Absolute proof of video fakery

[Drudgewire]

The Govt's own database(which is an extremely accurate and well managed one)said those flights never flew that day. Untill later "changed" to say they did.

I'm not familiar with this claim and am not disputing it without looking around, but knowing the comedy treasure chest which is "twoofer evidence," this database wouldn't be one that logs flights after they arrive at their destinations, would it?

 

[Totovader]

The Govt's own database(which is an extremely accurate and well managed one)said those flights never flew that day. Untill later "changed" to say they did.



WikiScanner discovered that American Airlines changed their Wikipedia entry to state that Flights 11 and 77 never flew on 9/11.

Original entry was:

Two American Airlines aircraft were hijacked and crashed during the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack: American Airlines Flight 77 (a Boeing 757) and American Airlines Flight 11 (a Boeing 767).

New entry is:

Two American Airlines aircraft were hijacked and crashed during the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack: Flight 77 (a Boeing 757) and Flight 11 (a Boeing 767). Although these flights were daily departures before and a month after September 11, 2001. Neither flight 11 nor 77 were scheduled on September 11, 2001. The records kept by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (www.bts.gov/gis/) do not list either flight that day.

Is every single one of your posts plagiarism or what!

You stole this right from infowars

What was that about "independent thinking"?

Good lord.

 

[Corsair 115]

The Govt's own database(which is an extremely accurate and well managed one)said those flights never flew that day. Untill later "changed" to say they did.

What do the airlines have to say about it? Those were their aircraft, after all, and expensive pieces of hardware. Not to mention the cost of fuel and the salaries of the pilots, flight attendants, and ticket agents. So now your conspiracy requires the airlines to be in on it, along with many of the people who worked for them.

Again, I find it fascinating how no planers are apparently completely oblivious to just how crazy their ideas are.

 

[jhunter1163]

Mchapman, would you mind telling Stanley Praimnath just what it was that flew through his window and killed all his coworkers?

 

[Quad4_72]

Video fakery/no planers..they are the worst! Here is their evidence in a nutshell:

Show grainy footage and make up stupid *****.

 

[Foolmewunz]

MChapman, you are a cad, sir. Your word as a gentleman means nothing to you? Why are you still here?

Your challenge was met and even exceeded. You are to shut up and go away. If you do not, well, then, I suppose some are going to assume you're just a nasty old troll.

Fie! Be gone, I say! At least get one thing in your three-day history here correct.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

MChapman, you are a cad, sir. Your word as a gentleman means nothing to you? Why are you still here?

Your challenge was met and even exceeded. You are to shut up and go away. If you do not, well, then, I suppose some are going to assume you're just a nasty old troll.

Fie! Be gone, I say! At least get one thing in your three-day history here correct.

Well... I, for one, hopes he hangs out long enough to provide his own link to that missile testimony. After all, we provided the Gravy links, the MemoryHole links, the NYTimes Oral Histories links, etc. for him. It's just simple politeness to respond in kind.

 

[Quad4_72]

Just a little suggestion for everyone's sanity, STOP RESPONDING TO mchapman! He is directly ignoring all evidence presented. He simply spouts nonsense without providing proof. Eye witness testimony of people seeing the plane has been presented to him several times, and he has chosen to ignore it EVERY time.

 

[Homeland Insurgency]

Just a little suggestion for everyone's sanity, STOP RESPONDING TO mchapman! He is directly ignoring all evidence presented. He simply spouts nonsense without providing proof. Eye witness testimony of people seeing the plane has been presented to him several times, and he has chosen to ignore it EVERY time.

Which evidence? I don't see any of you bringing anything more then he is. Why is your conspiracy theory any better then his?

 

[Mercutio]

Which evidence? I don't see any of you bringing anything more then he is. Why is your conspiracy theory any better then his?

Admitting you have a reading comprehension problem is a big first step for you to have taken. I'm proud of you.

 

[beachnut]

Which evidence? I don't see any of you bringing anything more then he is. Why is your conspiracy theory any better then his?

You are the one void of evidence supporting a clear lie.

You have no evidence to prove me wrong, and missed the clear evidence in this thread you have failed to find.

Please refute the evidence here in the thread making the OP false. You can't?

 

[TJM]

Which evidence? I don't see any of you bringing anything more then he is. Why is your conspiracy theory any better then his?

You've read the thread, haven't you?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Which evidence? I don't see any of you bringing anything more then he is. Why is your conspiracy theory any better then his?

There's never enough evidence from the standpoint you're at... why bother asking a rhetorical question when you'll never be convinced by the evidence we give you, no matter how much it falsifies you?

 

[mchapman]

There's never enough evidence from the standpoint you're at... why bother asking a rhetorical question when you'll never be convinced by the evidence we give you, no matter how much it falsifies you?

You have no evidence of anything. You just parrot an official story. Even the official story admits it has no hard evidence against osama but you still claim he did 911. You have absolutely no evidence of the identity of the hijackers, men who have had no trial.

 

[Homeland Insurgency]

There's never enough evidence from the standpoint you're at... why bother asking a rhetorical question when you'll never be convinced by the evidence we give you, no matter how much it falsifies you?

Live up to your own standards. You're not debunking anything you're pretending not to be a hypocrite.

 

[mchapman]

Admitting you have a reading comprehension problem is a big first step for you to have taken. I'm proud of you.

Perhaps you could summarize the huge volume of evidence you have to support the official story. it would give us something to practice our reading skills on.

 

[dudalb]

There's never enough evidence from the standpoint you're at... why bother asking a rhetorical question when you'll never be convinced by the evidence we give you, no matter how much it falsifies you?

I see that LostChild Homeland Insurgency's debating style has a very familiar ring.

Do not post accusations of sock puppetry.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson

 

[TJM]

You have no evidence of anything. You just parrot an official story. Even the official story admits it has no hard evidence against osama but you still claim he did 911. You have absolutely no evidence of the identity of the hijackers, men who have had no trial.

Dead men don't need a trial. How about addressing your OP?

 

[dudalb]

You have no evidence of anything. You just parrot an official story. Even the official story admits it has no hard evidence against osama but you still claim he did 911. You have absolutely no evidence of the identity of the hijackers, men who have had no trial.

No Planers should be very careful about accusing other people of having "no evidence" on the "people who live in Glass Houses,etc" principal.

 

[Drudgewire]

I see that LostChild Homeland Insurgency's debating style has a very familiar ring.

I can never tell one posting style from another, but every single time one's outed they'd already been on my ignore list just like the original persona.