I already stated (more than once) that it's my opinion. Remember, just a few posts ago you crowed over that. The point is, nothing has changed. (In my opinion) No one has done anything to change the accepted narrative, therefore the generally accepted narrative remains ... accepted.
Good.. So you have revised your claim of fact from before, and now just consider it your opinion. Alright then.. The idea of everybody else agrees with you save a few nutters is JUST your opinion, not actually reality.. So we can leave it at that! Good day!
You can't do it because the photo just shows a damaged wall obscured with smoke with no evidence that a commercial jet flew into it. Since you can't do it, you have no idea about what happened there except what the government has told you.
Are you seriously alleging that there is no hole? This should be good for a laugh, please elaborate. Also, what of the eyewitnesses? All government plants?
There WAS a hole (about the size of a missile) before the massive and all powerful aluminum tube caused the surrounding "reinforced" structure to widen and fall down after the immense and might aluminum tube (that disappeared somewhere). Good stuff, that passenger jet aluminum. They ought to utilize it for the military to destroy structures around the world that they don't want to have any proof of to be exposed. "Soda can destroys reinforced concrete of the department of defense" could be the entire advertising campaign! Think of the savings on the military budget! Next up..."Paper airplanes destroy Washington and confound military".
Well, in his defense, it was only there for about a minute, and I'm sure "official" sources removed from public scrutiny all the photos that they could. The bigger picture is the Pepsi can destroying that specially reinforced super duper wall of awesomeness. I'm trying to remember which fell faster, the towers or the Pentagon. No matter I guess. Neither were a match for the super super aluminum tubes, and nothing they couldn't wipe out inside an hour. Great military technology, those commercial planes. Pure killing machines. I don't understand why they don't utilize them when attacking other countries. Pure power and awesomeness, those tubes.
Momentum is the force in question. Understandably, an "aluminum tube" as you call it would not have a great deal of force standing still. But what's the other part of momentum? Force = Mass X _________ ? Or, which has more momentum... A 5 pound piece of aluminum traveling at 100mph, or a 100 pound piece of lead moving at 1mph? Yet another 9/11 Denier fails physics. It's like you guys didn't even finish 8th grade, really.
Neve said that. You claimed the evidence of a commercial jet impacting that wall is obvious, yet you won't point out the alleged impact area with wing strikes. You like everyone else supporting the official government position, only know what the government tells you. Again, using the FFs as points of reference in the photo you posted, draw a circle and some lines to show the area allegedly struck by a commercial jet. If you can't, just say so. It doesn't mean it aint there
Is it not true that since its inception, the 9-11 Truth movement was infilitrated by intel agences spreading disinfo? http://www.video.me/ViewVideo.aspx?vid=12334
I don't think that happened, but sometimes it seems that way.. Based on their automatic tendency to focus on the weakest arguments that I've never even made or endorsed like lizard people and such, and associate me with that instead of address my point, it's almost like THEY made up the stuff about the lizard people, to give them the strawmen at the ready.
More projection. Your arguments are weak. They are based on semantic issues rather than substantial issues. Your argument about NORAD's exercise planning discrepancies in an attempt to show that the commission report is fundamentally flawed is a prime example. First, I hardly think that your premise is a fundamental aspect of the report. Second, you've misquoted the report, changing a qualified statement about domestic hijacking to an unqualified statement about planes being used as weapons. Third, you've complained about a lie that exists in the report using evidence that was contained...in the report. How can the report be accused of lying if the truth is contained right in the report? Lastly, and most importantly you completely failed to establish that attempts to counter an attack method was based on foreknowledge of an actual plan to attack. If your arguments are so strong, why do they have such large holes in them?
So, evdience of misinformation and disinformation by certain websites is not proof enough of infiltration? Some examples defined at this site ( and others) seem a bit too "coincidental" too me. Also according to Michael Ruppertm, author of "Crossing the Rubicon"
yup it started out with gubbers calling those 2 kids loony, and now the looneys got nist to admit freefall LOL (*)(*)(*)(*) no place to hide LMAO
LOL... So the death beams from space people are government agents? Laughable. 9/11 Deniers are eating their own, it seems. Your posts aren't even in English anymore. Time to have your meds upped.
Laughable is obvious intent of misdirection, and the degree of ridicule some will go to in order to attain their agenda.
Since you're one of the "death beams from space" people, it's pretty funny you don't even realize your 9/11 denier "friend" was insulting you and implying that you're just a plant designed to throw the "movement" off the trail.
What fights? You and Jojo both link to death beams from space sites. He's just not afraid to own up to it.
Speaking of being afraid...any word on those 93 photos yet? You focus on your agenda and I'll focus on the truth.
You can't prove or supply the information, so I'm supposed to go chasing your fantasies. Outstanding dedication but poor maneuvering.
Not fantasies. The people who were on the scene. Real people with first hand evidence. Conversely, you could continue to whine and troll here.
