Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * - - - 4 votes

911 inside job - for what?


  • Please log in to reply
4446 replies to this topic

#2866    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,737 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 08 September 2013 - 01:54 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 08 September 2013 - 01:50 PM, said:

...says Spameagle... :tsu:

Presenting facts and evidence. :yes:

Edited by skyeagle409, 08 September 2013 - 01:55 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#2867    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 7,986 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 08 September 2013 - 02:22 PM

It's 12 years later Sky.  For the curious and analytical amongst us, many things have been learned in those years. :tu:


#2868    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,737 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 08 September 2013 - 02:24 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 08 September 2013 - 02:22 PM, said:

It's 12 years later Sky.  For the curious and analytical amongst us, many things have been learned in those years. :tu:

12 years later and still no evidence of a government 911 conspiracy. :no:

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#2869    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,737 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 08 September 2013 - 03:32 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 08 September 2013 - 02:22 PM, said:

It's 12 years later Sky.  For the curious and analytical amongst us, many things have been learned in those years. :tu:

This person has a message for people like  you.

http://www.youtube.c...vxc50xAbk#t=162

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#2870    TheSpoon

TheSpoon

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 72 posts
  • Joined:24 Aug 2013

Posted 08 September 2013 - 11:38 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 08 September 2013 - 02:45 AM, said:

Shouldn't have been a mystery considering the number of warnings from around the world that terrorist were in the final stages of carrying out their attack on the United States using aircraft.

[/size]

The Philippine government warned the United States as far back as 1995 that terrorist were planning to se airliners to kill thousands of people.



One of those terrorist was the same person who detonated a huge bomb beneath WTC1 in 1993, but did WTC1 collapse? No!

I might add that his uncle was the admitted mastermind of the 911 attack.

Thanks for the reply, I don't think it's wise to argue with a pilot with 2nd person perspective of what happened at the pentagon, but i'll leave this video.


As for you comparing the Verinage building you are using a building that is 1/3rd the size and built outside the U.S with completely different engineering code and materials. It simply doesn't make sense how the WTC's collapsed like that, fire damage could do that in a longer time period. Not so soon after the impact though, I am not going to go into every single detail of the collapse and point out every flaw of physics in the belief it collapsed naturally as it is extremely obvious.

Now for you comparing past similar events to this one as far as inciting a war, what makes this any different? 'The last straw', I don't believe this at all,but if it were why would we not just increase security of people entering and leaving our country to begin with? We had to invade a country, which in itself strengthens the regime (think if someone invaded us, no matter if it was a reaction of an American 'terrorist' on foreign soil) and kill hundreds of thousands of people. The logic is flawed and you're support is disturbing.


#2871    RaptorBites

RaptorBites

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,965 posts
  • Joined:12 Jan 2012

Posted 09 September 2013 - 01:19 AM

View PostTheSpoon, on 08 September 2013 - 11:38 PM, said:



Thanks for the reply, I don't think it's wise to argue with a pilot with 2nd person perspective of what happened at the pentagon, but i'll leave this video.


As for you comparing the Verinage building you are using a building that is 1/3rd the size and built outside the U.S with completely different engineering code and materials. It simply doesn't make sense how the WTC's collapsed like that, fire damage could do that in a longer time period. Not so soon after the impact though, I am not going to go into every single detail of the collapse and point out every flaw of physics in the belief it collapsed naturally as it is extremely obvious.

Now for you comparing past similar events to this one as far as inciting a war, what makes this any different? 'The last straw', I don't believe this at all,but if it were why would we not just increase security of people entering and leaving our country to begin with? We had to invade a country, which in itself strengthens the regime (think if someone invaded us, no matter if it was a reaction of an American 'terrorist' on foreign soil) and kill hundreds of thousands of people. The logic is flawed and you're support is disturbing.

Why not go into details?  Scared to be proven wrong?

