• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

NASA Engineer (ret.) is a Twoofie?

Childlike Empress said:
Did you manage to watch "NSA" (i gave you the link yesterday)? Do you think it is rational to assume that the group of witnesses were "mistaken" in their corroborated testimony?
Click to expand...

Isn't it suspsicious that the witnesses who agree with eachother all have been goaded interviewed by the same crew?

Use those Russian critical thinking skills.

Childlike Empress said:
What was the utensil that helped the ANC witnesses to show what they had experienced?
Click to expand...

Could you answer my question first?
 
Last edited:
Childlike Empress said:
Did you manage to watch "NSA" (i gave you the link yesterday)? Do you think it is rational to assume that the group of witnesses were "mistaken" in their corroborated testimony?
Click to expand...

I don't see how it would be rational to only go by the witness testimony to make a theory.
 
Childlike Empress said:
That doesn't answer my question. I told you what the only rational alternative to "they are telling the truth" is. Do you think they are "in on it"?
Click to expand...

Of course not.

However, you don't find it at all possible that they were either mistaken or deceived in their testimony?
 
Childlike Empress said:
Why don't you introduce Probst in a reasonable manner in a thread where his testimony belongs, like here? I'll take a look - and may comment after you agreed that "Arabesque"'s list is misleading at best.
Click to expand...

Oh, I see, you said in this thread that I have not cited to "one single witness that supports SoC" which of course was a lie, actually a big lie, because I had earlier cited "in this thread" TWO witnesses, both of which you ignored in this thread.

So the challenge in this thread was for you to discuss Frank Probst, which you have refused to do.

Man, you are a troll.

edited to add:

Hee hee! Oh, the hypocrisy! A few choice CE posts:

"No, i'm trying to figure out if you indeed made yourself familiar with the evidence, or are just pretending. But wait. To be honest - familiar with your MO, i am showing the readers that you are just pretending." Like Probst, CE, ya troll?

"Do you think it is rational to assume that the group of witnesses were "mistaken" in their corroborated testimony?" like Probst, McGraw, England, etc?

"Are you going to make yourself familiar with the crucial eyewitness testimonies or are you going to continue to try your pathetic little blame game?" Bwhahahaha!!!!!

"You are denying evidence. I told you before that there is a theoretical possibility that the witnesses are in on it." Like England and the Crypto-Jew?

HEE HEEE!! Man, CE, you "loost."
 
Last edited:
Garb said:
However, you don't find it at all possible that they were either mistaken or deceived in their testimony?
Click to expand...


No. I asked you if you watched the presentation. You obviously didn't. There is no way those witnesses are mistaken or "deceived" (by CIT?) on those simple issues.
 
Last edited:
Childlike Empress said:
No. I asked you if you watched the presentation. You obviously didn't. There is no way those witnesses are mistaken or "deceived" (by CIT?) on those simple issues.
Click to expand...

And so what if I haven't?

There are other witnesses who contradict those questions by CIT. Has CIT interviewed any of those who claim to have seen flight 77 impact the Pentagon? Has CIT interviewed any of those who claim to have seen flight 77 hit the light poles? Has CIT interviewed ANYONE who claims to have seen a plane fly over the Pentagon? Has CIT interviewed anyone who handled the DNA, plane parts, etc?
 
Notice that the overexcited 16.5 asks me to comment on a single person's testimony without even introducing him or summarizing the relevance, while denying everything else including the manipulative BS of his buddy "Arabesque", source of the "hundreds of witnesses disagree" caviat, and excuse me for the weekend.
 
Garb said:
And so what if I haven't?
Click to expand...


As mentioned before, it shows. CIT have managed to put the obtained evidence into an (from a technical point of view) outstanding presentation. Big up to you, Guys! No creepy music, and no escape. Sorry, Garb. Either inform yourself or don't expect to be taken seriously.
 
Childlike Empress said:
As mentioned before, it shows. CIT have managed to put the obtained evidence into an (from a technical point of view) outstanding presentation. Big up to you, Guys! No creepy music, and no escape. Sorry, Garb. Either inform yourself or don't expect to be taken seriously.
Click to expand...

The difference here is I'm not apparently sitting on evidence that reveals a gigantic (albeit ridiculous and asinine) conspiracy, so I would say the ball is in your court to bring that evidence to public knowledge so the proper criminals can be apprehended for what they have done.

The one problem is you are accusing hundreds, if not thousands, of being complicit.

I'll probably take a look at the video later on, but I don't expect anything groundbreaking since the DNA, physical, and witness testimony trumps the flyover theory.
 
Childlike Empress said:
No. I asked you if you watched the presentation. You obviously didn't. There is no way those witnesses are mistaken or "deceived" (by CIT?) on those simple issues.
Click to expand...
I've seen several of CIT's presentations and frankly if they're dealing exclusively with 10 outlying pieces of witness testimony out of more than a pool of a hundred, well... under normal circumstances most rational people shouldn't have to explain to you how counter-intuitive that is to using eye witness testimony to begin with. If you believe in that irresponsible handling of "evidence" that's your thing I guess, but most people won't buy it because it follows absolutely no legal procedures period... If those guys ever try to take that kind of case to court the judge is going to throw the case out, not because its some kooky conspiracy theory, but because Craig in co. don't even follow any legal protocols in their lynching investigation.
 
Last edited:
Garb said:
The difference here is I'm not apparently sitting on evidence that reveals a gigantic (albeit ridiculous and asinine) conspiracy, so I would say the ball is in your court to bring that evidence to public knowledge so the proper criminals can be apprehended for what they have done.
Click to expand...


What else than recommending the video which contains the evidence do you expect me to do?

Again. First you have to look at the primary sources, then you can look at secondary sources. Then you can contemplate what you are going to do about it, for example bringing it to the attention of the JREF Ninja Turtles, as i do.

I await your judgement after you watched the video and read the "Arabesque" list including rebuttal. If you aren't willing to do that, i expect that you just go on doing whatever pleases you and refrain from polluting the airwaves. Thanks.
 
Miragememories said:
Gee Al.

Anyone can make a list.

If you have been following the point of our exchange, its basic theme
deals with "planted evidence".


MM
Click to expand...

How do you "plant" an entire aircraft with the all the occupants that boarded it except by hijacking it?
 
Childlike Empress said:
Notice that the overexcited 16.5 asks me to comment on a single person's testimony without even introducing him or summarizing the relevance, while denying everything else including the manipulative BS of his buddy "Arabesque", source of the "hundreds of witnesses disagree" caviat, and excuse me for the weekend.
Click to expand...

Yes, yes, take it easy this weekend, CE. I mean after lecturing everyone about how thy were unfamiliar with the "key witnesses." I've mentioned three "key witnesses" and well you are all a twitter.

She can't understand how those witnesses fit in, she Do Declare!

Please let me introduce Mr. Probst: he is a South of Citgo witness that the Tree Fort Boys claim is lying. That should be enough, CE, go to it!

By the way, your pal Stefan's article is a laughable joke. Arabesque, a truther, has 100 plus witnesses, and your pal picked three and hand waved them away. Please link it again. Next time though, read it first, Mmm-kay?

Now where is the intrepid Mr. Deets? How do you like CIT now?

I've made a few of the fellows mad, because they thought you were going to come here and explain your "theories" on WTC, but after you came out as a No Planer in favor of the CIT mutts, I thought you would appreciate learning a little about those thugs.

But I will cheerfully withdraw if you feel like explaining how the planes that hit the WTC on 9/11/2001 could not do what they did that day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom