Prove Flight 93 was a bunker buster

Why can't 'skeptics' tell the truth?

 

I do. When will you contact the people who were actually on the scene, as I have?

 

As soon as you prove you did.

 

Why is your quest for answers dependent on what anyone here does? Numerous times you've made your points conditional on what other people will do for you. What makes you think we have a need to bargain with you in order for you to seek out answers for yourself, or support your own claims?

<<< Mod Edit: Insult >>>

 

You only say that because you can't!!!

 

You should be more worried about:

Prove Flight 93 was a bunker buster


So far you haven't. That's pretty embarrassing.

 

I don't really care what you think I should be worried about. What's telling is that you refuse to answer my questions. Your quest for answers is not dependent on what I do, what Hannibal does, or what anyone else here does. Your quest for answers is dependent on what you do.

I suggest the first thing you should do is talk to the people who you know have the answers.

 

^^^Mod edit: Personal attack. ^^^
You have the information to contact multiple people who were right there on the scene. I suggest you do so.

 

Prove Flight 93 was a bunker buster

 

We have. You've failed to refute the evidence or the credibility of the witnesses. At this point all you're trying to do is stroke your own ego.

 

The ONE witness based on your "ASSumptions"?!



All evidence supports your ONE witness was never in the hole, or saw debris come out of the hole.

You've claimed there are "numerous" witnesses who can prove the plane buried, but only shown one that the evidence supports he's NOT a witness that the plane buried.

You haven't produced a shred of evidence that most of the plane buried.

Patriot911 = FAIL

 

We did, the video interview of Wally Miller.

Now it's your guy's turn.

 

I look forward to the day you actually produce a shred of evidence for any of your theories. Since you've been a member at this forum you've produced zero.

Demanding demander is full of demands.

 

If you can't even refute one witness, what else do you have? Nothing.

What evidence? Your retarded opinion that he must not have been in the hole because a reporter would have reported it? BWAAAAHAHAHAHA!!! How (*)(*)(*)(*)ing lame! When are truthers going to learn their retarded opinions that don't even make sense are NOT evidence?

Read above.

On the contrary. Read above.

Wrong again. Read above.

We know you can't accept your own failure, but at this point the only one who still believes your crap is you, and even then I'm betting you know the truth is that you're wrong.

 

Why did you keep lying about that? Is lying second nature to you?

 

It's the complete truth suede, so stick that lying claim up your backside.

You see, I'm quite familiar with what you've posted since you just so happened to "wonder" into this forum. You've not once posted anything remotely close to evidence for your theories. I even gave you the opportunity in a separate thread that you summarily dismissed honest truthseeker.

You have posted a lot of dumb speculation and godawful photoshop nonsense, but that is not called EVIDENCE.

Unfortunately, you don't appear to be familiar with the concept of evidence.

Keep up the demands demanding demander.

 

So evidence Flight 93 mostly buried isn't severely lacking?!

 

Nope. And you haven't been able to refute anything without resorting to rather lame and retarded opinion. Once you start producing actual EVIDENCE that isn't OPINION, then maybe someone will pay attention to you.

 

Praise Jubeezus, the forum has returned! Does this happen often? It was on/offline for most of last week, at least when I checked.

When you complained about being off-topic because Wally didn't support your points,
http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/223209-prove-flight-93-bunker-buster-10.html#post4965092

I pointed out you're the one who brought up Wally Miller

http://www.politicalforum.com/4965155-post102.html

You pretended not to remember this
http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/223209-prove-flight-93-bunker-buster-10.html#post4965121

Even though it's the 4th post on the first page of the thread
http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/223209-prove-flight-93-bunker-buster.html#post4873095

as you were told
http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/223209-prove-flight-93-bunker-buster-11.html#post4965155

By saying "remind me", when it's obvious you hadn't forgotten, you were trying to waste time making someone hunt down posts so you don't have to answer their questions.

Ergo: a slimy dishonest tactic.

Maybe you want to explain what you think is wrong with the explanation; it's sounds perfectly reasonable:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkYOk3zxf54"]9/11 : The Shanksville Files Vol II : Wally Miller [preview] - YouTube[/ame]

From comments:

http://www.youtube.com/all_comments?v=nkYOk3zxf54

I think that says it all.

 

After all that work, I4zarus, my money's on Suede to deflect by demanding you answer one of his questions first.

Anyone wanna take that bet?

 

Link that the evidence isn't severely lacking? (I won't hold my breath.)

 

Seriously?!?

Do you other skeptics think the crash explanation is reasonable?

Who's attacking him?

 

You lost.


Btw, anyone wanna take a bet that in Fangbeer's next post on this thread he can't Prove Flight 93 was a bunker buster?

 

This is a waste of time. You've been given the evidence. You couldn't refute it except with distinctly retarded opinions you couldn't back up like claiming that because no reporter reported Miller in the hole then that is proof Miller was never in the hole.

If you want to see the embarassment of your own posts, go back and read them for yourself. I don't need to re-link you your own tripe just because you're too lazy to remember what has already gone on.

 

I knew you couldn't.