor the laws of the natural world. Which are more accurate, a person's perception or what is possible in the natural world? Use your brain and not your heart. There are no stationary explosives that can replicate the damage at the pentagon in one big explsosion. The trailor, the debris parts, the internal damage, the damage to three rings, etc. Something hit from the outside in. And you have not talked to any witnesses. I don't need to. By your logic nothing ever happens, unless we are able to personally talk to all witnesses, and see all evidence. And by your logic anything that the government or Main Stream Media says must be true. < Where are those WMD's >
Posts: 4,150 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08


bryan26	Mar 10 2009, 02:39 PM Post #61
troll Posts: 66 Group: BANNED! Member #1,067 Joined: 02/23/09	JFK Mar 10 2009, 02:31 PM bryan26 Mar 10 2009, 02:27 PM JFK Mar 10 2009, 10:38 AM bryan26 Mar 10 2009, 09:35 AM noeffects Mar 9 2009, 09:38 PM bravo Aldo ! good post. Not a great post. How can you categorically say no one saw the poles getting hit? You have not talked to every witness? Once again all witnesses whos statements support the plane hitting the pentagon are soc witnesses. The Citgo is not proof positive one way or the other. All physical evidence and workers in and out who collected debris and saw evidence are soc witnesses. There are way more soc witnesses than noc witnesses. You choose to focus on the Citgo, because you know most won't know anything about it. Then you go on a rant about no witness said soc. That is not investigation, it is manipulation. You choose to omit all physical evidence with a blanket statement but can't show that it was planted or faked. If it was planted or faked, you should be able to show at least one senario as to how it could have been done, or it is not possible. The cab had to be damaged before 9:38am 9/11 or it was struck by the light pole as reported. Is it possible that that damaged cab was placed in its place after the explosion, with debris and all? The flyover is impossible. You hang on people's statements but ignor the laws of the natural world. Which are more accurate, a person's perception or what is possible in the natural world? Use your brain and not your heart. There are no stationary explosives that can replicate the damage at the pentagon in one big explsosion. The trailor, the debris parts, the internal damage, the damage to three rings, etc. Something hit from the outside in. And you have not talked to any witnesses. I don't need to. By your logic nothing ever happens, unless we are able to personally talk to all witnesses, and see all evidence. And by your logic anything that the government or Main Stream Media says must be true. < Where are those WMD's > That isn't my logic. My logic comes from looking at everything, not just the part that I want to see. I am the last person to be accussed of blindly following the gov. I know they have and continue to do a lot of dirty shit, but I am not going to pin something on them without the evidence to prove it.



Aldo Marquis CIT	Mar 10 2009, 02:55 PM Post #62
Posts: 1,642 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08	noeffects Mar 9 2009, 09:38 PM bravo Aldo ! good post. Thanks NE. Although, I think bryan is a bit butt hurt.
Posts: 1,642 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08


shevy19	Jul 26 2009, 01:07 AM Post #63
Posts: 10 Group: Skeptics Member #1,253 Joined: 07/25/09	a plane hit the Penatogon
Posts: 10 Group: Skeptics Member #1,253 Joined: 07/25/09


shevy19	Jul 26 2009, 01:09 AM Post #64
Posts: 10 Group: Skeptics Member #1,253 Joined: 07/25/09	sorry for double post accidently pressed the reply button a plane hit the pentagon and this is proof why Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. He states that Flight 77 "was absolutely a plane. I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." In addition, Kilsheimer's account is supported by the photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=6
Posts: 10 Group: Skeptics Member #1,253 Joined: 07/25/09


JFK	Jul 26 2009, 09:08 AM Post #65
Posts: 4,150 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08	shevy19 Jul 26 2009, 01:09 AM I held in my hand the tail section of the plane He musta had really big hands. Employees who designed and built the 757-300 get ready for the ceremonial rollout. So tell me, do you also believe in this issue ?
Posts: 4,150 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08


Lin Kuei	Jul 26 2009, 09:20 AM Post #66
Posts: 1,293 Group: Admins Member #5 Joined: 12/22/07	JFK Jul 26 2009, 09:08 AM So tell me, do you also believe in this issue ? HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! That says it ALL right there! The same people taking part in pushing the establishment's *bullsht** alien/ufo fear-mongering are also the ones pushing propaganda about the official 9/11 fairytale! Thanks JFK I had never seen that before. I needed a good laugh.
Posts: 1,293 Group: Admins Member #5 Joined: 12/22/07


Alfie	Jul 26 2009, 10:22 AM Post #67
Posts: 254 Group: Skeptics Member #1,237 Joined: 07/17/09	As a point of information; has the missile idea now been totally dropped ?



nrmis	Jul 26 2009, 07:07 PM Post #68
Posts: 24 Group: Members Member #189 Joined: 01/22/08	Quote: Once again all witnesses whos statements support the plane hitting the pentagon are soc witnesses. All physical evidence and workers in and out who collected debris and saw evidence are soc witnesses. There are way more soc witnesses than noc witnesses. Quote: Use your brain and not your heart. There are no stationary explosives that can replicate the damage at the pentagon in one big explsosion. Some quite sweeping statements there that sound very much like they are coming far more from the heart than the head.
Posts: 24 Group: Members Member #189 Joined: 01/22/08


Alfie	Jul 27 2009, 04:44 PM Post #69
Posts: 254 Group: Skeptics Member #1,237 Joined: 07/17/09	Can anyone answer my question as to whether the missile idea has now been dropped please ?



tuatara	Jul 27 2009, 04:52 PM Post #70
Posts: 192 Group: Members Member #1,046 Joined: 02/02/09	Alfie Jul 27 2009, 04:44 PM Can anyone answer my question as to whether the missile idea has now been dropped please ? Whose idea and who would be dropping it?
Posts: 192 Group: Members Member #1,046 Joined: 02/02/09


Alfie	Jul 27 2009, 04:57 PM Post #71
Posts: 254 Group: Skeptics Member #1,237 Joined: 07/17/09	tuatara Jul 27 2009, 04:52 PM Alfie Jul 27 2009, 04:44 PM Can anyone answer my question as to whether the missile idea has now been dropped please ? Whose idea and who would be dropping it? It was a commonly expressed belief of conspiracy theorists. I am just asking if it still is because I don't see many people referring to it anymore.



kriskelly	Aug 9 2009, 01:44 PM Post #72
Posts: 30 Group: Skeptics Member #1,261 Joined: 08/02/09	Alfie Jul 27 2009, 04:57 PM tuatara Jul 27 2009, 04:52 PM Alfie Jul 27 2009, 04:44 PM Can anyone answer my question as to whether the missile idea has now been dropped please ? Whose idea and who would be dropping it? It was a commonly expressed belief of conspiracy theorists. I am just asking if it still is because I don't see many people referring to it anymore. Has any truther even attempted to explain how the pentagon was damaged? It's amazing how they throw around so many certainties, but can't even suggest how this damage could have happened. What will you tell a court and jury, " 'They' are capable of anything"? "We don't know how 'they' did it, we just know 'they' did it". 'They' aren't capable of pulling off magic.
Posts: 30 Group: Skeptics Member #1,261 Joined: 08/02/09


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


« Previous Topic · Skeptics · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
2
3