That's odd; reading the thread you link to, it's obvious it wasn't Gaze who first to point out the flaws in that image: http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/182383-heres-good-one-51.html#post4154523 If anyone made a blunder, it was you: From your BLUNDER , and the thread you linked, NAB re-posted another image...which demonstrates how insane your favorite sources are: I don't know where Gaze fits into that. But considering you stalked her on another forum, your other comments in that thread are "interesting": Like NAB said: It's a strange conclusion to jump to. Considering the subject was Val McClatchey, it begs the question why you'd think contacting McClatchey politely would be stalking her. There's only one person known to stalk and lie about Ms. McClatchey....mimicking him isn't a good idea "suede". Maybe it's time you leave "Gaze" alone.
Like I said earlier in this thread..... I easily proved that your analysis was bullsh, YET, you go out of the way to stalk someone over the barn comment? Bury the lead much? You aren't even trying to hide your true colors anymore are you?
Supposedly only went it hit the bedrock layer 40-some ft. below. You can say the ground won on the cockpit section which supposedly snapped off the rest of the fuselage when hitting the ground and then shattered into the woods. (The cockpit section snapped off and shattered into the woods?!! ) Ahem, you said: Sounds like a little back-tracking to me. Except your little buddy, "Patriot911": Of course looks like "Patriot911" made a blunder himself when he said "The difference is debunkers recognize their mistakes.."
Suede, you are aware everyone can read these comments and links right? http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/232465-simple-request-flight-93-a-26.html#post1060913308 http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/232465-simple-request-flight-93-a-26.html#post1060913344 The only one you're fooling with dishonest finger pointing and hand-waving is yourself...
My favorite part of that thread were these two posts from suede (before and after I debunked his bullsh analysis). *nab mentions he's actually putting it into the computer *nab posts his debunking *nabs reminds suede of his debunking *suede ducks and weaves for post after post, but never addresses it /fin
The abovetopsecret thread he links to http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread268934/pg1 was started by someone called nick7261. Another "killtown" fan if his photobucket is any indication: http://s160.photobucket.com/albums/t197/nick7261/ Heard he might know "killtown" irl and be mixed up in some truly weird shenanagins where he lived: http://www.dreamindemon.com/2009/07/13/olivia-bunn-hires-hitmen-to-rough-up-her-babys-daddy/ Maybe "suede" should reconsider the sources he uses.
Halfway through the thread's life and the skeptics haven't been able to provide the OP's simple request.
Anything ever been in the OP's way to prevent them from going to Shanksville and speaking directly to those most intimately involved in this, after all NOTHING like direct source ???
This thread was for all purposes over when OP refused to clarify part of his question and, by his replies, confirmed it was a TROLL THREAD http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/232465-simple-request-flight-93-a-22.html#post1060904484 Even you agree OP was a flawed premise. So we don't understand the point of your taunts. All you've 'proved' is OP's question is flawed or dishonest and you have deluded yourself into thinking this is a 'win' for 'truthers'.
You have to understand...we're only halfway to 500 posts. He can't possibly do anything that would significantly shorten "the thread's life", because the whole point of starting a thread on a forum is to rack up 500 posts, didn't you know?
Truther wins are few and far between. Apparently in their world, rejecting evidence = refuting evidence. suede has been banging this drum for 7 threads now.
Since you're quoting DDave comment that's quoting my comment, even if you have me on ignore, you know he's replying to this: And since you read that post, http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/232465-simple-request-flight-93-a-26.html#post1060917582 you have all the links to know this is a pointless troll thread. So don't know why you're bothering to ask more questions you're not going to acknowledge anyway.
And why ever would us skeptics ever need "interview" these people anyway ... we are NOT the ones doubting their words and actions, so WHY would we need "interview" them at all ???
Everything that was presented in your 7 threads on the topic. suede put you on Ignore?? You must have asked him some too tough questions. He doesn't like that.
So that's what Suede looks like! It's only a guess. He seems to have impulse control problems posting and he's not answering my questions, so one logical explanation is I'm on ignore. He can't blurt out spam at someone he can't see.
It's your to debunk all these "silly" conspiracy theories, right? One would think you'd want to put these theories to an end ASAP so you don't have to waste your lives battling the Truth Movement. Or do you want to keep wasting your life to battle the TM?
Fangbeer, I noticed you haven't returned to this thread after I showed you confirmation that the FBI claims Flight 93 buried in the ground. Why is that?
This from a truther that refuses to tell us what evidence he would accept. Why? Because NO evidence is good enough for him. He has the retarded opinions of killtown to worship and hold up as the absolute truth even though killtown couldn't defend his own claims. Once one realizes that the truthers cannot be shown any evidence that will change their hardwired minds, one sees the futility of trying to get them to see reason, the truth, and accept the evidence, especially since they can't refute the evidence except under the silliest of excuses.
You should go back and look. This statement is, of course, false. Anyone that wants to check can see for themselves. I posted a link to the FBI which you then claimed was your confirmation. I pointed out that the website does not claim what you said it does, and you suggested I needed a dictionary. You did not answer any of the questions I raised about your assumptions so I assumed there was no point in dialog. You have failed to show that the FBI claims that most of Flight 93 buried in the ground. The premise for your 7 threads on the subject is false.
Suede, I noticed you never responded to your zero percent buried claim that I easily refuted. You also appear to have put me on ignore after I started said thread. Why is that?
