The Path of destrction through the Pentagon is pretty absolute regardless of what you want to argue hit the pentagon. Corraborated by the destruction of the light poles, Any witness who wants to describe the path leading up to the Pentagon as something different is simply wrong. I think it's safe to assume we're not really scared of what you might bring to the table.
You must have had time accepting Santa Claus isn't real.
S4S, how many people have AA77 on the wrong side of the Citgo station?
1, 2, 4... 35??
Why are these people right and the overwhelming majority of witnesses wrong?
You must have had time accepting Santa Claus isn't real.
So it looks like I got my answer.
The very fact that you people will not accept it, will deny it as even possible, and haven't bothered to accept the implications speaks volumes. The mere fact that some of you are clamouring for proof also says a lot. It says that you get it, and now you want to see proof.
So I will accept that this would be considered a smoking gun and proof of 9/11 being an inside job in the Skeptics eyes, provided the Citgo witness' account will be proven correct or corroborated.
What are the implications of this? What is it a smoking gun for?
Go read the ASCE report, learn the impact damage, and understand the trajectory of the plane and position of the poles according the official story.
Go read the ASCE report, learn the impact damage, and understand the trajectory of the plane and position of the poles according the official story.
You should be scared if this is proven to be true.
So what you're saying is you're simply going to cross your arms, then plug your ears, and loudly exclaim, "nanny-nanny-na-na...I can't hear what you're saying".
Interesting that you bring this analogy into it. If your witness said they saw Santa Clause fly through the air at speed fast enough to bring all the toys, You'd apparently believe that too...You must have had time accepting Santa Claus isn't real.
No. I want to know what you think it implies, this new information.
It isn't obvious? Have you read some of the other comments from people in here. They get it.
Well, the problem as I see it is you're too scared to accept that the Official path of destruction is true. For all intents and purposes, True or false is immaterial, the Physical evidence simply is what it is. If the witness states something that cannot possibly be true, even if a few of them say the same thing, then I think it's reasonable for us to reject the witness.
Interesting that you bring this analogy into it. If your witness said they saw Santa Clause fly through the air at speed fast enough to bring all the toys, You'd apparently believe that too...
It isn't obvious? Have you read some of the other comments from people in here. They get it.
Ok, so in essence, "nanny-na-na, I won't be hearing what you're saying."
You can hold your breath all you want, you will simply be sucked up into the current.
So you pretty much won't believe anything but the official story? When you ask proof, the proof will never be good enough huh?
Ok I've got you figured out, there is no need discuss this with you any longer.
Why are you afraid to say what you think this means?
What happened to flight 77, in your opinion?
Strawman.
How many witnesses do you have, besides the cab driver that actually place the plane over the bridge, approaching from the Southwest?
How am I troll, scumbag?
Afraid? Who's afraid?
I know what it means. You don't. Figure it out.
If it approached from the north side of the gas station and pulled up over the highway, which theory makes the most sense at that point?