No, you surround yourself with a whole different kettle of crazy. - Sir Wearer of Hats

#2872    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,737 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 09 September 2013 - 02:12 AM

View PostTheSpoon, on 08 September 2013 - 11:38 PM, said:

Thanks for the reply, I don't think it's wise to argue with a pilot with 2nd person perspective of what happened at the pentagon, but i'll leave this video.


As a pilot I can tell you that video is flawed. Your mistake was posting a video that used "Pilots for 911 Truth" as a reference. I have been waiting for well over a year for "Pilots for 911 Truth" to make much needed corrections to its website, which so far, it has refused to do.

Members of my chapter consist of military, airline, private pilots, certified military and civilian aircraft inspectors and technicians. As secretary of that chapter, alternate safety officer, pilot, and retired airframe supervisor,/inspector/technician, for the Air Force and defense contractors, I also provide safety tips for those pilots and technicians, so I know what I am talking about when I say that using "Pilots for 911 Truth" as a reference source can have detrimental consequences in a debate because "Pilots for 911 Truth" is loose with the truth.

I have gone head-to-head with Robert Balsamo of "Pilots for 911 Truth" because I caught him red-handed deceiving readings on many occasions and I have noticed serious errors he committed during our confrontation, especially arguments regarding airframe safety factors and an airframe's ability to maintain structural integrity beyond its redline airspeed.

I've also determined that Robert Balsamo is not up-to-speed on airframe technology and I have had to post photos to backup my arguments whenever I detected that he was loose with the truth. He was a smooth operator capable of pulling the wool over the eyes of those who are not knowledgeable enough to know when he is deceiving them.

In addition, C-5s, which are much larger than a B-757, regularly perform even more drastic maneuvers than that performed by that terrorist hijacker. If you can obtain the Travis AFB airspace information pamphlet, you will notice that it proves information on tactical maneuvers performed by its aircraft  from 10,000  feet MSL on down to the surface, with decent rates from 5000 FPM to as high as 10,000 FPM.

Now, let's take a look at the numbers of American 77. Hani began his turn at 9:34 AM and upon completion of his maneuver he was still at 2000 feet and 4 miles from the Pentagon and afterward the airspeed of American 77 was increased and it struck the Pentagon at 9:37:45 AM. Websites such as "Pilots for 911 Truth" have managed to deceive readers on a number of occasions.


Quote

Radar Analysis of American 77

Based on an analysis of radar data and information from the plane’s flight data recorder, a 2002 National Transportation Safety Board report will describe the maneuver the aircraft then performs: “[Flight 77] started a right 330-degree descending turn to the right. At the end of the turn, the aircraft was at about 2,000 feet altitude and four miles southwest of the Pentagon.

Over the next 30 seconds, power was increased to near maximum and the nose was pitched down in response to control column movements.” The aircraft accelerates to about 530 miles per hour as it closes in on the Pentagon.

http://web.archive.o... Study_AA77.pdf


The rate of descent of American 77 is much less ( between 2000 FPM  - 3000 FPM) than the rate of descents that are cleared ( 5000 FPM - 10,000 FPM) for C-5 and C-17 transports. Just another example of  how certain websites, such as "Pilots for 911 Truth," have been duping readers for years.

Check out this video.



Quote


As for you comparing the Verinage building you are using a building that is 1/3rd the size and built outside the U.S with completely different engineering code and materials.


From a structural standpoint, it is just a matter of weakening the right structures to where gravity takes over from there. Remember, when WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 suffered impact damage, structural loads were redistributed which made it that much easier for fire to further compromise the structural integrity of those buildings.

Quote

It simply doesn't make sense how the WTC's collapsed like that,...


Once again, from a structural standpoint, it makes good sense because there was no way to prepare the WTC buildings for demolition and not attract a lot of attention.

Quote

...fire damage could do that in a longer time period.


It depends on the structure of a particular building, where the fires are raging and the type of structural damage suffered by those buildings. Remember, the steel structure of the Windsor building collapsed due to fire to where only the concrete core remained standing.

