The cops are either liars or they arent. They can not be wrong. The potion assures of that. They are not mistaken in seeing a plane through a building. They also indicated that most of the eyewitness testimony taken was from people who had highly obstructed views.
These peoples stories varied widely. "Studies show" are to words that always preface inaccuracy. That kind of thing falls into Samuel Clements statement about the three kinds of lies.
"All your saying is your right and I am wrong. That is meaningless. It proves nothing.
Those cops are either lairs or they aren't. Theie geographical locations does not allow for being mistaken. If the plane was on the other side of the Annex building the policemen would not have a L.O.S. to the plane at all. So if it was on the other side of the building then they were lying.
AS the government has only fueled more questioning with their refusals to release all the footage, anything that comes from the Government is bunk. I don't believe a word of it. Until I find credible explanations or proof two, DC cops would publicly lie about what they saw, I will take their word as the most credible.
"All your saying is your right and I am wrong. That is meaningless. It proves nothing.
Those cops are either lairs or they aren't. Theie geographical locations does not allow for being mistaken. If the plane was on the other side of the Annex building the policemen would not have a L.O.S. to the plane at all. So if it was on the other side of the building then they were lying.
AS the government has only fueled more questioning with their refusals to release all the footage, anything that comes from the Government is bunk. I don't believe a word of it. Until I find credible explanations or proof two, DC cops would publicly lie about what they saw, I will take their word as the most credible.
Last edited:
Wiki is a super credible source lol.
Can you two clear up who thinks it is a conspiracy and who doesn't? Too much banter in last two pages for me to think clearly right now. Also, haven't slept in 24 hours.
conspiracy, is a word of censorship. I personally don't hold with it. It would indicate attempt to hide something from the public, but as the majority backs your story blindly there is no need for a conspiracy.
I wont believe in something that I cant see with my own eyes. Saw planes in New York, nowhere else.
I wont believe in something that I cant see with my own eyes. Saw planes in New York, nowhere else.
Everyone knows abut Area 51 (you can even look it up on Google Earth) but the gov't still covers it up.
Look, I just disproved your claims that 'conspiracy theory' is only ment to discredit and doesn't really mean conspreacy and that the gov't wouldn't bother covering up a known fact!
That's a false choice fallacy. I can explain the basics to you again, but based on your record, you're likely to ignore this again just as you did for the discussion concerning the "16 foot hole theory." I'm really not in the mood for more back and forth with somebody who has no intention of even explaining anything that's wrong with what they ignore.
http://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue%20One/fisher&tversky.htm
Wikipedia's not considered an academic source in most academic research projects at the university level, but the sources generally could be.
Will post more later, I don't have enough time at the moment to be more in depth. jdsingle I'll try to be more clear when I get back to this.
Last edited:
Everyone knows abut Area 51 (you can even look it up on Google Earth) but the gov't still covers it up.
Look, I just disproved your claims that 'conspiracy theory' is only ment to discredit and doesn't really mean conspreacy and that the gov't wouldn't bother covering up a known fact!
Not realy. In al instances theres nothing to hide form a public that largely backs there lies.
NO the cops either lairs or they arent. Theres debate about that. They either are saying the saw the plane truthfully or lying and saying they have X-ray vision.
And the whole was 16 feet that's unrefutable fact. Changing the subject to other damage doesn't change that. Your insisting something is wrong doesn't change it either.
And the whole was 16 feet that's unrefutable fact. Changing the subject to other damage doesn't change that. Your insisting something is wrong doesn't change it either.
http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/planes/evidence/wapost_destape.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/planes/evidence/nyt_destape.html
Nothing screams guilty like this does, destruction fo evidence of which any explaintion is a poor excuse. It was a crime to do it no matter what reason you can possibly trump up to justify it.
http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/planes/evidence/nyt_destape.html
Nothing screams guilty like this does, destruction fo evidence of which any explaintion is a poor excuse. It was a crime to do it no matter what reason you can possibly trump up to justify it.
I'm not even sure how you got this out what I wrote. I never argued they either saw the plane or they didn't, I said that their accounts of the plane taking on a different trajectory are erroneous, and the studies done on eye witness testimony explain the deviation. This is much different that accusing them of lying, and yet again as you refuse to hear, eye witness testimony isn't as black and white as truth and lie; human memory is not perfect. Still not sure what the significance of a northward flight path would be to you though, since you don't make anything clear beyond your insistence that a flyover is not likely.
