|
Post by bob0627 on Oct 5, 2013 11:37:08 GMT -5
"you think they should release dead body pics to the public?
I hope I don't hurt your feelings, but that's the dumbest f'ng thing I've ever heard."Yeah "you hurt my feelings", really dumb they have these pictures: But none of the ones who were "strapped to their airline seats". "i've seen video camera footage from that crash"And? What is your point? That as much as possible about 9/11 should be hidden from the public and that everyone should just accept what we're fed?
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Oct 6, 2013 9:07:42 GMT -5
Conflicting testimony:
Many eyewitnesses saw an airplane, some even claim with identifying markings, many eyewitnesses claim a missile, one claims a corporate jet, others claim no airplane, some claim explosions even with the odor of cordite. None of it explains many other conflicting impossible/improbable anomalies in the official Pentagon story.
NO INVESTIGATION = NO CLUE
It's the hallmark of 9/11. Take the official government story on faith or don't. Either way it's more than OBVIOUS government is COVERING UP the truth about 9/11 on many, many different levels.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Oct 7, 2013 2:59:42 GMT -5
"One of the first recovery personnel to enter the crippled headquarters building after a hijacked Boeing 757 smashed into it"Implies he was not alone. He wasn't, Allyn E Killsheimer was another. Are their testimonies not enough for you ? No eyewitnesses have said they saw a missile, conspiracy theorists have deliberately misquoted Mike Walter and said he saw a missile because he said "It was like a Cruise missile with wings". They deliberately ommit that he said "I looked out my window and I saw this plane, this jet, an American Airlines jet, coming. And I thought, 'This doesn't add up, it's really low.' And I saw it. I mean it was like a cruise missile with wings. It went right there and slammed right into the Pentagon".
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Oct 7, 2013 6:51:48 GMT -5
"Are their testimonies not enough for you ?"
Select testimonies that fit the official narrative and reject or ignore all testimonies that don't or contradict it. Right, how much more obvious do you want to make yourself?
|
|
|
Post by shred on Oct 7, 2013 9:02:57 GMT -5
Oh shut up, your heroes lie doctor and fabricate, twisting peoples words to portray a fake version of events. No real eyewitness statements describe a cruise missile, only that the airliner was being flown like one.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Oct 7, 2013 9:48:08 GMT -5
"Oh shut up, your heroes lie doctor and fabricate, twisting peoples words to portray a fake version of events."
Of course, use only testimonies and only listen to those who lend support to the official narrative and always ignore those testimonies that don't or contradict it. And try to silence anyone who posts anything that contradicts or questions the official narrative.
"No real eyewitness statements describe a cruise missile"
Any legitimate intelligent person who really wants to get at the truth knows ALL eyewitness accounts and ALL evidence must be considered, not just the ones that seem to fit one narrative. You show yourself to be illegitimate time and time again.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Oct 7, 2013 10:54:53 GMT -5
Unfortunately Bob you won't practice what you preach.
Any fact, any eyewitness whose evidence doesn't support the inside job conspiracy theory is rejected, ignored and dismissed by you as 'the official narrative'.
The wealth of eyewitness evidence and forensic evidence proves it wasn't an inside job, the ATC tapes prove it wasn't an inside job, passengers who phoned their families, like Barbara Olson and Jeremy Glick, you ignore them too.
This is an attack that happened in broad daylight. No way is your government intelligent enough to fake something like this or desperate enough to try.
Be logical. Think scientifically.
See how the story changes when the eyewitness isn't misquoted ?
If it wasn't an American Airlines 757 people would have seen that it wasn't a 757.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Oct 7, 2013 11:00:34 GMT -5
Oh and I forgot. All experts who contradict or question the 9/11 narrative (my alleged "heroes") are fakes, liars, not real experts, doctor videos, fabricate evidence, etc. So ignore them and only listen to and accept "real" experts' opinions, that is those who lend support to the official narrative, except when they witness anything that might contradict it, then definitely question their opinion (it can't be right since it doesn't support it).
|
|
|
Post by shred on Oct 11, 2013 14:12:26 GMT -5
Pretend experts with irrelevant unrelated qualifications are not experts.
None of their expertise bears any relevance to the forensic evidence of 757 parts RB211-5335e engine parts, flight crew body parts and passenger phone calls, eyewitness sightings of the plane, people who had to duck because of the plane being so low....