Temperatures raging within WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 were high enough to weaken structural members which were already bearing increased structural loads due to impact damages. You can take a railroad track and set it over a fire for one hour whereas it will be soft enough to where you can bend it around a tree. In fact, that is how it was done during the Civil War.

Quote

Posted Image


Posted Image



So, beware of someone who claims that ordinary office fires cannot weaken steel.


Quote

Now for you comparing past similar events to this one as far as inciting a war, what makes this any different? 'The last straw', I don't believe this at all,but if it were why would we not just increase security of people entering and leaving our country to begin with?

I mention that in August 2001 while preparing to leave the Manila Airport for San Francisco, but it was too late because that was three weeks before the 911 terrorist attack.

Quote


We had to invade a country, which in itself strengthens the regime (think if someone invaded us, no matter if it was a reaction of an American 'terrorist' on foreign soil) and kill hundreds of thousands of people. The logic is flawed and you're support is disturbing.


We invaded Kuwait to remove Iraqi troops out of that country and they were grateful for our involvement, and I might add that Iraq had no intention of stopping in Kuwait because its goal was to invade other Gulf States as well and take over their oil supplies and I have never forgotten Saddam's warning to those Gulf States either.

We invaded Afghanistan because it refused to hand over Osama bin Laden. Had it done so, there would have been no American involvement. All it had to do was the honor our demand and that would have the end of the story, however, Afghanistan refused and the rest is now history.

We invaded Iraq because of a false story of WMD from Iraq's opposition, however, WMD was eventually found in Iraq. Wars are very expensive in lives and money and In fact, the two wars will cost the United States trillions of dollars over the next three decades and much of that money will be used to support the veterans who were injured during those conflicts. We wouldn't have much of the financial problems of today if it weren't for those wars.


Edited by skyeagle409, 09 September 2013 - 02:21 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#2873    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,737 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 09 September 2013 - 11:56 AM

View PostTheSpoon, on 08 September 2013 - 11:38 PM, said:

Thanks for the reply, I don't think it's wise to argue with a pilot with 2nd person perspective of what happened at the pentagon, but i'll leave this video.

I want to add on the deceptive nature of "Pilots for 911 Truth."  One of the things that "Pilots for 911 Truth" refuses to admit is that they are incorrect on ACARS. Other posters corrected Robert Balsamo on ACARS and  yet he refuses to make much needed changes on the website of "Pilots for 911 Truth."

To underline that they have been spewing false information on ACARS, I made phone calls to ARINC, the ACARS experts, where I relayed to them the comments that is posted on the website of "Pilots for 911 Truth in regard to their ACARS. The ACARS experts indicated to me that what "Pilots for 911 Truth" was saying about ACARS and the 911 aircraft was false.

Robert Balsamo should also have known that at no time did radar depict the 911 aircraft airborne after they crashed, which once again, proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that he, and  "Pilots for 911 Truth," continues to deceive its readers and I am just bringing that reality out into the open, which is why I have warned people against using certain conspiracy websites as references.

http://www.blackfive...ts-for-911.html

https://www.youtube...._embedded#at=33

I have a difficult time believing those so-called pilots @ "Pilots for 911 Truth" could be so ignorant of the way things work in the real world of aviation, but according to their own comments at that website, they are in fact as ignorant as they have portrayed themselves to be.


In regard to claims the 911 aircraft were flown under remote control, are they so ignorant to not understand the astronomical problems associated with such a claim? I guess they are.

Edited by skyeagle409, 09 September 2013 - 12:02 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#2874    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,541 posts
  • Joined:03 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 09 September 2013 - 12:01 PM

Hilarious! I've been away for a bit cause I've bneen extremely busy, so lets take a look at what spameagle is posting....lol

View Postskyeagle409, on 08 September 2013 - 02:49 AM, said:

