9/11 Attacks

Brown Bomber

yekahs wrote: »

For the first part yes. For the second part no.

Do you think the OP's outline of events is a CT? Do you think they accurately reflect the outline of what happened? If not, which parts do you disagree with? Which parts do you think are lacking in evidence?

The official 911 story isn't a fringe theory. I don't understand what you are getting at yekahs.

Yitzhak Rabin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

The official 911 story isn't a fringe theory.

And this isn't the fringe theory forum. 9/11 was a criminal conspiracy. Whether you accept the official version, or subscribe to a different alternative, it required people to conspire with one another.

I don't understand what you are getting at yekahs.

Ditto. People here have complained often that skeptics continually just say "prove it!" when presented with a theory. That they don't ever make any positive claims, and thus aren't subjected to the same scrutiny, and sometimes hostility that the "ct" side of the house is.

Now, here we have a skeptic, proposing a theory. One which many many users here clearly have a problem with. So the roles are reversed. The CT'ists now have an opportunity to tear the official story to shreds. Ask the skeptics to back up their claims. Show why the official version is nonsense.

But...that is not what has happened. All that has happened so far is that people have arrived, and either attacked the motives of the OP, criticised his style of response, or suggested he shouldn't post here. The only person I have seen make any kind of response was squod. When he was shown why his claims were erroneous, he just said "Meh, whatever, 9/11 was an inside job...bye!"

A similar thing happened when I started a thread where I was prepared to defend the theory that humans are causing global warming. Rather than seize the opportunity to prove me wrong, the CT'ist complained that I was somehow patronising and trolling the forum.

Why do you think the CTists don't take the opportunity to debunk an official version of events when presented with it?

nullzero

alastair wrote: »

There clearly are some stupid people on this forum, given that they keep spouting the same (demonstrably incorrect) 'talking points' over and over, despite being shown clear evidence to the contrary (no hijackers on manifestos, no debris, melting steel, etc, take your pick). Once is understandable, but to blithley ignore the facts takes either some kind of delusion, or some kind of stupid.

Respect is earned, and lost pretty quickly when that sort of nonsense kicks in.

Respect isn't earned here Alastair, you should have a read of the charter or even the basic rules of the site.

I don't think there are any stupid people here at all. There might be some people who mightn't have all the facts or who might be stubborn, but no one here is stupid. I find it incredible that you'd feel anyone here is in fact stupid, shame on you.

I'm trying to point out that when you're trying to make a point to somebody, they're not going to ever listen to a word you have to say when you deliver every point with an insult. Pretty simple eh?

Brown Bomber

yekahs wrote: »

And this isn't the fringe theory forum. 9/11 was a criminal conspiracy. Whether you accept the official version, or subscribe to a different alternative, it required people to conspire with one another.

For whatever reason you are being pedantic here. Everyone here knows, including yourself that the official version is not referred to ever as a conspiracy theory by those who espouse it.

yekahs wrote: »

Ditto. People here have complained often that skeptics continually just say "prove it!" when presented with a theory. That they don't ever make any positive claims, and thus aren't subjected to the same scrutiny, and sometimes hostility that the "ct" side of the house is.

All Skeptics don't, King Mob and some others do. You don't for example. Quite clearly the skeptics are more hostile as evidenced by DIogenes and Alastairs repeated bannings.

yekahs wrote: »

Now, here we have a skeptic, proposing a theory. One which many many users here clearly have a problem with. So the roles are reversed. The CT'ists now have an opportunity to tear the official story to shreds. Ask the skeptics to back up their claims. Show why the official version is nonsense.

Yeah but your error here is that 1. The official story is by no reasonable definition a conspiracy theory in common usage. You need to accept this.
2. It was a troll thread from the outset. It was a run-off from a different thread and was a display of one-upmanship from diogenes. Why should anyone take it seriously, or diogenes for that matter?

Diogenes was "debating 911" in seperate thread at the very time he opened this one.

yekahs wrote: »

But...that is not what has happened. All that has happened so far is that people have arrived, and either attacked the motives of the OP, criticised his style of response, or suggested he shouldn't post here. The only person I have seen make any kind of response was squod. When he was shown why his claims were erroneous, he just said "Meh, whatever, 9/11 was an inside job...bye!"


