Why "Pseudo-Skeptics" Won't Contact the Witnesses

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
…
8

Why "Pseudo-Skeptics" Won't Contact the Witnesses
Topic Started: Dec 4 2008, 01:30 PM (3,722 Views)
Aldo Marquis CIT	Dec 4 2008, 01:30 PM Post #1
Posts: 1,650 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08	Watch the interviews with the witnesses and then ask yourself why these "people" will not confront them and explain to them why they are "wrong" about a simple fucking detail like which side of the gas station the plane is on. Fucking treasonous cowards.
Posts: 1,650 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08


jim76	Dec 4 2008, 01:46 PM Post #2
Posts: 303 Group: BANNED! Member #172 Joined: 01/21/08	Hmmmm... I wonder how long a "skeptic" would last before getting banned if they started a thread like this. Will Aldo be banned? Probably not.
Posts: 303 Group: BANNED! Member #172 Joined: 01/21/08


JFK	Dec 4 2008, 01:50 PM Post #3
Posts: 4,231 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08	jim76 Dec 4 2008, 01:46 PM Hmmmm... I wonder how long a "skeptic" would last before getting banned if they started a thread like this. Will Aldo be banned? Probably not. Have you contacted the witnesses ? Why not ?
Posts: 4,231 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08


jim76	Dec 4 2008, 01:52 PM Post #4
Posts: 303 Group: BANNED! Member #172 Joined: 01/21/08	JFK Dec 4 2008, 01:50 PM Have you contacted the witnesses ? Why not ? No. I don't think what they have to say will be worth my time an effort. Have you contacted the witnesses?
Posts: 303 Group: BANNED! Member #172 Joined: 01/21/08


JFK	Dec 4 2008, 01:57 PM Post #5
Posts: 4,231 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08	jim76 Dec 4 2008, 01:52 PM JFK Dec 4 2008, 01:50 PM Have you contacted the witnesses ? Why not ? No. I don't think what they have to say will be worth my time an effort. Have you contacted the witnesses? Of what relivance does my contacting the witnesses have to do with the topic of this thread ? I am neither a skeptic or a Pseudo-skeptic... Unlike yourself. And yes I have conversed with witnesses to the events at the towers, who have lost family there and are dis satisfied with the "investigation".
Posts: 4,231 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08


Bitterman	Dec 4 2008, 02:00 PM Post #6
Posts: 324 Group: Members Member #284 Joined: 02/07/08	jim76 Dec 4 2008, 01:52 PM JFK Dec 4 2008, 01:50 PM Have you contacted the witnesses ? Why not ? No. I don't think what they have to say will be worth my time an effort. Have you contacted the witnesses? Aldo has, and we all believe these people when they say things like, "the plane flew over the Navy Annex"......etc etc. Especially when ALL of them say the same thing. Hard to beat eh?
Posts: 324 Group: Members Member #284 Joined: 02/07/08


jim76	Dec 4 2008, 02:00 PM Post #7
Posts: 303 Group: BANNED! Member #172 Joined: 01/21/08	JFK Dec 4 2008, 01:57 PM Of what relivance does my contacting the witnesses have to do with the topic of this thread ? I am neither a skeptic or a Pseudo-skeptic... Unlike yourself. And yes I have conversed with witnesses to the events at the towers, who have lost family there and are dis satisfied with the "investigation". Fair enough. But just to deviate from the topic one more time, why the double standard? I'm really just curious.
Posts: 303 Group: BANNED! Member #172 Joined: 01/21/08


JFK	Dec 4 2008, 02:25 PM Post #8
Posts: 4,231 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08	jim76 Dec 4 2008, 02:00 PM JFK Dec 4 2008, 01:57 PM Of what relivance does my contacting the witnesses have to do with the topic of this thread ? I am neither a skeptic or a Pseudo-skeptic... Unlike yourself. And yes I have conversed with witnesses to the events at the towers, who have lost family there and are dis satisfied with the "investigation". Fair enough. But just to deviate from the topic one more time, why the double standard? I'm really just curious. You tell me... Why the double standard ? We ( as in the truth movement ) spend our time researching and interviewing witnesses while the majority of "skeptics" simply bang the drum of the official story which has proven itself to be wrong time and time again. CIT ( and others ) have to travel across the country to do their interviews at their own expense. I have yet to see a "skeptic" put forth any effort, let alone their own hard earned cash. So, why the double standard ?
Posts: 4,231 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08