Why not? After all, the steel structure of the Windsor building collapsed due to fire not to mention the Kader toy factory collapse in Thailand due to fire.
However, what you are forgetting is that the Windsor Building didn't collapse entirely like WTC1, 2 or 7 and that there many more better equivalent buildings which didn't collapse due to fires such as....
•Meridian Plaza.
•First Interstate Bank
•New York Plaza
•Caracas Towers
•Beijing Mandarin Hotel
All of these were high rise steel framed structures like the WTC which didn't collapse after fires, which were much more vicious and in some case burning much longer than any of the fires in WTC.
Now before you say something completely stupid :w00t: !! Like telling us again that no planes hit these buildings, then you are moronically forgetting that they did not hit the WTC7.....making your entire point moot.
And the fact that we have other examples of planes hitting buildings and them not collapsing from either the impacts or subsequent fires doesn't really support your case or make a convincing point.
Oh and as for the Kader Toy Factory, well is that really a comparator to the WTC?? Do you want to revert back to using the overpass?? lol  Even if we accept these p*** poor structures as examples to support your fire theory, your still outnumbered by the fact that more building have survived than collapsed.
I know you keep ignoring it because it tears holes in your logic, although I wouldn't call it logic, I would just call it for what it is....backward thinking. lol

View Postskyeagle409, on 08 September 2013 - 02:49 AM, said:

Let's take a look at the collapse of WTC6 and notice no explosives were used when WTC6 collapsed. You can view the collapse at time line 1:49.
Look at that....no explosives used, yet your contradict yourself by insisting that it would require tons of explosives with miles of detonation cord to demolish WTC1, 2 & 7.
Oh the irony is hilarious!! lol

View Postskyeagle409, on 08 September 2013 - 02:49 AM, said:

The Verinage Demolition method collapse buildings without explosives. Check it out.

You keep referring to the verinage collapse even though it doesn't support your case.
•There is no air pressure escaping from many floors below the collapse zone unlike the WTC 1 & 2.
•No explosives were used and if they were used, the only explosives needed would be placed on the same floors which are cut in the verinage collapse, disproving your strawman that it would require tons of explosives.
•They cut the building in the middle as opposed to the upper floors because it probably wouldn't collapse if they cut the higher floors.
Naturally, I don't expect you to understand any of this because frankly, your a spambot! lol

View Postskyeagle409, on 08 September 2013 - 02:49 AM, said:

On the contrary, a video was disclosed, but how many air disaster investigations have the videos to aid in their investigations?
The video from the security cam at the Pentagon didn't really show much did it really?? lol
Oh wait a minute, this is coming from the guy who watches a grainy video and sees silvery droplets falling at free fall speeds that he can't point out to anyone, but is capable of determining that it's aluminium. No doubt, you have also determined that the nose of whatever is in the frame of the video is a definitely a boeing. lol

View Postskyeagle409, on 08 September 2013 - 02:49 AM, said:

Videos are not required, however, we have videos of American 11 striking WTC1 and United 175 striking WTC2 and yet, there are those who claim that missiles struck those buildings.
That might be the opinion of some people but have you asked if this is the opinion of the person you are addressing, or is this another one of those strawmen you like to building and then knock down, so you can convince yourself you had a point and that you have won. :yes:

View Postskyeagle409, on 08 September 2013 - 02:49 AM, said:

So once again, videos are not required to determine the cause of an aircraft accident, which is why we have radar and FDR data.
If video is not required and if there is nothing on the videos which the FBI confiscated, then why don't they release them? lol

View Postskyeagle409, on 08 September 2013 - 02:49 AM, said:

Let's take a look at the Empire State Building and notice the small hole when the building was struck by a B-25 bomber.
http://jrblog.typepa...toryfactsmyths/
Notice how it didn't collapse either!