As for the wings, the wing spars were made of maleable steel, these were forced back by the concrete resisting them and the main spars broke. The weakest parts, the wing tips were sheared off completely. Plenty of photos of the 757 parts earlier in this thread.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Nov 19, 2013 8:57:27 GMT -5
Merge your Pentagon thread into this one Moderator. Your lies are debunked earlier in this thread.
|
|
|
Post by peteetongman on Nov 19, 2013 10:08:56 GMT -5
Amongst Loose Change's many lies it has been postulated that no Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon they claim it would be impossible for a Boeing 757 in Ground Effect to hit the Pentagon at full speed. Their allegation is ridiculous. AND he did the tight turn with gear down
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Nov 19, 2013 10:29:47 GMT -5
If you want to revisit this issue fine. First there's no indication how fast the plane in that video was traveling. Second, the plane in that video did not fly at ground level as the official Pentagon narrative goes. And third there's nothing in that video that has anything to do with 9/11. So the entire video clip is a totally irrelevant straw man. If you want a representation as to the official narrative's claims, go to the link below, download the Power Point file and start at slide 20. You'll see the official narrative makes no logical sense. It is explained in more detail in the Honegger video but I'm not going to check into what time frame that issue is presented. You'll have to go through the video itself if you're really interested. My guess is you're not because you claim you know everything there is to know about 9/11 because you saw it on live TV. donaldfox.wordpress.com/2012/07/06/barb-honeggers-vancouver-powerpoint/There's also quite a bit on the Pentagon in the "New Pearl Harbor" video beginning at DVD 2. I'm sure you can figure out how to get to that yourself IF you're really interested.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Nov 20, 2013 7:08:06 GMT -5
Firstly you ignore the eyewitnesses Secondly you ignore air traffic controllers. Thirdly you ignore the airlines who lost their planes and nearly went bust. Fourthly you ignore crew and passenger phone calls. Fifth you ignore that the faster the wing moves when less than a span above the ground the greater the ground effect and greater lift. The wings weren't stalled and couldn't stall at high speed so the lawn wasn't touched. Sixth you ignore all the parts of the plane.
You're a fool but thanks for bumping the truths that debunk your lies.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Nov 20, 2013 7:38:30 GMT -5
I haven't ignored anything. Honegger's presentation not only ignores nothing, she opens up many issues that were completely (and deliberately) ignored by the official narrative and the MSM, same as the "New Pearl Harbor" video, neither of which you likely ever viewed. You never discuss any of the issues in either presentation and there are many.
"You're a fool"
Attacking me doesn't change the FACTS about 9/11 or the FACT that the official narrative is an ADMITTED LIE and full of deliberate omissions.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Nov 20, 2013 12:43:56 GMT -5
Honnegers worthless presentation ignores EVERYTHING. What about the helipad firefighters who saw it ? What about Mike Walter ? What about Allyn Killsheimer ? What about the wreckage ? What about the passengers ?
You're so idiotic you believe any crap the conspiracy theorists tell you while ignoring ALL the facts. By the way I'm not calling you an idiot to insult you, I'm calling you an idiot because you are an idiot and you need to stop being such an idiot.
You may be able to read, but you haven't got any common sense to evaluate what you're reading sensibly.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Nov 20, 2013 13:45:20 GMT -5
"Honnegers worthless presentation ignores EVERYTHING."
Not a chance fake one. In fact, she details the official narrative and rips it apart in every single detail. It's over 3 hours long and she goes into great detail about the official Pentagon story. This is fully complimented by the "New Pearl Harbor" video.
It's pathetic that's the best you can do, attack me and every single thing I post on 9/11 which contradict the official narrative and as fully supported by thousands of researchers and experts as well as the 9/11 Commission members themselves. If I'm an idiot for my views, surely you are a complete blithering indoctrinated sponge for yours. I'll take "idiot" as a compliment coming from you fake one. I'll continue to be an "idiot" who does not readily accept government and media fed lies and propaganda. You certainly aren't going to change my views and in fact, all you're doing is validating them with your fakery and personal attacks.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Nov 22, 2013 5:37:44 GMT -5
She's a typical advocate of the reverse scientific method. She starts with a conclusion, cherry picks misquotes and doctors everything to suit her story ignores the real facts and peddles bulls**t to make money.