A similar thing happened when I started a thread where I was prepared to defend the theory that humans are causing global warming. Rather than seize the opportunity to prove me wrong, the CT'ist complained that I was somehow patronising and trolling the forum.

Why do you think the CTists don't take the opportunity to debunk an official version of events when presented with it?

For the reasons stated above. And also I'd imagine people are reluctant to get involved with Diogenes because of his aggressive attitude here.

Do you think people want to be called stupid?

And other thing is that the people we are referring to as CTers generally have no interest here in trying to prove Diogenes or anyone else wrong. I genuinely don't care what Diogenes believes. They are interested in discussing the topics, not having arguments or trying to score points. That is my understanding anyway. Diogenes has changed the dynamic, why should people challenge him if they are not interested in what he has to say?

That is where the problem comes in. To generalise the problem skeptics aren't intererested in what the CT person says, but in debunking (belittling, mocking, patronising, bullying) anything and everything they say. This is what creates the tension here, it is quite simple.

I personally have no interest in discussing anything with Diogenes, I would be much more interested in having a discussion with someone like Torax, or uprising or anyone for that matter who is prepared to act respectfully. That is never going to happen though, not properly.

nullzero

meglome wrote: »

Any number of times people have come in here and said "I think 911 was an inside job because...". 99% of the time they are very politely shown evidence that proves within reason it didn't happen as the CT's often claim. Open and honest debate is one of the most important things we can all do and encourage.

Nullzero I find you generally a sensible and smart person, even though we often disagree, hehe sometime we disagree a lot... but to be fair here you usually save all your complaints for those who would be considered sceptics.

I have been dismissed and called names on numerous occasions. Yes I have retaliated but very very rarely. And it's rarer again that I have initiated the name calling. Anyway at the end of the day there is name calling or dismissive attitudes on both sides of the debate but answer me two questions... how many sceptics do you know have put CT'ers on ignore? How many sceptics have got into a huff and refused to engage?

I will believe anyone who can backup what they say. But in this thread we can't even get the people who believe the CT's to outline what it is they actually believe. At the end of the day it's difficult to take someone very seriously when they agree, and often champion, CT's that directly contradict one another.

To be honest, I find it a bit exasperating to see what goes on here.
I know there are "CTers" who step out of line too, and I've often disagreed with things that have been stated on here as fact when it's clearly not the case.
There is a general sense from the sceptic crowd here that they have a sense of superiority which I find abhorant in any place it may manifest itself.
I know you yourself can make a decent argument most of the time, but there are a lot of newer sceptics who lack the intelligence or insight you possess and use their stance as a sceptic as a ticket to intellectual superiority over the other users on this forum when in truth they are little more than psuedo intellectuals with an unfounded sense of self worth. These same people feel they have a right to insult people for not sharing their views, which is pure and utter BS, and I'm sure you know that too.
I don't want a "mutual masturbation" forum as Yekahs so eloquently put it earlier, I do however favour a basic level of respect being shown between people.
I don't insult people or belittle them, as a general rule of thumb I never say anything on the internet that I wouldn't be willing to say to a persons face. I find this belief that being on a forum allows you to abondon all sense of morality and become a nasty little sh1t to be completely distasteful, therefor I take exception to a lot of the BS I'm seeing here of late.

Brown Bomber

nullzero wrote: »

I do however favour a basic level of respect being shown between people.

Well said. That is all I am asking for. Is there anyone here who disagress with the above statement?

nullzero

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Well said. That is all I am asking for. Is there anyone here who disagress with the above statement?

No sane person could disagree with it.
It is my belief that this thread was started in an attempt to cause an argument not a discussion.
We've already had 4 or 5 9-11 threads within the last week or so and all these issues are repeatedly being dragged up.
I've suggested a 9-11 superthread in the feedback thread, hopefully the mods can decide on a way that would best impliment that basic idea and clean up all these 9-11 flame wars.

Jeboa Safari

Brown Bomber wrote: »

All Skeptics don't, King Mob and some others do. You don't for example. Quite clearly the skeptics are more hostile as evidenced by DIogenes and Alastairs repeated bannings.

There are cters who can be hostile or patronising aswell, not just skeptics.

For the reasons stated above. And also I'd imagine people are reluctant to get involved with Diogenes because of his aggressive attitude here.

Do you think people want to be called stupid?