View Postskyeagle409, on 08 September 2013 - 02:49 AM, said:

A B-25 is much larger than the hole you see in the side of the Empire State Building. Similar to what we saw at the Pentagon.
And yet a building built back in the 1930s is apparently much stronger than a building which was designed to withstand the impact of the biggest plane at the time and constructed almost 40 years later. Looks like the architectural world took leap backwards instead of forwards hey?? :blink: lol

View Postskyeagle409, on 08 September 2013 - 02:49 AM, said:

That is not true at all. That maneuver was so boring, and here it comes again, I could have gone into the kitchen and made a sandwich and returned to the living room to begin eating that sandwich before he could have completed his maneuver and the amazing thing about that is, he didn't even complete a full circle!!
Utter nonsense! lol

Quote

"The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane. You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe."
Danielle O'Brien, Air traffic controller at Dulles International Airport
Yeah, that maneuver was so boring all right, that an internet debunker who knows better than those experts at GZ and now claim he knows more than the ATC at Dulles is bound to be correct?? :blink: lol

Edited by Stundie, 09 September 2013 - 12:16 PM.

There is no such thing as magic, just magicians and fools.

#2875    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,737 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 09 September 2013 - 12:04 PM

View PostStundie, on 09 September 2013 - 12:01 PM, said:

Hilarious! I've been away for a bit cause I've bneen extremely busy, so lets take a look at what spameagle is posting....lol
However, what you are forgetting is that the Windsor Building didn't collapse entirely like WTC1, 2 or 7 and that there many more better equivalent buildings which didn't collapse due to fires such as....
  • Meridian Plaza.
  • First Interstate Bank
  • New York Plaza
  • Caracas Towers
  • Beijing Mandarin Hotel
All of these were high rise steel framed structures like the WTC which didn't collapse after fires, which were much more vicious and in some case burning much longer than any of the fires in WTC.

How many of those buildings were struck by a B-767? Zero!!!

Quote

Did the United States invade any country after Pan Am 103 was bombed out of the sky? No![
Did TheSpoon suggest or actually say that the United States invaded any country after the USS Cole was bombed??
Did TheSpoon suggest or actually say that the United States attacked Iraq immediately after Ramzi Yousef bombed WTC1 in 1993 and fled to Iraq?
Did TheSpoon suggest or actually say that he US invaded any country after al-Qaeda bombed our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania?
Did TheSpoon suggest or actually say that the United States invade any country after Pan Am 103 was bombed out of the sky?

I did to make a point.

Quote

  • There is no air pressure escaping from many floors below the collapse zone unlike the WTC 1 & 2.[/quote]

But, there is air pressure escaping from the buildings. I guess  you overlooked that fact, so let's do a review.



Edited by skyeagle409, 09 September 2013 - 12:22 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#2876    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,737 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 09 September 2013 - 12:08 PM

View PostStundie, on 09 September 2013 - 12:01 PM, said:

Hilarious! I've been away for a bit cause I've bneen extremely busy, so lets take a look at what spameagle is posting....lol

Now before you say something completely stupid :w00t: !! Like telling us again that no planes hit these buildings,

Good, case closed, because I have already pointed that fact out to you!!

Quote

///then you are moronically forgetting that they did not hit the WTC7.....making your entire point moot.

On the contrary, it was brought to you that WTC7 suffered massive damage on the south side and in fact,  why don't you tell us just how huge the hole was on the south side of WTC7. Don't forget to mention that WTC7 buckled just before it collapse, which was an indication that fire had weakened its structure. Here's a link to  help you out.

http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm

Now, it has been 12 years since the 911 attack, so where is YOUR evidence that fires were not responsible for the collapse of WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7? I am WAITING!! :yes:


Edited by skyeagle409, 09 September 2013 - 12:17 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#2877    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,541 posts
  • Joined:03 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 09 September 2013 - 12:17 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 08 September 2013 - 02:49 AM, said:

On another note, my former Wing commander was inside the Pentagon when American 77 struck the building and I ran into another airman who was also inside the Pentagon at the time it was struck.
And that makes your story more credible how exactly?

