If only joboo could destroy a Samsonite,
these modern cruise missiles with all their equivalents to airplane parts couldn't either.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8C-e96m4730
Printable View
If only joboo could destroy a Samsonite,
these modern cruise missiles with all their equivalents to airplane parts couldn't either.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8C-e96m4730
A link with a bunch of people saying they saw a plane. Ok.Quote:
Originally Posted by steel_ag
What took down the light poles? What peice equipment did that?
When did they plant all the wreckage?
Everyone keeps dodging those questions.
This is the only aspect of it that I'm questioning Blink. Maybe you missed that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Blink
Try to answer the questions I'm posing above.
Sometimes you have to look at the evidence, and make a conclusion that one is likely, and the other a billion times more far fetched.
Crazy even.
If you can't answer those questions, you have no right to call anyone a shill. Seems like you are perhaps shilling for something.
You do realize if the plane sheared off five light poles the wing profile would be messed up significantly right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Serpo
The article you posted seems to have missed that.
What difference does it make?Quote:
Originally Posted by joboo
When anything hitting the Pentagon would be an inside job, Batman.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QU8tZZzRWdM
It makes a big difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by Horn
People who look at evidence with a level head have a lot more credibility compared to those that trend off into wild assumptions.
Some people are hell bent on driving home the notion of the "those crazy moonbat truthers" in the minds of others. They deserve the label.
One step forward two steps back.
Are you speaking in the 3rd person by witnessing yourself with this statement?Quote:
Originally Posted by joboo
I haven't seen any wild assumptions on thread, though there have been diversionary tactics used by some to introduce collateral damage as evidence while ignoring the main crime, and crime scene.
That crime being a complacent Pentagon, and its tiny hole in a wall.
It's one of the biggest aspects of this event that continually decimates credibility.Quote:
Originally Posted by Horn
It was touted as the opening premise of this thread by the interviewer.
The evidence for a missile is weak at best. It's not being a shill to point that out.
It's the same thing as September Clues the no planers...big thanks to those dingbats.
Maybe they released only a few frames on purpose to see how many people would come up with crazy ideas?
It seems to have worked extremely well, some are playing right into it.
A few things remain constant, the timeline for planting wreckage all over the place, light poles getting sheared off by some piece of invisible mystery equipment, and highway being right there with eyes, and ears all over the place.
At some point common sense plays a part that those things need to be addressed instead of playing the "it was a missile" narrative over, and over again.