If they provided a cohesive theory backed up with some sort of evidence, then he couldn't call them stupid. And even if he did, he would probably get banned, and it would give other people something to think about. It looks more like people don't have much faith in their theories if they won't share them.

That is where the problem comes in. To generalise the problem skeptics aren't intererested in what the CT person says, but in debunking (belittling, mocking, patronising, bullying) anything and everything they say. This is what creates the tension here, it is quite simple.

And the problem also is the cters can't accept when their theory is criticized, skeptics don't usually just say it doesn't make sense, they usually back it up. If you put up a theory, it should be subject to scrutiny.

Dave!

I respectfully disagree!

timespast

If there was a conspiracy here....... how come the 2nd tower that was hit fell first?

I mean if it was some form of demolition job.....wouldn't you think they would of got that little detail right?

meglome

nullzero wrote: »

To be honest, I find it a bit exasperating to see what goes on here.

I suppose we all do... yet we're all still here. Though i suspect we have somewhat different reasons for our exasperation.

nullzero wrote: »

I know there are "CTers" who step out of line too, and I've often disagreed with things that have been stated on here as fact when it's clearly not the case.

You regularly object to sceptics, their motives and their attitude. I just don't believe you're applying the same standards to the more CT orientated posters.

nullzero wrote: »

There is a general sense from the sceptic crowd here that they have a sense of superiority which I find abhorant in any place it may manifest itself.
I know you yourself can make a decent argument most of the time, but there are a lot of newer sceptics who lack the intelligence or insight you possess and use their stance as a sceptic as a ticket to intellectual superiority over the other users on this forum when in truth they are little more than psuedo intellectuals with an unfounded sense of self worth. These same people feel they have a right to insult people for not sharing their views, which is pure and utter BS, and I'm sure you know that too.

There are a number of posters here that have an 'attitude', no doubt about it. However I can see that attitude is well capable of coming from 'truthers' or 'sceptics'. BB or Squods attitude isn't always great nor is Diogenes or King Mobs, to make some examples (don't kill the messenger boys :eek: ). However there is constant complaining from the truthers right down to several sceptics being put on ignore. I find there is a feeling of martyrdom from some truthers... "Why are these sceptics out to get me" kinda thing. How many times are the motives of sceptic questioned "why are you here?" - "What's your agenda?", as if the CT version of the 'truth' is superior and should be fully trusted. Many times I've been basically called an idiot (sheeple or whatever) for mostly believing the official version of 911. This usually happens when the 'truther' is put on the spot and can't contradict the evidence provided.
No offence to anyone but I get very frustrated with people who can't even put together basic logic or see that they have agreed strongly with CT's that directly contradict one another.

nullzero wrote: »

I don't insult people or belittle them, as a general rule of thumb I never say anything on the internet that I wouldn't be willing to say to a persons face. I find this belief that being on a forum allows you to abondon all sense of morality and become a nasty little sh1t to be completely distasteful, therefor I take exception to a lot of the BS I'm seeing here of late.

As I said attitude isn't confined to any side in the argument but it really is difficult to respect someone who can't even tell you what they actually think or why they think it. I don't believe a lot of the attitude is helpful but lets be clear it's really not one sided.

I hate the term sceptic to label one side because anyone who's looking for the truth should be one. Anyone can lie to you, anyone can tell you what you want to hear. We all should be delighted if someone helps us to learn something new, even if that changes what we believed previously. I have learned so many things in here.

humanji

Alastair wrote:

There clearly are some stupid people on this forum

Well, here's a quote I agree with and it covers a large amount of the posters on this thread. Seriously, what the f*ck is wrong with you people? Can you not go one day without being at each others throats? I'd call you children, but children have the common sense to occasionally do what they're told.

The tragically funny part is that many of you accuse others of bad behavior and then demonstrate that you're just as badly behaved. It's always somebody elses fault. Can none of you see the irony? It's just ridiculous at this stage.

And the sad thing is, is that this thread could have been a particularly good exercise in seeing what the other half has to put up with. You may have all learned something as well as being ablet o state you issues wih the official story. But the temptation to be as petty as possible seems a have been to good to pass up.

Here is a thread about whether or not the official story is false and has a conspiracy surrounding it. You will discuss this and ONLY this. If you want to insult people then take it to the thunderdome.

alastair

Brown Bomber wrote: »

"Acted the maggot" meaning what?