The 16 foot hole "fact" is a cherry picked photograph showing the Pentagon's facade while obscuring all of the damage sustained on the first floor of the Pentagon:
You didn't even address this the last time beyond repeating the same sentence, so let's see if you can address this now. Why do you ignore the penetration on the first floor?
Which is nice if you're making a case of criminal negligence, or incompetence in the handling of affairs wrt to the accounts, but has entirely nothing to do with your assertion that "something" other than a passenger jet collided with the building. 911research, despite it's flawed case still disagrees with your core assertion, and unlike yourself explains why the missile/flyover/name your flavor on no passenger jet theories hold no merit in relation to both discussing the attack, or the internal affairs of the 911 truth movement.
Last edited:
The police are not in error. Nobodyerronusly makes a claim of seeing something through solid matter.
Symentrical damge. As I said before. the hole that is really quite round. When a rock hits a windscreen it sometimes spider cracks, That doesnt mean the rock was in that shape. The tip of whatever this thing was made a 16 foot hole. That was fairly round.
this another assumption with no basis in fact. Your still reading from those scripts.
What you deem "of merit" is not relvent at all. Poltical prejudices and accuations of not being patriotic are meaningless. Its just false that all these people are in one category and all the motives are some nevarious anti American plan as Fox news would say.
Destruction of evidence is tantamount to admission of quilt. It is also illegal, but as there wont ever be a real legal hearing..everybody gets away with that.
Symentrical damge. As I said before. the hole that is really quite round. When a rock hits a windscreen it sometimes spider cracks, That doesnt mean the rock was in that shape. The tip of whatever this thing was made a 16 foot hole. That was fairly round.
this another assumption with no basis in fact. Your still reading from those scripts.
What you deem "of merit" is not relvent at all. Poltical prejudices and accuations of not being patriotic are meaningless. Its just false that all these people are in one category and all the motives are some nevarious anti American plan as Fox news would say.
Destruction of evidence is tantamount to admission of quilt. It is also illegal, but as there wont ever be a real legal hearing..everybody gets away with that.
Last edited:
Besides the side by side comparisons of our arguments I have nothing left to discuss since you're not only misrepresenting what I've said, but you aren't even attempting to read anything I post. This repetition and ignorance is beyond ridiculous.
I don't need to assume. You stated it a few times already.
Exactly "what" you think the evidence points to is beyond me... but clearly you don't think it was a commercial aircraft. I don't know what you intend to accomplish by back stepping on your own claims. You're not only being inconsistent, but also highly disingenuous.
Last edited:
They are either are lying or not. They can not in any way shape or form be in error. If the plane was on the other side of the annex then they would not have been able to see it. They said it was over their head's The NTSB flight path would in effect be saying those policemen are lying.
This is an assumption the really has nno basis infact. I have not said missile or anything of sort. I dont know what hit. There is no good reason to buy the goverment story. So I must learn from information I can obatain on my own.
This is an assumption the really has nno basis infact. I have not said missile or anything of sort. I dont know what hit. There is no good reason to buy the goverment story. So I must learn from information I can obatain on my own.
Last edited:
Our gov't is so unpopular armed militias are starting to roam the streets! Not what I'd call backed.
Bubba and his paintballs are a joke. Those militia types are hardly a major presence. What strets hae you seen them roam. The ATF like to shoot thier wives from time to time.
How many back up 9/11 lies. How many remain indifferent or even complacient with corruptions daily poltical lies. Very many.
How many back up 9/11 lies. How many remain indifferent or even complacient with corruptions daily poltical lies. Very many.
As I understand it, the neo-Nazis have a 30k strong force. The FBI also recently busted a Hutaree cell that was in the middle of gearing up for a massive attack on the police presence in their territory.
Somehow I don't even think you know what the "official story" as you call it even is. Beating around the Bush [no pun intended] and ignoring issues to avoid having to discuss these issues head on is really doing you no service. I thought the whole thing was about a hijacked commercial aircraft being intentionally rammed into a symbol of American military power, what exactly did you think it was?
So what is it again that's wrong when somebody concludes you don't think there's evidence to substantiate the account, or for that matter a commercial jet was a culprit? Or is there a version of this "official story" that nobody here has heard of yet?
I'm wondering what "sources" I'm going to get if I ask...
Last edited:
The ultra left find just about every poltical opponent a neo-nazi. Ironically the jackboots start marching under democratic admins. 30K? Not buying that one sorry.
Similar threads