You started the personal attacks so stop whinging you pathetic lying brainless fraud.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Nov 22, 2013 8:37:46 GMT -5
"She's a typical advocate of the reverse scientific method. She starts with a conclusion, cherry picks misquotes and doctors everything to suit her story ignores the real facts and peddles bulls**t to make money."
Really? I'm so convinced now.
"You started the personal attacks so stop whinging you pathetic lying brainless fraud."
You mean when I called you a fake? That wasn't a personal attack, it's a fact (speaking of "pathetic lying brainless fraud"). No intelligent, enlightened person accepts every single thing he/she is fed by government and the complicit media without questioning one single thing. That's not realistic and you've shown that you're intelligent enough to have done a ton of research, albeit publicly rejecting everything that does not fit the official narrative. Privately, you know full well the official narrative is a massive lie.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Nov 22, 2013 10:50:44 GMT -5
But you are the fake, you're the one peddling inside job lies and making out that the 19 men who did it didn't.
They had to go through passport control at the airport, they had boarding passes, they had tickets in their own names. Four of them had already attended and passed at US flight training schools gaining commercial pilots licences. The airliners had to get air traffic clearance before they could take off. The airliners were on radar. Passengers including Jeremy Glick and Barbara Olson made phone calls from the hijacked planes. The airliners suddenly stopped radio communications with air traffic control switched off transponders and deviated from pre planned flight routes. Flight 77 was observed to crash into the Pentagon by over 100 eyewitnesses. Debris matches an American Airlines Boeing 757 fitted with Rolls Royce RB211-535e high bypass turbofan jet engines.
You require all these facts to be ignored.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Nov 22, 2013 11:25:06 GMT -5
"You require all these facts to be ignored."
No, I require that these are facts and that they're true. So far, very little of the official narrative has been proven to be fact and/or true. In fact, much of it has been shown to be unsupported, contradicted by fact and evidence, outright lies, admitted by those who published the 9/11 Commission Report and peddled as fact, and impossible theory contradicted by science (especially physics but also by other sciences), by evidence, eyewitness testimony, reality, etc. And those are the issues you deliberately ignore. All of your official narrative parroted quips have been addressed, probably multiple times.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Dec 5, 2013 18:13:29 GMT -5
Firstly you ignore the eyewitnesses Secondly you ignore air traffic controllers. Thirdly you ignore the airlines who lost their planes and nearly went bust. Fourthly you ignore crew and passenger phone calls. Fifth you ignore that the faster the wing moves when less than a span above the ground the greater the ground effect and greater lift. The wings weren't stalled and couldn't stall at high speed so the lawn wasn't touched. Sixth you ignore all the parts of the plane. You're a fool but thanks for bumping the truths that debunk your lies. Isn't it FUNNY? Eyewitness accounts, ATC personnel, etc, all showing a plane hit the Pentagon. And dregs like bob STILL dispute it? What the $%#$@? I remember not long after these KOOKTARD conspiracy theorist first started their KOOK rants. They were claiming that an aircraft heading towards the WTC had a POD attached to the belly of the plane, where it shot a MISSILE into the WTC before it hit the building. MAN that was some funny s**t! The second they were proven idiots on that one (Why would there need to be a missile shot into a building when you were about to ram a giant 757 into it) they moved on to more ignorant KOOK theories. Oh and as far as the POD theory went, when you debated these morons, and asked them HOW a CIVILIAN AIRCRAFT could fire a missile, when it had NO WEAPONS SYSTEM installed, they got even dumber. The fact is, these KOOKTARDS are so delusional and braindead, no amount of REASON will ever change their minds. I'm sure you're only interested in eyewitness accounts that fully support the official conspiracy theory and your language insinuates that you would prefer to remain ignorant on the subject. However, if you click on the link below and open up Barbara Honegger's Power Point file, you can read a host of eyewitness accounts that contradict the official narrative on the Pentagon. This is just a short list but the accounts appear on panels 26 through 29, 31, 81, 101, 115, 117, 119, 122, 130 and 131. These accounts show that you're 100% wrong, they don't "all" show a plane hit the Pentagon. In fact, there is still NO definitive, conclusive and irrefutable proof that a 757 hit the Pentagon and quite a bit of evidence that this may not have happened as the official narrative claims. If you are really interested in her detailed presentation gathered through years of research, you can go through the entire file or the video and read many expert opinions on the subject. I posted the video. The real ignorant ones are those who can only accept what they're fed from authority without question. And some of those theories are truly kook theories specifically meant to target the gullible and ignorant such as yourself. donaldfox.wordpress.com/2012/07/06/barb-honeggers-vancouver-powerpoint/ There's also much more on the Pentagon issue in the "New Pearl Harbor" video but don't bother if you want to remain as ignorant as you proudly express yourself on a regular basis. PS - The above response is not necessarily just for you Toshi. You actually don't know how to post anything on an adult level. It is a reminder that there are many different eyewitness accounts about 9/11. All accounts must be heard, not just the ones that paint a one sided picture. That's exactly what government wants the gullible and ignorant to accept, everything that supports the official conspiracy theory and nothing that might contradict it.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Dec 10, 2013 8:17:23 GMT -5
You're only interested in denying the truth, to that end you ignore the majority of eyewitnesses, rubbishing their evidence as 'the official theory' it's no fkin theory fool, it's fact.