Aldo Marquis CIT	Dec 4 2008, 02:31 PM Post #9
Posts: 1,650 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08	jim76 Dec 4 2008, 01:46 PM Hmmmm... I wonder how long a "skeptic" would last before getting banned if they started a thread like this. Will Aldo be banned? Probably not. It's not the topic of the thread you should have a problem with, it is the fact that I refer to them as "fucking treasonous cowards". If you are not a treasonous coward, then you should have nothing to worry about. Edited by Aldo Marquis CIT, Dec 4 2008, 02:42 PM.
Posts: 1,650 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08


Aldo Marquis CIT	Dec 4 2008, 02:41 PM Post #10
Posts: 1,650 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08	jim76 Dec 4 2008, 01:52 PM JFK Dec 4 2008, 01:50 PM Have you contacted the witnesses ? Why not ? No. I don't think what they have to say will be worth my time an effort. So you don't feel it is worth your time to go with this mountain "physical" and "FDR" evidence you claim to have to show the eyewitnesses that they are "wrong"? You don't want to put this to rest? I mean obviously you guys CLEEEAARLY have a such a strong case, you would think it would be open and shut to confront them and convince them the plane was aaaaactually on the south side of the Citgo. What if they maintained where they saw the plane Jim? What then? What if they are right? Isn't the fate of your country and truth and justice for victims and their families worth your time, Jim? I guess not. Next.
Posts: 1,650 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08


jim76	Dec 4 2008, 04:41 PM Post #11
Posts: 303 Group: BANNED! Member #172 Joined: 01/21/08	Aldo Marquis CIT Dec 4 2008, 02:41 PM Isn't the fate of your country and truth and justice for victims and their families worth your time, Jim? I'm not convinced that the fate of my country rides on my action or lack of action concerning this subject. Everybody puts a certain level of faith in their government and in the media. Yes, that includes you, Aldo. Concerning this issue, my trust in the thousands of investigators involved in the investigations of 9/11 and the concurrence of the world's media is greater than my faith in any counter theories. Someday this might change. I also put faith in the fact that independent individuals might remain skeptical and invest their own time and money into further investigations. If their findings are convincing, then they will change my opinion. Thus far, this has not happened.
Posts: 303 Group: BANNED! Member #172 Joined: 01/21/08


albion	Dec 4 2008, 04:58 PM Post #12
Posts: 175 Group: BANNED! Member #911 Joined: 10/28/08	Aldo seems to have forgotten that he and Craig chose to do an "investigation" and it is their claims from their "investigation" that are at issue. No one is going to do their investigation for them. Apparently, Aldo and Craig don't yet understand that the burden of proof is on their shoulders and their shoulders alone to fully substantiate their claims with solid, irrefutable evidence. They have a huge job to refute all of the thousands of lines of independent evidence and eyewitness testimony that informs all of us of what happened at the Pentagon on 9/11 and remains unrefuted. Real skeptics, of course, ask questions. We ask questions of CIT. We demonstrate the weaknesses, flaws, vagueness, contradictions, sloppy research of the investigation CIT is responsible for undertaking and asked CIT to explain the problems. Craig and Aldo don't. No one else has any obligation whatsoever to conduct his or her own investigation to challenge CIT's claims. CIT is obligated to support its claims when those claims are challenged. I and other real skeptics have shown that the conclusions CIT wants us to accept are not acceptable by any rational standard in the world. Instead, CIT repeatedly tries to shift the burden of proof from its shoulders to those who have shown its claims to be invalid or questionable. Let's remember that CIT has been challenged from all quarters, particularly from other Truthers, to produce verifiable evidence to support its claims. CIT's claims raise questions and it is those questions that CIT tries to skirt. In the several years of CIT's existence, many questions arising from Aldo's and Craig's "investigation", have been posed and either have been never answered or those posing the questions have been verbally attacked for asking. One of the questions that have arisen from CIT's claims was met by determined evasion: Q. If AA77 did not the Pentagon, what did the over 1,000 people who had direct access to the wreckage inside the Pentagon see, removed, or sort through openly on the Pentagon lawn? A. "The wreckage was planted...All the 1,000 people worked for the 'government.' They can't be trusted....What people?...What wreckage?...We interviewed one person. That's all we need." And so on. We have seen the same thing with CIT's inability to provide any positive and verifiable eyewitness testimony of any jet flying over an away from the Pentagon. NONE of their eyewitnesses ever saw any jet fly over and away the Pentagon and they believe the jet hit it. But all CIT can do is make the fantastic claim that these eyewitnesses think a jet flew a NoC flight path, therefore what "they think the saw" must, magically, trump all of the physical and eyewitness evidence, including those own witnesses beleif the jet hit the Pentagon. CIT is eventually going to either come up with verifiable evidence or finally admit that it has none. So far, none of their claims have withstood the queries everyone is entitled to ask and have answered with evidence. If CIT's own eyewitnesses don't support CIT's claims, it is Craig's and Aldo's responsibility to contact them and clarify. It is no one else's responsibility.
Posts: 175 Group: BANNED! Member #911 Joined: 10/28/08


