Godlike Productions - Discussion Forum
Users Online Now: 1,663 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 311,647
Pageviews Today: 492,813Threads Today: 154Posts Today: 2,460
06:14 AM


Back to Forum
Back to Forum
Back to Thread
Back to Thread
REPORT COPYRIGHT VIOLATION IN REPLY
Message Subject Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Poster Handle George B
Post Content
There are three questions above and a simple yes or no will suffice for now, as I am simply trying to understand your position at this point.

Thanks


I should also say, when you say "all those witnesses" there are not enough witnesses at the locations on record to account for the events; but at the Pentagon anyway, they SAW A PLANE. It's just the pyrotechnics fooled the witnesses. They saw a plane, they saw a blast. They remembered (reasonably, without knowing better) a hit.

They also could not have seen the lampposts being destroyed: the plane would have careened. The lampposts were planted -- UN-planted, with their whole base out! -- and one was perfectly centred clean through a cab. Not crushing anything, a whole lamppost perfectly through the cab. It didn't even mar the seats.

:)

The plane came from the wrong direction from the only clear-view witnesses (point of view, stable reference) and there were 5 who saw that at the Citgo. The others saw something but they had no vantage point worth mentioning, plus of those others some were lying ("faces in the windows").

The black box data did show a more southerly trajectory, but a) it cuts off before "impact" -- how convenient?!! -- and b) how unusual and c) this could have been another plane. The Citgo witnesses saw the plane from their left over Arlington. That's pretty clear and concise.

Another plane could have gone by later, from the south.

Cluck cluck cluck...more chicken scratch.

Look at the building hypothesis: the cabbie's story is so implausible (like so much else) that we are thrown back on the simpler though untasty smoke and mirrors issue.

Why do you want a plane anyway?

I thought someone was going too far when I heard it as a NOTION, i.e., they didn't stop asking questions and they didn't NEED to go that far in their hypothesis questions ...

but they do. Deal with Citgo, lack of foam spray, no jet fuel in the first ring, the "punch out" hole in back, the improbability (impossibility?) of a single hole and no major external tail, wings, etc. (huge plane), the timing of the photos ...

and the other sites, where there was video fakery/hoaxed impressions (NYC) and Shanksville which was a laugh, the phone calls which were impossible if in the air, the silly box cutter heroics when pilots' doors lock from the inside anyway, and if they killed someone in there, how would they get him out and the place would be thick with blood ...

Oh come on.
 Quoting: mclarek 986233

Good evening Clare . . . I see you are ready for a fight!
 
Please verify you're human:




Reason for copyright violation:







GLP