As for the word explosion which you often love capitalising on in your threads Bob, some survivors of the Clutha Vaults Police Helicopter Crash (Glasgow, 29/11/2013 ) also used the word explosion in their eyewitness testimonies about that, but the EC135 which crashed into it did not explode. It didn't catch fire either, they use the word to describe a loud sharp bang.
Now back to the Pentagon. Air traffic controllers cleared AA 757 N644AA to taxy and takeoff and could see it from the Control Tower, they had radio contact with N644AA up until moment of hijacking. Passengers on N644AA made calls from it to loved ones. Eyewitnesses on the ground watched it fly low and fast and crash, recovered debris matched parts from N644AA. There is no theory about it, N644AA crashed into the Pentagon.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Dec 10, 2013 9:07:39 GMT -5
"you ignore the majority of eyewitnesses"First, the "majority of eyewitnesses" (if they're a "majority") does not create a fact if there are eyewitnesses who contradict the "majority". It takes only ONE eyewitness to change a perception. Second, I don't ignore ANY eyewitnesses, whether their account supports the official theory or not. If anyone does any ignoring, it's you. You haven't once mentioned that there are eyewitnesses whose accounts disputes or contradicts the official narrative or if you didn't know about these people, now that you know, you certainly don't acknowledge them. "rubbishing their evidence as 'the official theory' it's no fkin theory fool, it's fact."I haven't "rubbished" their evidence at all, I merely posted testimony from other eyewitnesses that tell an entirely different story. It's you who is only interested in everything that supports the official story and nothing that contradicts it. And that's a FACT. The Clutha Vaults Police Helicopter Crash has nothing to do with 9/11 so it's irrelevant. "Air traffic controllers cleared AA 757 N644AA to taxy and takeoff and could see it from the Control Tower, they had radio contact with N644AA up until moment of hijacking." Or so you are led to believe. Maybe that happened or maybe it didn't. It still doesn't account for all the anomalies and contradictory eyewitness testimonies. "Passengers on N644AA made calls from it to loved ones."There is contradictory evidence about the one phone call from flight 77. "On the afternoon of 9/11, CNN reported that US Solicitor General Theodore “Ted” Olson told CNN that his wife, well-known CNN commentator Barbara Olson, had “called him twice on a cell phone from American Airlines Flight 77,” stating that the plane had been taken over by hijackers armed with “knives and cardboard cutters.”[5] When interviewed by the FBI, Olson said that he did not know if her calls were made from her cell phone or the telephone on the plane.[6] In subsequent media interviews, Olson went back and forth on whether his wife used her cell phone or a seat-back phone, but her call was almost unanimously reported in the media, in line with the initial CNN story, as a cell phone call."www.consensus911.org/point-pc-3/"Eyewitnesses on the ground watched it fly low and fast and crash, recovered debris matched parts from N644AA."There is NO evidence that any of the parts recovered could be matched to the plane that was allegedly flight 77. In fact, eyewitness testimony that YOU ignore contradicts your made up claim. From Barbara Honegger's presentation: “I can’t understand why there were no visible aircraft parts.” - Acting Cmdr. Fort Myers Fire Dept. Dennis Gilroy
“Well, Where’s the Plane? You know, where’s the parts? You’d think there would be something.” - Firefighter John Durrer
“There was a strange lack of visible debris on the Pentagon lawn where I stood moments after the impact. There was no sign of the kind of damage to the Pentagon structure [wall] one would expect from the impact of a large airliner.” - Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski
“There was just nothing left. We couldn’t see a tail, a wing or anything.” - Pentagon analyst William Jarvis
“I got in very close, got a good look early on. I could not, however, see any plane wreckage.” - John McWethy, ABC News
“My mind could not comprehend what happened. Where did the plane go? …There was no plane visible.” - Christine Peterson
“My brain could not resolve the fact that it was a plane. No tail. No wings. No nothing.” - Engineer Steve DeChiaro