JFK	Dec 4 2008, 05:28 PM Post #13
Posts: 4,231 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08	In case you haven't noticed JThomas, Aldo is ignoring you. I suggest you do the same if you want to retain your ability to post here. Last warning.
Posts: 4,231 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08


Aldo Marquis CIT	Dec 4 2008, 05:48 PM Post #14
Posts: 1,650 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08	jim76 Dec 4 2008, 04:41 PM Aldo Marquis CIT Dec 4 2008, 02:41 PM Isn't the fate of your country and truth and justice for victims and their families worth your time, Jim? I'm not convinced that the fate of my country rides on my action or lack of action concerning this subject. Everybody puts a certain level of faith in their government and in the media. Yes, that includes you, Aldo. Concerning this issue, my trust in the thousands of investigators involved in the investigations of 9/11 and the concurrence of the world's media is greater than my faith in any counter theories. Someday this might change. I also put faith in the fact that independent individuals might remain skeptical and invest their own time and money into further investigations. If their findings are convincing, then they will change my opinion. Thus far, this has not happened. Nice shuffle. Well what else would you expect from pseudo skeptic? More goal post moving. More investigating into the investigation of the investigation to make sure that official story is true. More waiting. More innocent people dying. More global war. You rock Jim. You've been a great service to your country. Thanks for your answer! Your input is no longer needed.
Posts: 1,650 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08


Aldo Marquis CIT	Dec 4 2008, 05:51 PM Post #15
Posts: 1,650 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08	So far we have a big fat no from the one brave pseudo-skeptic who dared to answer. So Jim76 will not contact these very important witnesses but claims he will continue to be unconvinced, whatever that means. Who knows? I guess it means he is willing to cast doubt on the credibility of grown men some of whom are professionals on a simple right or left detail, well pretty much because well he is "not convinced".
Posts: 1,650 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08