Surely not discussing conspiracies in a CT forum?

Nope.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Have I ever directly, personaly insulted you? You have me, you accused me of having a pschyiactric disorder if remember correctly

No I didn't - I accused you of hyperbole, but don't let that stop your rant. So it's a personal issue?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Its not about taking anything personally. To be crystal clear I couldn't give a **** what you believe or what makes you believe it It bothers me more to see other genuine posters interested in conspiracies trying to shouted down and bullied by you and your ilk. I don't why you can't behave in the manner you would in a real life situation. I know you musn't because you'd be in hospital more than out if you did.

I have no problem with you personally or anyone else here, I'd just suggest you bottle up your hostility as you post and dish out no insults. Pretend you are in a work situation. I mean it must be possible for you to stop and treat EVERYONE with a base level of respect. Right?

Oh, so it's not a personal issue. Why pretend I said you had a 'pschyiactric' disorder then? There's no point in arguing with your little stream of consciousness there - a simple review of my posts will inform about the level of 'abuse' to info, and yet you're not prepared to acknowledge that simple fact. Would you pull that he-man childishness in work btw? A little self reflection wouldn't be lost on you either.

demonspawn

Well alright then, I'm calling you suckers out.


To the Thunderdome!!






How do I get the the Thunderdome from here?
I left the map in my other pair of trousers.

humanji

timespast wrote: »

If there was a conspiracy here....... how come the 2nd tower that was hit fell first?

I mean if it was some form of demolition job.....wouldn't you think they would of got that little detail right?

At the danger of discussin the topic, having the second tower fall first adds realism to it. If the towers were hit in the same place with the same force, by exactly the same objects, then it would be very strange that the second tower fell first.

But because the impacts weren't identical, then the second tower falling first is more plausible as the damage caused would affect the buildings differently. Also, if it was a controlled demolition then there would have be a guy or two somewhere in New York watching the buildings with the detonator in hand. They would have had to make a judgement call by sight, on which building looked more damaged and then decided which should fall first.

demonspawn

timespast wrote: »

If there was a conspiracy here....... how come the 2nd tower that was hit fell first?

I mean if it was some form of demolition job.....wouldn't you think they would of got that little detail right?

They may have got the wires crossed? I heard they hired immigrant labor for the job, maybe the orders got lost in translation.

alastair

nullzero wrote: »

Respect isn't earned here Alastair, you should have a read of the charter or even the basic rules of the site.

I have - particularly the bit about back seat moderation.

nullzero wrote: »

I don't think there are any stupid people here at all. There might be some people who mightn't have all the facts or who might be stubborn, but no one here is stupid. I find it incredible that you'd feel anyone here is in fact stupid, shame on you.

I'm trying to point out that when you're trying to make a point to somebody, they're not going to ever listen to a word you have to say when you deliver every point with an insult. Pretty simple eh?

What exactly would lead you believe that there are no stupid people here? This is a subset of society - which contains more than enough stupid to go 'round. You might find it 'incredible', but I'd be surprised if it wasn't the case - shame on me.

demonspawn

This will end in tears.

alastair

I'll step in to add my support for the conspiracy theory outlined in the OP. If anyone spots a notional flaw in said theory I'm ready to jump in with some info to support it. Just also like to point out that this theory has the added persuasiveness of logic, consistency, witnesses, scientific evidence, and someone willing to stick their hands up and claim responsibility.

demonspawn

alastair wrote: »

I'll step in to add my support for the conspiracy theory outlined in the OP. If anyone spots a notional flaw in said theory I'm ready to jump in with some info to support it. Just also like to point out that this theory has the added persuasiveness of logic, consistency, witnesses, scientific evidence, and someone willing to stick their hands up and claim responsibility.

There's no evidence to support the theory that the crime was committed by Al Qaeda. Not a single scrap. I think there was one fully intact passport found in the ruins but it's highly unlikely that it survived the firestorm so must be discounted.

Also, there was not a single piece of airplane found at the Pentagon crash.

No bodies found at crash site of the last plane, just a bunch of junk that couldn't have been a complete airplane.

alastair

demonspawn wrote: »

There's no evidence to support the theory that the crime was committed by Al Qaeda. Not a single scrap. I think there was one fully intact passport found in the ruins but it's highly unlikely that it survived the firestorm so must be discounted.

