Where did he say anything about an agenda? He said 'biased opinion'. I think you slipped up, there. Your comrades will be upset.
No it is no longer buried, it was recovered. You have been shown the testimony and been provided the source. Continuing to ignore these shows your true agenda. Why do you continue to dodge DDave's question? Does it prove you wrong and you can't admit that?
Still more dodging. Let's just mark that down as 'truther' has no evidence and so resorts to insults. Again.
The 9/11 Commission Report did. You said you couldn't verify anything in it. Who do you think was President in 1998, if the report got that wrong?
The 9/11 Commission Report says he was. You said you couldn't verify anything in it as true. Have you changed your mind?
Then I guess the 9/11 Commission Report isn't total BS after all, is it. True, the 9/11 Commission Report does contain some speculation on points that are not conclusive, but certainly not as much speculation or outright falsehoods as the works of Fetzer or Griffin.
Why is there still a discussion about Flight 93 being buried? I though that was, ahem, buried here: http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/234078-hoodwinked-shanksville-4.html#post1060928746 Pun intended. I hate to say it, but this thread seems to be waaaayyy off topic. I seem to remember the thread was about Humorous YouTube videos.... Oh what will the mods think?
Fetzer, Griffin, and a multitude of other credentialed folks think all the outright falsehoods exist in the "official" BS story you guys defend as a team. I'd stack their credibility against the team's any day. It only takes about two paragraphs to determine which side speaks logically, and which side has the attack agenda.
This picture has stuck with me. It looks odd. Seems like there would be more damage than whats there. Thoughts?
What date was this picture shot? What scale is it? What is the distance? What kInd of damage would expect to see from this distance? Can you be a bit more specific?