mycal	Dec 4 2008, 06:12 PM Post #16
Posts: 60 Group: BANNED! Member #890 Joined: 10/14/08	albion Dec 4 2008, 04:58 PM Aldo seems to have forgotten that he and Craig chose to do an "investigation" and it is their claims from their "investigation" that are at issue. No one is going to do their investigation for them. Apparently, Aldo and Craig don't yet understand that the burden of proof is on their shoulders and their shoulders alone to fully substantiate their claims with solid, irrefutable evidence. They have a huge job to refute all of the thousands of lines of independent evidence and eyewitness testimony that informs all of us of what happened at the Pentagon on 9/11 and remains unrefuted. Real skeptics, of course, ask questions. We ask questions of CIT. We demonstrate the weaknesses, flaws, vagueness, contradictions, sloppy research of the investigation CIT is responsible for undertaking and asked CIT to explain the problems. Craig and Aldo don't. No one else has any obligation whatsoever to conduct his or her own investigation to challenge CIT's claims. CIT is obligated to support its claims when those claims are challenged. I and other real skeptics have shown that the conclusions CIT wants us to accept are not acceptable by any rational standard in the world. Instead, CIT repeatedly tries to shift the burden of proof from its shoulders to those who have shown its claims to be invalid or questionable. Let's remember that CIT has been challenged from all quarters, particularly from other Truthers, to produce verifiable evidence to support its claims. CIT's claims raise questions and it is those questions that CIT tries to skirt. In the several years of CIT's existence, many questions arising from Aldo's and Craig's "investigation", have been posed and either have been never answered or those posing the questions have been verbally attacked for asking. One of the questions that have arisen from CIT's claims was met by determined evasion: Q. If AA77 did not the Pentagon, what did the over 1,000 people who had direct access to the wreckage inside the Pentagon see, removed, or sort through openly on the Pentagon lawn? A. "The wreckage was planted...All the 1,000 people worked for the 'government.' They can't be trusted....What people?...What wreckage?...We interviewed one person. That's all we need." And so on. We have seen the same thing with CIT's inability to provide any positive and verifiable eyewitness testimony of any jet flying over an away from the Pentagon. NONE of their eyewitnesses ever saw any jet fly over and away the Pentagon and they believe the jet hit it. But all CIT can do is make the fantastic claim that these eyewitnesses think a jet flew a NoC flight path, therefore what "they think the saw" must, magically, trump all of the physical and eyewitness evidence, including those own witnesses beleif the jet hit the Pentagon. CIT is eventually going to either come up with verifiable evidence or finally admit that it has none. So far, none of their claims have withstood the queries everyone is entitled to ask and have answered with evidence. If CIT's own eyewitnesses don't support CIT's claims, it is Craig's and Aldo's responsibility to contact them and clarify. It is no one else's responsibility. I could not have said it better myself.
Posts: 60 Group: BANNED! Member #890 Joined: 10/14/08


mycal	Dec 4 2008, 06:15 PM Post #17
Posts: 60 Group: BANNED! Member #890 Joined: 10/14/08	Aldo Marquis CIT Dec 4 2008, 05:51 PM So far we have a big fat no from the one brave pseudo-skeptic who dared to answer. So Jim76 will not contact these very important witnesses but claims he will continue to be unconvinced, whatever that means. Who knows? I guess it means he is willing to cast doubt on the credibility of grown men some of whom are professionals on a simple right or left detail, well pretty much because well he is "not convinced". No one has to contact them to know that they can be wrong, mistaken, or lying. That is common sense.
Posts: 60 Group: BANNED! Member #890 Joined: 10/14/08


JFK	Dec 4 2008, 06:27 PM Post #18
Posts: 4,231 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08	mycal Dec 4 2008, 06:15 PM Aldo Marquis CIT Dec 4 2008, 05:51 PM So far we have a big fat no from the one brave pseudo-skeptic who dared to answer. So Jim76 will not contact these very important witnesses but claims he will continue to be unconvinced, whatever that means. Who knows? I guess it means he is willing to cast doubt on the credibility of grown men some of whom are professionals on a simple right or left detail, well pretty much because well he is "not convinced". No one has to contact them to know that they can be wrong, mistaken, or lying. That is common sense. And what if YOU are wrong Mycal ?
Posts: 4,231 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08


mycal	Dec 4 2008, 06:41 PM Post #19
Posts: 60 Group: BANNED! Member #890 Joined: 10/14/08	JFK Dec 4 2008, 06:27 PM mycal Dec 4 2008, 06:15 PM Aldo Marquis CIT Dec 4 2008, 05:51 PM So far we have a big fat no from the one brave pseudo-skeptic who dared to answer. So Jim76 will not contact these very important witnesses but claims he will continue to be unconvinced, whatever that means. Who knows? I guess it means he is willing to cast doubt on the credibility of grown men some of whom are professionals on a simple right or left detail, well pretty much because well he is "not convinced". No one has to contact them to know that they can be wrong, mistaken, or lying. That is common sense. And what if YOU are wrong Mycal ? I didn't say that I was right, but you guys act as if it is impossible for 13 people to be wrong. There is a very strong possibility, given all of the evidence, that they are. You won't even acknowledge that.
Posts: 60 Group: BANNED! Member #890 Joined: 10/14/08