“My first -- all of our impressions -- were that it couldn’t possibly have been a 757. There was absolutely nothing that you could identify as an aircraft part anywhere around there. Nothing. I just can’t emphasize enough that the initial damage -- looking at it -- it just didn’t look like a 757 hit that building.” - Park Police Helo Pilot Alan Galey
NORAD sent interceptor pilot Dean Eckmann to fly low by the Pentagon and report back. He reported seeing no evidence of airplane wreckage. - From the Air Force’s own book on 9/11, "Air War Over America".
... the only pilot to claim to have seen what even “looked like” a 757 without being able to see its tail number to positively identify it as Flt 77 was C-130 pilot Steve O’Brien. [Is he any relation to Dulles Airport Air Traffic Controller Danielle O’Brien, the civilian who tracked the alleged Flt 77 on its final leg, or to ‘good family friend’ of Ted and Barbara Olson, Tim O’Brien of CNN, who broke the false story of Barbara’Olson’s alleged phone conver-sations with her husband about ‘hijackers’ that the FBI, American Airlines and the Pentagon all say never happened? After telling Reagan Airport Tower that “It [only] looks like that [unidentified] plane hit the Pentagon,” which he later acknowledged he did not see but inferred from the smoke cloud, this same C-130 pilot flew on to Shanksville, Penn. where he “just happened” to also officially “confirm” of the “crash” of Flight 93. All the above clearly shows it's you who's only interested in selective testimony, only the kind that supports the official story and nothing that might contradict it.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Dec 10, 2013 10:56:22 GMT -5
"... recovered debris matched parts from N644AA. There is no theory about it, N644AA crashed into the Pentagon."Here's something (besides all the eyewitness testimony that YOU ignore) that directly contradicts your made up claim. FBI Records Chief Describes Unsuccessful Search For Identifying Records Of 9/11 Aircraft Wreckage & Flight Data RecordersThe following is a statement by the Section Chief of the Record/lnformation Dissemination Section ("RlDS") of the FBI regarding the unsuccessful search for records or facsimiles of records, pertaining the 4 aircraft identified by the FBI and NTSB as being used during terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 or wreckage generated by them, including 2 flight data recorders. This statement is a defense exhibit for use in an upcoming oral arguments hearing pertaining to a federal court case for records for the 4 aircraft used during the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. SEARCH FOR RECORDS RESPONSlVE TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST Plaintiff's original FOIA request sought "documentation pertaining to any formally and positively identified debris" from the aircraft used in the September 11th attacks. In response to this request, RIDS personnel at FBIHQ understood that any potentially responsive records would have been compiled for law enforcement purposes and would be located in a pending file because of an ongoing law enforcement investigation. RIDS personnel therefore determined that any records would be withheld in their entirety pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(A). The FBI then received a copy of plaintiff's complaint for injunctive relief, later amended, wherein plaintiff requested the FBI to "produce agency records, concerning documentation revealing the process by which wreckage recovered by defendant, from the aircraft used during the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, was positively identified by defendant (with the aid of the National Transportation Safety Board) as belonging to the said aircraft, presumably through the use of unique serial number identifying information contained by the said aircraft wreckage, that was collected by defendant and which defendant has improperly withheld from plaintiff." In response to this request, RlDS conducted a search for potentially responsive records at FBIHQ on February 11, 2008. A search of the CRS was conducted using the following subjects: "Airline Debris," "Debris Identification," "Commercial Aircraft," "Aircraft Identification," "Aircraft Debris," "Aircraft Wreckage," "Aircraft," "Recovered Debris," "National Transportation and Safety Bureau," "National Transportation Safety Board," "NTSB," "American Airlines," "American Airlines Flight," "American Airlines Flight Eleven," "American Airlines Flight Number 11," "American Airlines Flight 77," "N334AA," "N612UA," "N644AA," "N591UA," "Flight 