Also, there was not a single piece of airplane found at the Pentagon crash.

No bodies found at crash site of the last plane, just a bunch of junk that couldn't have been a complete airplane.

sheesh.

The pictures of the aircraft debris at the pentagon were posted, what, yesterday?

No bodies at the flight 93 crash - but enough scraps to establish dna identities for some.

The identities of the hijackers are known regardless of whether you believe a passport can be thrown beyond a fire. Their names are on the flight manifests, the on-board witnesses provided their seat numbers in the case of flight 11, and finally - the guy who notionally heads up Al Qaeda is happy enough to claim responsibility.

Di0genes

demonspawn wrote: »

There's no evidence to support the theory that the crime was committed by Al Qaeda. Not a single scrap. I think there was one fully intact passport found in the ruins but it's highly unlikely that it survived the firestorm so must be discounted.

Aside from the confessions, the DNA evidence of the hijackers found at the scene, the martyrdom videos etc etc etc.....

Also, there was not a single piece of airplane found at the Pentagon crash.

You may have missed this but before nullzero attempted the cheap psychoanalysis, but photos of debris found at the pentagon were published on this thread.

No bodies found at crash site of the last plane, just a bunch of junk that couldn't have been a complete airplane.

No personal effects and human remains from all but one of the victims were found at Shanksville.

demonspawn

alastair wrote: »

sheesh.

The pictures of the aircraft debris at the pentagon were posted, what, yesterday?

Oh right, so a 747 or whatever it was flew into the side of the Pentagon and all the found were some metal scraps and an engine? All of which could fit into the back of a pickup truck? Any bodies? And those pictures are terrible. They could have been taken anywhere. Usually when a CTer posts evidence they provide a link to the site they got said evidence from.

Edit: In case I have to make it obvious, I do not accept those photos as evidence of anything. I have to squint to see the damn things. Provide proper evidence that a massive plane flew into the Pentagon.

No bodies at the flight 93 crash - but enough scraps to establish dna identities for some.

Source?

The identities of the hijackers are known regardless of whether you believe a passport can be thrown beyond a fire. Their names are on the flight manifests, the on-board witnesses provided their seat numbers in the case of flight 11, and finally - the guy who notionally heads up Al Qaeda is happy enough to claim responsibility.

Source? The guy who nationally heads up Al Qaeda (Osama bin Laden btw) is a former C.I.A. trained operative and who's family had very close ties to the Bush dynasty and the Saudi royal family. Four words for you. Battle of Torra Bora.

Fury, in an interview on 60 Minutes, stated that his Delta Force team and CIA Paramilitary Officers traveled to Tora Bora after the CIA pinpointed bin Laden's location in that area. Fury's team proposed an operation in which they would assault bin Laden's suspected position from the rear, over the 14,000 foot high mountain separating Tora Bora from Pakistan. But, Fury's proposal was denied by unidentified officials at higher headquarters for unknown reasons. Fury then proposed the dropping of GATOR mines in the passes leading away from Tora Bora, but this was also denied. Forced to approach the al-Qaeda forces from the front, at one point Fury reports that his team was within 2,000 meters of bin Laden's suspected position, but withdrew because of uncertainty over the number of al-Qaeda fighters guarding bin Laden and a lack of support from allied Afghan troops.

Bin Laden then got away on a donkey, no joke. Care to explain that one?

alastair

demonspawn wrote: »

Oh right, so a 747 or whatever it was flew into the side of the Pentagon and all the found were some metal scraps and an engine? All of which could fit into the back of a pickup truck? Any bodies? And those pictures are terrible. They could have been taken anywhere. Usually when a CTer posts evidence they provide a link to the site they got said evidence from.

Edit: In case I have to make it obvious, I do not accept those photos as evidence of anything. I have to squint to see the damn things. Provide proper evidence that a massive plane flew into the Pentagon.?

Squint away:


(note - the debris on the grass was photographed ten minutes after the crash - so presumably that was some pretty sharp pick-up action at play, what with getting the engine and landing gear inside as well?)

http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm

Photos of bodies (warning - not pleasant):
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/photos/humanremains.html

demonspawn wrote: »

Source??

http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010924scenenat5p5.asp
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/02/26/national/main502204.shtml

demonspawn wrote: »

Source? ?