Aldo Marquis CIT	Dec 4 2008, 06:52 PM Post #20
Posts: 1,650 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08	mycal Dec 4 2008, 06:15 PM Aldo Marquis CIT Dec 4 2008, 05:51 PM So far we have a big fat no from the one brave pseudo-skeptic who dared to answer. So Jim76 will not contact these very important witnesses but claims he will continue to be unconvinced, whatever that means. Who knows? I guess it means he is willing to cast doubt on the credibility of grown men some of whom are professionals on a simple right or left detail, well pretty much because well he is "not convinced". No one has to contact them to know that they can be wrong, mistaken, or lying. That is common sense. And yet you have nothing proving they are wrong except an opinion from someone who is scared they are right. The whole point behind this is to make you see how insigificant you and your arguments are. You are anonymous and anyone without a fear based bias or paycheck would know you are wrong and delusional after watching the interviews. They can be wrong mistaken or lying huh? Can be? but are they? And who are you to cast doubt on innocent men who merely reported which side of the gas station they saw the plane flew on. This is what makes you and your style of argument weak. You merely slap up a few vague words about doubting them amd calling it a day. It doesn't work like that. Mycal, you do understand what we uncovered is major controversy that isn't going away right? You do know these witnesses are at the center of it riiiight? So why are you afraid to contact them and tell them that they are "wrong, mistaken, or lying"? You think it is fair to hide behind a screen name and vaguely call out these witnesses without naming names? Of course it isn't. This is what makes you cowardly. So that's another no from another coward. Next. Edited by Aldo Marquis CIT, Dec 4 2008, 07:01 PM.
Posts: 1,650 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08


Aldo Marquis CIT	Dec 4 2008, 06:54 PM Post #21
Posts: 1,650 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08	mycal Dec 4 2008, 06:12 PM I could not have said it better myself. Yet you won't contact the witnesses or even accept that they still stand by where they saw the plane and would willingly testify in a court of law to it. Gotcha
Posts: 1,650 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08


Aldo Marquis CIT	Dec 4 2008, 07:00 PM Post #22
Posts: 1,650 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08	mycal Dec 4 2008, 06:41 PM JFK Dec 4 2008, 06:27 PM mycal Dec 4 2008, 06:15 PM Aldo Marquis CIT Dec 4 2008, 05:51 PM So far we have a big fat no from the one brave pseudo-skeptic who dared to answer. So Jim76 will not contact these very important witnesses but claims he will continue to be unconvinced, whatever that means. Who knows? I guess it means he is willing to cast doubt on the credibility of grown men some of whom are professionals on a simple right or left detail, well pretty much because well he is "not convinced". No one has to contact them to know that they can be wrong, mistaken, or lying. That is common sense. And what if YOU are wrong Mycal ? I didn't say that I was right, but you guys act as if it is impossible for 13 people to be wrong. There is a very strong possibility, given all of the evidence, that they are. You won't even acknowledge that. Do you listen to yourself? What evidence? We've been over this shit a million times. None of them are wrong about a simple detail like the plane being on the north side of the Citgo. You just keep saying shit hoping for it to be true. Hoping other believe it. Hoping you can convince you really weren't wrong. These aren't just people genius, these are key witnesses in key positions. You motherfuckers were using the shit out of Lagasse statements for years. Now he is just a "person". Your ilk love to take parts of their statements as if they were true, but then ignore that he emphatically places the plane on the north side. You people are disgusting.
Posts: 1,650 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08


