I would ask fraud for his evidence if I were you. You'll have to redirect him from quibbling over the size of the hole, as a small hole doesn't prove a missile made the hole by itself, as other things can make a hold, and direct him towards presenting actual evidence of the missile being fired. Anything else you need help with?
Same thing with the Pentagon; the wreckage, the phone calls, the witnesses, the light poles. At what point does overwhelming physical evidence not convince you that a plane crashed there? All too easy.
there wasnt even enough evidence to fill the back of a pickup truck, and we all seen that 30 foot trailer hidden in the bushes at the pentagon. the question is why do you keep pushing that trash?
So when you said the 9/11 commission report was really published by the United States print office, you were LYING?
I'd call it being wrong but most of the government publications are done by the GPO so its a mistake that has some bearing in reality. If you want to call me a liar over this minor point and try to make yourself feel better; fine. So are you lying about this most unusual event--a plane crash due to a hijacking--or are they. A simple answer would be appreciated. I'm sure you can muster up an answer to a question at some point eventhough you never have before.
yeh behind the car they used for the photo ops! Candy loves those poles that no plane hit LOL. Not a good subject for the ganstas
I've already answered it for you.. Twice.. It's not my fault you can't grasp the simple answer. I'll explain it again.. It's possible nobody is lying.. It's possible to be wrong, but not intentionally deceitful. You said so yourself when you said you made a mistake but deny having lied.
Wow...another insult. Somebody call the whaaa baby police. Oh...wait a second, I forgot some people are special.
Its just when HFD goes to THOSE Lengths to cover for the fellow twoofers, she has lost any sort of objectivity. Calling them as I see them.
Makes you wonder doesn't it? The salient point is that content, with twoofers, equals credibility. As long as it flies in the face of the 9/11 Commission Report or other widely adopted stances of the events of 9/11, it is given instant credibility. If I walk outside and water is pouring from the heavens yet I swear it is not raining though weather reports predicted it, current radar shows it, and water is up to my knees, I would agree that I was wrong. If I state it again, I would agree that I am lying and that anybody else presented with the same evidence is lying as well. Yet when a twoofer such as 'fraud is shown: radar tracking of an airplane to the Pentagon, light poles that were knocked down by airplane wings, airplane parts laying all around, eye witnesses who--even those who disagree with the government--swear they saw a plane, and passengers DNA is found at the crash site and she still holds that they are simply stating what they believe, I would submit there is an agenda at work that overrules any sort of "just seeking the truth" cover they may have once enjoyed.
The lack of damage to the exterior wall of the Pentagon is enough to suggest something other than full size commercial jet did the damage Something as simple as impact marks from the wings was not there.
Yes they are. Address the bullet points please; what took down the light poles if it wasn't AA77? Explain the tracking of the plane to the Pentagon and not out of it's air space. Explain all of the wreckage found at the Pentagon 100% consistent with AA77. Explain why nobody saw any missile or found any evidence of a missile Please do explain.
Yeh its called take over the ME and the oil reserves and make it look good to the USAtards. EVERYONE knows you are not seeking any truth but promoting BS, just give us the data required to make your case candy thats all you need do, until then.......remember the old saying someday never comes.
Why should anyone respond to your points and provide explanations when you refuse to do likewise? I asked you loads of times to explain how, if KSM's torture induced confession is proof he was behind 9/11, how do you explain the PROVEN false confessions to plots PROVEN to not even have existed he made during the same enhanced torture sessions? You CAN'T explain because you KNOW that the proven false confessions blows your flimsy claims right out the water. Stop being hypocritical and demanding others answer to you when you refuse to do likewise.
The onus is on the twoofers to prove their sick claims. None ever have. You and your movement are dead in the water and, of course, all you can do now is make the personal attack. Feel free to address the bullet points yourself: what took down the light poles if it wasn't AA77? Explain the tracking of the plane to the Pentagon and not out of it's air space. Explain all of the wreckage found at the Pentagon 100% consistent with AA77. Explain why nobody saw any missile or found any evidence of a missile Betcha Cant! i>u
