Thanks.
It's the first time I'm dealing with truthers, so I'm ready for that.
Merged Lloyd England: Eye of the Storm
- Thread starter TheLoneBedouin
- Start date
It's the first time I'm dealing with truthers, so I'm ready for that.
Jonnyclueless
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2007
- Messages
- 5,546
Should we also start a new topic on how lawn darts are part of an inside job? I mean we're supposed to believe that with just the tip of the dart sticking in the ground and the bulk of the weight out of the ground that lawn darts can stick out of thee ground without the heavy part touching the ground?
Or better yet, take your "evidence" to somebody that can do something with it. Even if you convinced every single person here that you are right, it still wouldn't matter in the real world.
Seriously, you have "proof" that the US government conspired to kill thousands of people and perpetrated the greatest hoax of all time, and you are wasting your time arguing with people that think you are crazy? Makes no sense to me.
Truther never do get things right! While Paik is looking to where he saw 77 go, he points directly to the impact point! When he looks back to CIT dolts, his hand moves away from where he pointed when he was looking and pointing to where 77 went! You are a fraud if you think Paik is pointing to where 77 did not impact! But then you spew the lie of 77 not hitting the Pentagon, a lie because you can't support it with any evidence. No evidence.
Paik points while he looks at where he is pointing! Proves you wrong, proves the p4t idiot version of 77's flight path is a fraud!
The Boger saw 77 hit the Pentagon, he is a CIT witness.
CIT witness saw 77 enter the Pentagon with his eyes! FUNNY, you approve or CIT twisting witnesses to fit their lie so they can apologize for terrorist and fit perfect with the anti-intellectual paranoid p4t implications of lies.
Boger and Paik, two CIT witnesses prove CIT and p4t wrong.
When Paik turns back to CIT interviewers, his pointing figure is no longer aimed by his eyes, to use the finger not aimed by Paik's eyes and make up where he is pointing is pure stupid. Go ahead, prove CIT is pure stupid in their conclusions.
Oops, Morin also has 77 south of the CITGO! But of course p4t and CIT do not have a clue what parallel means! Got math?
Last edited:
The Big Dog
Unregistered
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2007
- Messages
- 29,742
That is freaking ridiculous, and you should be ashamed of yourself for coming here and repeating the CIT idiots lies.
Paik points directly down Columbia Pike from the direction the plane was coming from, and then turns and clearly points straight down Columbia Pike in a direction South of Citgo and directly into the Pentagon, he then turns back to the Camera AND IS NO LONGER FACING THE DIRECTION HIS ARM IS RAISED, and his raised arm slowly begins drifting down and toward the North, and ends up vaguely pointing at the front window of a neighboring business.
You ignore his direct, intentional, controlled gesture directly down the Pike, and instead, claim that his vague arm movement after he turned back to face the camera controls.
Why? Because you are a fraud and the CIT morons are terrible liars.
funk de fino
Dreaming of unicorns
Maybe not, but it would show your flyover plane and it shows something hitting the Pentagon.
How can the CIT witness place the plane just above the annex but you say it was to high to hit the pentagon?
Seriously. All these frauds can do is cry and moan on an internet forum.
They know that if they brought these fantasies before a real court, LE, MSM, etc that they would be laughed at.
TF is a known LIAR.
He has been caught in sooo many outright lies I have lost track.
Emo and Alpo have had 1 local paper do a story on them and the reporter showed them to be the frauds they are!
And poor Emo and Alpo cry about how they were going to sue this reporter......HMMMMMM BUT THUS FAR NO LAWSUIT!
Lets say for a second that they had REAL EVIDENCE and a REAL "CASE", THEY WOULD BE ALL OVER THE MSM!
Sad thing is everyone is laughing at these frauds but they live so deep in denial they don't see it.
Hey guess what TF!!!
My SIL won a Pulitzer Prize for writing a book about US soldiers killing civilians during the Korean War!
Guess what TF!!!
MANY MANY reporters investigate government corruption ON A REGULAR BASIS!
YOU FRAUDS HAVE NOTHING!
N
O
T
H
I
N
G
!!!
TexasJack
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 2, 2008
- Messages
- 10,906
Turbofan has already acknowledged that the FBI and NTSB have rejected their "evidence," and has hinted they are part of the conspiracy, I guess they have nowhere else to go. I guess they like rejection.
Mr.Herbert
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2007
- Messages
- 1,449
What am I spinning exactly??? I am using eyewitness testimony from Ranke and Alpo.
Now, look where Ed is pointing:
Now, look where Ed is pointing:
PLEASE REMEMBER!
YOU MUST use the testimony AS Ranke and Alpo tell you how to use it!
I mean LOL after all how good is testimony if you cant twist, distort and cherry pick it!
Is there anybody that is not part of the conspiracy except for Turbofan and his moron friends? Pretty much the whole US government is. The media must be for totally ignoring them except for that OC Weekly article that totally trashed them. I think all of us are too as Turbofan said that we must be getting paid to say the things we do. Even Lloyd the cabbie is, apparently.
Mangoose
Muse
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2007
- Messages
- 921
Turbofan said:
Oh come on, what a lame retort! The two videos had a speed of 1 fps, so of course it was a long-shot that either would capture the precise instant when the plane made contact with the building. Who cares. The FACT is that both videos captured an object very close to the ground over the lawn one frame prior to the explosion. That it is difficult to make out the exact shape of the object is not evidence in favor of CIT; this difficulty is to be expected because this object had a background of trees and buildings, and the video has a rather poor quality of resolution and contrast. The CIT "flyover hypothesis" has no explanation whatsoever of an object near ground level, whereas it is consistent with the reality of what happened. The significant fact however is that CIT's flyover jet would have been visible much higher up in that immediately preceding frame (as well as in the first explosion frame, directly above or slightly ahead of the initial fireball), with NOTHING BEHIND IT than a beautiful, blue sky. So whereas we can expect an ambiguous shape at ground level, the jet should have been clearly visible in multiple frames between the two videos.
C'mon, go for the "Pentagon CCTV videos are faked" line, it's the obvious cop-out.
That would be SO COOL if all of their crappy movies were narrated by Rod Serling!
This coming from the guy who said the same video should have caught the
flyover.
Wow. Nothing more to say.
P.S. What an ass kickin' McCain took last night. Gotta love how much Bush
is hated. It's a pretty clear sign there are more of us than you think.
Mr.Herbert
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2007
- Messages
- 1,449
OH NO! I hate Bush, I voted for Obama......
Does this mean...
I am.....
PFFFFFT????????
Wow.
TexasJack
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 2, 2008
- Messages
- 10,906
I know a bunch of people that hate Bush and voted for Obama.
I don't know anybody that is stupid/crazy enough to think that the plane really flew over the Pentagon.