mycal	Dec 4 2008, 07:06 PM Post #23
Posts: 60 Group: BANNED! Member #890 Joined: 10/14/08	Aldo Marquis CIT Dec 4 2008, 06:52 PM mycal Dec 4 2008, 06:15 PM Aldo Marquis CIT Dec 4 2008, 05:51 PM So far we have a big fat no from the one brave pseudo-skeptic who dared to answer. So Jim76 will not contact these very important witnesses but claims he will continue to be unconvinced, whatever that means. Who knows? I guess it means he is willing to cast doubt on the credibility of grown men some of whom are professionals on a simple right or left detail, well pretty much because well he is "not convinced". No one has to contact them to know that they can be wrong, mistaken, or lying. That is common sense. And yet you have nothing proving they are wrong except an opinion from someone who is scared they are right. The whole point behind this is to make you see how insigificant you and your arguments are. You are anonymous and anyone without a fear based bias or paycheck would know you are wrong and delusional after watching the interviews. They can be wrong mistaken or lying huh? Can be? but are they? And who are you to cast doubt on innocent men who merely reported which side of the gas station they saw the plane fly on. This is what makes you and your style of argument weak. You merely slap up a few vague words about doubting them amd calling it a day. It doesn't work like that. Mycal, you do understand what we uncovered is major controversy that isn't going away right? You do know these witnesses are at the center of it riiiight? So why are you afraid to contact them and tell them that they are "wrong, mistaken, or lying"? You think it is fair to hide behind a screen name and vaguely call out these witnesses without naming names? Of course it isn't. This is what makes you cowardly. So that's another no from another coward. Next. As was stated earlier, the burden of proof is on you. You haven't discovered anything but normal anomalies in any investigation involving eye witnesses. You have found 13 people who 'seem' to support your preconceived notions. If you focus on certain witness tesimony, you can do that. If you look at everything as a whole, you will see that their placement of the plane is highly unlikely, accordng to all physical and most witness evidence. You can choose to say it was all planted, but that is all that you have done. You have to prove it. Until then you are opining ad nauseam. Will you tell me just one senario, where the flyover could fool all people witnin all 360 degrees of the pentagon? I can't see it hapening in the physical world we live in. Please enlighten me.
Posts: 60 Group: BANNED! Member #890 Joined: 10/14/08


Aldo Marquis CIT	Dec 4 2008, 07:19 PM Post #24
Posts: 1,650 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08	Quote: As was stated earlier, the burden of proof is on you. Right you motherfuckers say it all the time without realizing we went out and PROVED IT. Quote: You haven't discovered anything but normal anomalies in any investigation involving eye witnesses. Normal anomalies? Dude are you smoking rocks? 13 people all putting the plane on the NoC path are anomalies? Quote: You have found 13 people who 'seem' to support your preconceived notions. Fuck you. There was no preconceived notion. We went there to document what happened there no matter where it took us. Even if it was SoC, through 5 light poles, and into the first floor--it didn't happen!!!. Lagasse is the one who let it slip about the plane being on the north side. We mainly focused on that issue, the issue of which side of the gas station the plane was on to determine where it flew. Seem to support? They outright support it. They told where the plane flew and then drew it. The officers went so far as to laugh at the notion that the plane was on Soc. Quote: If you focus on certain witness tesimony, you can do that. If you look at everything as a whole, you will see that their placement of the plane is highly unlikely, accordng to all physical and most witness evidence. Fuck this. You are just robot and have no idea what you are talking about. There is no physical evidence. It exists in physical form. And we took into account all the witness testimony. We spoke with witnesses on the alleged impact side and they all place a fast moving airliner on the north side of the Citgo. you just keep repeating your shit mantra. Now that I realize it. This is dumb ass Bret08 isn't it? Why do you allow these motherfuckers back here? Quote: You can choose to say it was all planted, but that is all that you have done. You have to prove it. Until then you are opining ad nauseam. Will you tell me just one senario, where the flyover could fool all people witnin all 360 degrees of the pentagon? I can't see it hapening in the physical world we live in. Please enlighten me. you know what we went over this shit with you fucking people a million times. You refuse to accept what the witnesses are telling you and refuse to contact them and clarify it also. I am done wasting my time with you dumb socks. So in closing the plane approached on the north side which means it can't hit the 5 light poles, it can't show up low and level across the lawn, it can't hit the fence/gen trailer with the right engine, and can't cause the directional damage inside the Pentagon it can only pull up and over/away from the Pentagon. There people on all sides of the aircraft as it goes by and they all place the plane on north side of the Citgo and all pseudo skeptics refuse to accept the testimony or speak with the witnesses.
Posts: 1,650 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08


Aldo Marquis CIT	Dec 4 2008, 07:20 PM Post #25
Posts: 1,650 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08	Can we please check the IPs of albion against jthomas and mycal against Brett08? It is absurd we have to endure this idiocy under different names.
Posts: 1,650 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08


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


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

Pages:
1
2
…
8