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/29/international/30osamaCND.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Osama_bin_Laden_video

demonspawn

Ok, that site with the pictures is not a reliable source. Half the links don't even work. The pictures show absolutely nothing and the explanations are ridiculous.

Most of the heaped scrap is unrecognizable, but there are two pieces of metal bearing yellow-green primer which were not burned thoroughly. Charles Burkhammer similarly noted small lime-green pieces of aircraft interior. Resting next to another pillar is another section of lime-green material bearing clear rivet lines

Missiles also have paint and rivet holes.

Resting up against a bowed column is a large chunk of burned metal. It is unclear whether this is a piece of the plane. Hanging from the ceiling is a sheet of aluminum:

???

Another photo of this hanging sheet of aluminum shows a round circular metal part which does not appear to be normal building debris

???

This photo of engine remains was taken in either D or C-ring by VATF-1 workers. The large circular piece in the middle appears to be the diffusor section of the compressor, though this is not known for certain. Note the torn column nettings on the right. On the left is an obvious piece of yellow-primed aircraft fuselage bearing rivet holes and a twisted silver metal piece next to it.

??? More missile parts?

Now we are moving to the C-ring punchout hole. The following photo taken on 9/13 or 9/14 gives a unique view of the hole from the inside, unfortunately after most of the debris was hauled away:

Photos taken two or three days after the fact are not evidence of anything.

So far your evidence of a 747 flying into the Pentagon just does not exist. You have any credible sources of evidence? Who the hell is Sarah Roberts anyway? This is not evidence, it's a blog.

alastair

demonspawn wrote: »

So far your evidence of a 747 flying into the Pentagon just does not exist. You have any credible sources of evidence? Who the hell is Sarah Roberts anyway? This is not evidence, it's a blog.
[/SIZE]

What 747? It's a 757 - and unless 'they' paint up missles in AA livery and stuff them full of bodies last seen boarding an American Airlines plane in Dulles International airport, I'd say you're just being facetious.

Who the hell is Sarah Roberts anyway?

Someone who gathered together the publically accessible images available in a variety of sites - do you deny that these pics are readily available elsewhere?

demonspawn

Are there any forensic pictures of the scene whatsoever? I'm talking about clear closeups of wreckage. Not some stylized pictures of soldiers running across the grass. The bodies are not evidence of anything. There were people already inside when whatever it was hit the building. It was presumably a large plane. Where are the passengers?

Di0genes

104 directly saw the plane hit the Pentagon.

6 were nearly hit by the plane in front of the Pentagon. Several others were within 100-200 feet of the impact.

26 mentioned that it was an American Airlines jet.

39 others mentioned that it was a large jet/commercial airliner.

2 described a smaller corporate jet. 1 described a "commuter plane" but didn't mention the size.

7 said it was a Boeing 757.

8 witnesses were pilots. One witness was an Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower Chief.

2 witnesses were firefighters working on their truck at the Pentagon heliport.

4 made radio calls to inform emergency services that a plane had hit the Pentagon.

10 said the plane's flaps and landing gear were not deployed (1 thought landing gear struck a light pole).

16 mentioned seeing the plane hit light poles/trees, or were next to to the poles when it happened. Another 8 mentioned the light poles being knocked down: it's unknown if they saw them hit.

42 mentioned seeing aircraft debris. 4 mentioned seeing airline seats. 3 mentioned engine parts.

2 mentioned bodies still strapped into seats.

15 mentioned smelling or contacting aviation/jet fuel.

3 had vehicles damaged by light poles or aircraft debris. Several saw other occupied vehicles damaged.

3 took photographs of the aftermath.

Many mentioned false alarm warnings of other incoming planes after the crash. One said "3-4 warnings."

And of course,

0 saw a military aircraft or missile strike the Pentagon.

0 saw a plane narrowly miss the Pentagon and fly away.

http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/PentWitnesses.xls

The plane's trajectory took it 30feet above a 8 lane highway at 9:30 in the morning.

demonspawn

If you're gonna post massive pictures, just post a link ffs.



This is a 757. Are you seriously gonna tell me that all they found of this massive airplane was a handful of metal scraps? Your "evidence" fails miserably.

demonspawn

Everyone watch for the magical invisible 757!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paWiZ2Y8fRg

And I'm still waiting for an explanation of the Torra Bora incident.