View Postskyeagle409, on 08 September 2013 - 02:49 AM, said:

Furthermore, I have conducted a similar maneuver as a student pilot with less than 30 hours total flight time, so what happen here, a number of people were duped into thinking the maneuver required extraordinary skills and strength, but let's take another look.
Yeah, Danielle and everyone else at Dulles ATC were duped because an internet debunker says so... :w00t:
Oh and just because a 6 year old can fly a simulation with guidance that doesn't mean she could do it in real life??
By the same argument, I can put in a blistering lap at Spa-Francorchamps on an F1 simulation, does that make me an F1 driver and would I be safe to drive an F1 car.
Would you get on a plane and let this 6 year old fly it cause she did well in the simulation? lol

View Postskyeagle409, on 08 September 2013 - 02:49 AM, said:

To sum it up, there are those who have duped conspiracist and some have done so deliberately in order to discredit the 911 truther movement and have to admit that they have done a very good job in doing so. After all,look how many conspiracist fell for the hoax 911 nuke story and hoaxed video of WTC7.
And there are those who have been duped by governments, much bigger numbers in order to discredit us from finding out the truth and have done a very good job in doing so to.

View Postskyeagle409, on 08 September 2013 - 02:49 AM, said:

Not true at all. Did the United States invade any country after the USS Cole was bombed? No!
Did the United States attack Iraq immediately after Ramzi Yousef bombed WTC1 in 1993 and fled to Iraq? No!
Did the United States invade any country after al-Qaeda bombed our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania? No!
Did the United States invade any country after Pan Am 103 was bombed out of the sky? No!
Did TheSpoon suggest or actually say that the United States invaded any country after the USS Cole was bombed??
Did TheSpoon suggest or actually say that the United States attacked Iraq immediately after Ramzi Yousef bombed WTC1 in 1993 and fled to Iraq?
Did TheSpoon suggest or actually say that he US invaded any country after al-Qaeda bombed our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania?
Did TheSpoon suggest or actually say that the United States invade any country after Pan Am 103 was bombed out of the sky?
No Mr Strawman! lol 4 strawmen all in a row!! lol
Maybe you should try reading and comprehending what TheSpoon ACTUALLY said instead of creating arguments that no one except your tiny imagination had invented.

View Postskyeagle409, on 08 September 2013 - 02:49 AM, said:

Considering the number of countries around the world warning the United States that a terrorist attack was imminent, there should be no mystery there.
The mystery is why the US never took the warnings seriously.
Maybe they wanted it to happen so they could benefit from it??
Perish the thought hey Spambot! lol
A post full of logical holes, that it could be mistaken for a teabag! lol

There is no such thing as magic, just magicians and fools.

#2878    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,541 posts
  • Joined:03 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 09 September 2013 - 12:20 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 09 September 2013 - 12:04 PM, said:

How many of those buildings were struck by a B-767? Zero!!!



I did to make a point.
Proving that you do not actually READ the posts you spambot!! lol

Quote

Now before you say something completely stupid :w00t: !! Like telling us again that no planes hit these buildings, then you are moronically forgetting that they did not hit the WTC7.....making your entire point moot.

And the fact that we have other examples of planes hitting buildings and them not collapsing from either the impacts or subsequent fires doesn't really support your case or make a convincing point.
Comedy gold I tell ya! Patent stupidity that can only be a spambot...lol

Edited by Stundie, 09 September 2013 - 12:21 PM.

There is no such thing as magic, just magicians and fools.

#2879    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,737 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 09 September 2013 - 12:24 PM

View PostStundie, on 09 September 2013 - 12:17 PM, said:

And that makes your story more credible how exactly?

I asked you for evidence that proved me wrong and you came up empty-handed again!! :w00t:

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#2880    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,737 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 09 September 2013 - 12:25 PM

View PostStundie, on 09 September 2013 - 12:20 PM, said:

Proving that you do not actually READ the posts you spambot!!

Comedy gold I tell ya! Patent stupidity that can only be a spambot...lol

The real comedy lies in the fact that your frailed attempt to refute my claims with your so-called evidence has failed! :yes: Now, where is the real evidence?!

Quote


Oh and just because a 6 year old can fly a simulation with guidance that doesn't mean she could do it in real life??


A simulator is a bit more difficult than the real thing.

Edited by skyeagle409, 09 September 2013 - 12:38 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users