175," "Flight 11," "Flight 77," "Flight 93," "Identifying Aircraft Parts," "Factual Report Aviation," "Federal Aviation Administration," "Pentbomb," "Ground Zero," "Freshkills Landfill," and "Fresh Kills Landfill."Despite this extensive and detailed search effort, RlDS has been unable to locate any FBI records responsive to plaintiffs request. RIDS' search efforts included a verification by the case agent for the investigation. The case agent stated that since the identities of the four hijacked aircraft have never been in question by the FBI, NTSB or FAA (evidence collected after September 11, 2001 has corroborated the fact that American Airlines Flight 11, United Airlines Flight 175, American Airlines Flight 77 and United Flight 93 were the aircraft hijacked), no records would have been generated responsive to plaintiffs request for documents. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct, and that Exhibits A-J attached hereto are true and correct copies. Executed this 8th day of August, 2008 David M. HARDY Section Chief Records/Information Dissemination Section Records Management Division Federal Bureau of lnvestigation Washington, D.C. 911blogger.com/node/17363
|
|
|
Post by shred on Dec 10, 2013 11:15:33 GMT -5
Firstly you are quite happy to misquote Mike Walter and make out he saw a cruise missile, he says he didn't, his use of the words was as a figure of speech describing how he saw the American Airlines jet being flown.
Secondly you are quite happy to post fabrications, doctored photographs and outright lies.
N644AA hit the Pentagon, Hani Hanjour was flying it. Fact.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Dec 10, 2013 13:14:36 GMT -5
"Firstly you are quite happy to misquote Mike Walter and make out he saw a cruise missile, he says he didn't, his use of the words was as a figure of speech describing how he saw the American Airlines jet being flown."
As usual, you make things up. What I post about 9/11 has zero to do with being "happy" or not, that's total nonsense. Second I haven't quoted Mike Walter here or misquoted anyone anywhere. I never mentioned a cruise missile here or anywhere and if I did anywhere, it would have been someone else's quote or theory, not mine. There is no definitive evidence that the Pentagon was hit by a cruise missile that I'm aware of, just theory. Just as there's NO definitive evidence that the Pentagon was hit by flight 77, a 757 plane.
"Secondly you are quite happy to post fabrications, doctored photographs and outright lies."
I haven't posted any fabrications, doctored photos or lies about anything and you have never been able to show that I did, just making things up as always. That you don't like the EVIDENCE, FACTS, SCIENCE, EXPERT OPINION, LOGIC and plain COMMON SENSE that I post is clearly evident from all the garbage you post attacking me. What I just recently posted is DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE that exists in US court records. Anyone can look it up and it clearly contradicts your made up claims. So it's you who constantly fabricates to try to support the official conspiracy narrative, including the one below:
"N644AA hit the Pentagon, Hani Hanjour was flying it. Fact."
There is NO evidence that makes it a fact as admitted by the FBI itself. It's all part of the official conspiracy theory that you were fed.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Dec 10, 2013 14:13:18 GMT -5
Don't you ever get tired of your pathetic excuses? You've been caught lying. Admit it.
N644AA hit the Pentagon FACT.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Dec 10, 2013 14:26:56 GMT -5
Don't you ever get tired of your pathetic excuses? You've been caught lying. Admit it. Don't you get tired of being a US government apologist/asswipe? Don't you get tired of constantly having your incessant lies and fabrications easily exposed? Anyway, who cares about you? 9/11 is NOT about you or me, you're nothing more than a very poor disinformation agent who can only convince the gullible and ignorant and those who have an intense fear that 9/11 isn't what they've been fed. Those people choose to wear blinders and can only see the official conspiracy theory and everything that might support it. They, just like you, reject anything and everything that might contradict it, even though they've already been told it's a bunch of lies by those who published the official conspiracy theory. aibafs.freeforums.net/thread/10965/commissioners-buy-official-story-why
|
|