• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

911myths on Mineta, Cheney and Clarke

Not. Taking. The. Bait.

Besides.

I would absolutely shred you.

You lack the ability to competently argue anything. I'm not going to waste my time on you.

Yes I'm sure you would, that's why instead of discussing the big picture your first foray into this forum is to focus on the minutiae of a person's hair length.:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

That's some high quality truthering right there! LOLZ!

Out of respect for Oystein, I'll leave now and let him continue his fun with you unabated.
 
The pictures I have posted are possible proof of my claims. So far, not one post has conclusively proven that I'm wrong. You can say I have no proof all you want, but your meaningless words prove nothing.
That's not how it works. Your problem is that you haven't proved conclusively that you're right. You may have proved it to your satisfaction, but that means nothing beyond that you're willing to be self-convinced by your bias and probably able to convince others that have the same bias. That's how Simon Shack, Phil Jayhan, Judy Wood, etc. have managed to spread their crazy ideas, which doesn't make them right.

We're presuming that that strand is the one that comes to eye level. That may even be a wrong assumption. The amount of possibilities is too high for you to be able to make any categorical assertion opposing the possibility that it's the same day.
 
Not. Taking. The. Bait.

Besides.

I would absolutely shred you.

You lack the ability to competently argue anything. I'm not going to waste my time on you.
You are going to shred people? Not wasting time on...

What next, the lie of a stand-down? What is the point? You can't figure out the hair is the same. Then that failed opinion is used as evidence for other false claims. The perfect no evidence BS method.

With the false flag, not much room to guess where you are going with this BS approach to back in the BS of false flag. What did Cheney do to make 911 a false flag?

Get to your point quicker. The photo nonsense has failed, thus the false flag is done?
 
I can finally post pictures and links now.

Explain to me how it is possible for the hair on this person

[qimg]https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/385/19295977883_64a97dd459_b.jpg[/qimg]

to be the hair on this person.

[qimg]https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/365/19730326989_920e6c834e_b.jpg[/qimg]

In the first picture there is no possible way for her hair to get in her eyes. In the second picture her hair is now long enough to reach her eyes. How is this possible in less than 12 hours? Answer: It's not possible.

The fact that so many of you are trying to change the subject by asking why they would do this tells me I'm right. So, thanks, I appreciate it. You all did exactly what I expected. :)

The lighting is different showing different highlights of her hair.
 
If the pictures were staged, the intent is there because they wore the same clothes they did on 9/11, or got a woman to wear what Mary Matalin was wearing on 9/11. The intent is also there because they were playing footage from 9/11 on the TV. The intent of all of this would have been to show Cheney was somewhere he was not. I think the person who planned this, the people in the photo, and the photographer could all be complicit in the obstruction of justice charge.

If the pictures were staged, I do concede that assigning culpability would be an issue.

If they got the clothes right why not the hair also.

Shame about the movement, used to think in grand terms like space beams now reduced to finding a woman's hair out of place.
 
https://dotmafia.wordpress.com/newl...norman-mineta-testimony-and-the-implications/

Look at the door frame - the angle is much smaller than 90°. That's heavy wide-angle distortion.

You can see Bohrer's camera equipment here:
P7151-22 (that picture taken by Bush's photographer, Eric Draper).
I have made no attempt to identify make and model of camera, lens and flash light. Of course it's possible Bohrer has more than one of each.

Clear evidence of the space distorting rays that destroyed the towers.
 
If they got the clothes right why not the hair also.

Shame about the movement, used to think in grand terms like space beams now reduced to finding a woman's hair out of place.

How do you know the clothes are right? I think I spot a picture where her right sleeve is longer than in the others. ;):)
 
Or failing that, spend some time around a woman.

In a choir+big band concert on saturday, I'll get to sing two lines solo:
Lots of things in life are beautiful, but brother,
there's one particular thing that is nothing whatsoever in any way, shape or form like any other
​
(yes, the second line is way too much text and I have to sing very fast)
(and the guys follow)
There is nothing like a dame, nothing in the world!​
:cool:

ETA: I forgot: The song ends triumphantly with:
There ain't a thing that's wrong with any man here
that can't be cured by putting him near
a girly, womanly female, feminine daaaaaaaaaaaaaame!!
​
 
Last edited:
You can say whatever you want, you have yet to prove anything.

Occam's Razor, you might want to look that up.

It is not possible for anyone on this board to "prove" anything to you that contradicts the official story, regardless of the evidence presented.

No one has submitted any evidence that disproves my claim. You claim they don't have to. OK. Fine. They don't have to. But you know that if you could disprove my claim you would do so in a heartbeat.

I am aware of Occam's Razor. The simplest explanation is that there are two Marys, because there are, in fact, two Marys.

There are at least 26 people represented in all of the photos. Their pictures were taken from various angles, with potentially multiple cameras and lenses, over the course of a very long and stressful day. I have easily spent over 100 hours looking through these photos. Not one person, except Mary Matalin, looks different to me. She only looks different in two pictures. One of those pictures is in Cheney's office, and another picture is in the PEOC. The "fake Mary" looks the same in Cheney's office as she does in the one picture in the PEOC. So yes, when not one other person looks differently, besides her, the simplest explanation is that there are two Marys.

