Merged Abolute proof UAL 175 never struck WTC tower 2

[dtugg]

Here is a photo of a black hole:

 

[Drudgewire]

Keep being an *******.

Octopus.

 

[TJM]

Here is a photo of a black hole:

[qimg]http://www.geog.buffalo.edu/arcinfo/aiwwwtut/gifs/black.gif[/qimg]

Dude! I know her!

 

[beachnut]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UuH6D4pob8

1) Tower 2 is down
2) Very few planes on the radar screen (for those who are still skeptical)
3) Plane is headed back to Boston (further proof the FAA had already given the command to ground all aircraft)
4) This is a national news media broadcast

Any questions?

Who makes up this moronic claptrap? How stupid does an idea have to be before 911Truth has a clue?

Where is your evidence?

 

[Hokulele]

Octopus.

Crap, I was guessing earwig.

 

[JSSTyger]

If you people jumped all over NIST's findings as you are jumping on this video evidence, you might find yourself becoming a truther. However there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of skepticism in this supposed "skeptical" forum. Being a skeptic would be more like being a truther IMO. Why does nobody here seem in the least bit skeptical of the official accounts (FEMA, 911commissh, NIST)? I have lots of questions about 911 and to put it simply I think its pathetic that you people don't!

 

[Drudgewire]

Crap, I was guessing earwig.

It's a letter short. "Earworm" could've worked though.

 

[TexasJack]

If you people jumped all over NIST's findings as you are jumping on this video evidence, you might find yourself becoming a truther. However there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of skepticism in this supposed "skeptical" forum. Being a skeptic would be more like being a truther IMO. Why does nobody here seem in the least bit skeptical of the official accounts (FEMA, 911commissh, NIST)? I have lots of questions about 911 and to put it simply I think its pathetic that you people don't!

That's nice.

 

[BCR]

Paging 911files... 911files please...we have a live one....

What? What did I do now?

Let me just say this and I'll leave it to folks to argue about. Flight Explorer data was essentially a web-based Traffic Situation Display (TSD). It functions off of flight plan information, NOT real-time actual radar data. I find the UAL175 tag rather odd myself, especially since the original flight plan went nowhere near the area indicated. If you want to call a displayed flight plan (which is not an actual plane) absolute proof of something, then be my guest. The looney bin has plenty of room for all.

 

[TJM]

What? What did I do now?

Nevermind, he's about self destructed.

 

[Hokulele]

If you people jumped all over NIST's findings as you are jumping on this video evidence, you might find yourself becoming a truther. However there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of skepticism in this supposed "skeptical" forum. Being a skeptic would be more like being a truther IMO. Why does nobody here seem in the least bit skeptical of the official accounts (FEMA, 911commissh, NIST)? I have lots of questions about 911 and to put it simply I think its pathetic that you people don't!

The funny thing is that a number of people on this forum have analyzed and even criticized the various reports, even those you consider debunkers. If you had the time and energy, you could find those threads and posts on this very forum.

However, unlike most of the CTists, the skeptics here realize that one part of an account can be questioned without throwing away the whole kit 'n ******** (just for Drudgewire).

It's a letter short. "Earworm" could've worked though.

Ah, you are playing the "Expert" level. My bad.

 

[TokenMac]

If you people jumped all over NIST's findings as you are jumping on this video evidence, you might find yourself becoming a truther. However there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of skepticism in this supposed "skeptical" forum. Being a skeptic would be more like being a truther IMO. Why does nobody here seem in the least bit skeptical of the official accounts (FEMA, 911commissh, NIST)? I have lots of questions about 911 and to put it simply I think its pathetic that you people don't!

Because skeptics steer clear of the words "abolute proof" when talking about youtube videos, programs they don't understand, or when claiming to be "just asking quetions".


"Is this proof UAL 175 never struck WTC tower 2?"

Would be a better name for your theard (if your a skeptic).

 

[Thunder]

I have lots of questions about 911 and to put it simply I think its pathetic that you people don't!

Aww.....breaking our hearts.

 

[TJM]

the whole kit 'n ********

Caravan?

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

If you people jumped all over NIST's findings [...]. However there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of skepticism in this supposed "skeptical" forum.

Actually, I believe member R. Mackey has written up a critique of at least the first report by NIST regarding WTC1 and WTC2.

Being a skeptic would be more like being a truther IMO.

Maybe it hasn't been made clear, but opinions aren't worth much. No one really cares what you think a skeptic should be, for the same reason that I'm not going to tell you what I think a skeptic should be: it's amazingly subjective, like talking about what makes a good actor, and has no place in this discussion.

I have lots of questions about 911 and to put it simply I think its pathetic that you people don't!

I don't believe anyone has stated that they have absolutely no questions about 9/11. However, it seems extremely difficult for you to grasp that they may not be the same types questions you have.

 

[Donal]

Anyone wanna see my new bike?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_2683249b71df9f1405.jpg

Dude, sweet. I just got my first bike. A 1996 Nighthawk 750.

What kind is that? Suzuki?

 

[JSSTyger]

Pretty sad you guys all congregate at JREF where 98% of the posters are all anti-truth. Must take alot of balls. I guess being with your fellow people you feel better about yourself inside.

Oh well I hope I got through to some of you. Some of your skulls seem to be 10 feet thick though. Can't waste my time ya know? The evidence is out there. Watch it. I could care less what conclusion you come to...it "should" be obvious...

Ehhh...BYE

 

[TJM]

Dude, sweet. I just got my first bike. A 1996 Nighthawk 750.

What kind is that? Suzuki?

GXR 650. New used, actually.

 

[Wolrab]

"I can't fight this feeling;
Deep inside of me!"

Ooga-shacka!

Blue Suede totally ripped off.....

 

[Drudgewire]

However, unlike most of the CTists, the skeptics here realize that one part of an account can be questioned without throwing away the whole kit 'n ******** (just for Drudgewire).

"Crabcake."