I have also scoured the internet looking for other photos of Mary Matalin throughout the years. I have seen her from multiple angles, and there is not one picture out there, that I have seen, in which I can not immediately recognize her.
 
That's not how it works. Your problem is that you haven't proved conclusively that you're right. You may have proved it to your satisfaction, but that means nothing beyond that you're willing to be self-convinced by your bias and probably able to convince others that have the same bias. That's how Simon Shack, Phil Jayhan, Judy Wood, etc. have managed to spread their crazy ideas, which doesn't make them right.

We're presuming that that strand is the one that comes to eye level. That may even be a wrong assumption. The amount of possibilities is too high for you to be able to make any categorical assertion opposing the possibility that it's the same day.

I'm not looking to share my bias. I have clearly asked others to show me what they see. So far, you are the only person to do so. We agree that the top, outer layer exists in the picture taken in Cheney's office. No one has replied to my subsequent posts where I have drawn lines to show the hair can not be the same. Again, no one has said anything meaningful in response to those posts.
 
The lighting is different showing different highlights of her hair.
Nonsense. The fact that you claim highlights are responsible for the discrepancy is proof that you have failed to read and/or understand anything in this thread.
 
I commend all of you on your coordinated attacks. The problem is that attacking me personally, and then taking my argument to absurd levels to try to discredit it, only proves, beyond any reasonable doubt, that you are truly amateurs when it comes to debating.

Try harder. The NSA is wasting their money on you.
 
Yes I'm sure you would, that's why instead of discussing the big picture your first foray into this forum is to focus on the minutiae of a person's hair length.
Minutiae, as you call it, is often used to solve crimes. Ask any forensic scientist. The more complicated a crime becomes, the harder it is to conceal.
 
Minutiae, as you call it, is often used to solve crimes. Ask any forensic scientist. The more complicated a crime becomes, the harder it is to conceal.
You insist 2+2 is Blue... it is four, and you ignore.

It this case it is BS, the minutiae means nothing. No big deal, your false flag claims are delayed due to technical problems.

There is no official story; there is a fact 19 terrorists used the scam of hijacking to murder thousands and you want your photo BS to build a case Cheney pulled off the inside job. You have an illusion of two marys, and like Bigfoot believers, or the pilot who is disoriented, you have failed to cage the ADI, or sneak a peak at the big blue marble to cage your inner ADI, and you remain disoriented trying to blame Cheney for 911. Must be the inner ear of political bias lack of knowledgeitist...

Now thinking opinions should carry weight vs reality... complaining about the forum. Since the opinion is not evidence, and the opinion is based on failed claims - all that is left is complaining about learning the truth from people who expect evidence based on science, not opinion.

The photo minutia is not evidence, it is a made up opinion.

oh, the paranoia of a coordinated attack; it is not an attack, it is the truth, and you asked for help with an opinion, and then ignored reality; now you are paranoid after the opinion failed.

To prove your false flag plot, you have to have evidence - do you have some evidence.

I commend all of you on your coordinated attacks. The problem is that attacking me personally, and then taking my argument to absurd levels to try to discredit it, only proves, beyond any reasonable doubt, that you are truly amateurs when it comes to debating.

Try harder. The NSA is wasting their money on you.
Now the standard, you are all Shills... lol
Where can we get paid by the NSA for explaining photographic reality to someone who is trying to produce evidence out of opinions to expose a false "false flag" event.
Are you serious? Another opinion we are paid by the NSA, ... how much should we get?

You are not being attacked, the opinion is being explained, it is not evidence of anything.
I commend you for having an opinion you can't get rid of... the last time I had an illusion which was significant was in the "tea water" in a Florida spring, we thought we were descending into the spring caveran because our bubbles were rising, but so were we, we were rising too, and BINGO we surfaced thinking we were descending; an illusion of descending, broken to the truth when we surfaced, we had been ascending. At the surface we were momentarily confused; you are confused, thinking you found a key to the false flag you want to pin on the bad guy Cheney... the reality of surfacing has been ignored, and you persist, insisting you are descending into truth, but you are in the pit of 911 truth lies and BS based on nonsense. We gave you a ladder, you refused to climb out. I would change over to Bigfoot, it does not mock the murder of thousands on 911 with the BS of the inside job false flag nonsense.
 
Last edited:
OK. Here is the picture with her hair down to eye level. Where are the three horizontal layers?

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/7079256023734cd2d1.png[/qimg]

Here she is with her head tilted down. The front of her hair is clearly tucked behind her ear in order to keep it out of her eyes. How is it possible for the hair in the Cheney office pic to be long enough to go behind her ears? Also, where are the three horizontal layers?

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/70792560237c57b52e.jpg[/qimg]

My GF just looked at these two photos. She's wondering how you can't see that her hair is tucked behind her ear in both? It's all about layers done to give more body to the front on woman with high foreheads. The layers are left to right (her left/right). The longer left layers can keep the shorter right in check and add body, until you start to have a bad hair day (I think this requires hairspray). This is what she said, FWIW.

Her hair is a similar style to my GF.
 
Last edited:

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom