So you put the burden of a response on Roman to read an entire web site, including hundreds, maybe even thousands of BS articles? Don't *sheeple* let others think for them?
Read the timeline GT, there was no way in the world that the Illuminati were going to allow any of them planes to be intercepted in a 1 hour 30 minute period.
Landing a plane is much harder than flying a plane. But I see no reason why those guys would need any landing skills. If Gtech&Roman should read all that, then you should read some debunks of the stand down BS. And as I said before, I think Illuminati is popular by 911-CTs because of the fictional book by Dan Brown. I believe they control Bush&Cheney as much as Darth Vader controls Osama
People used to think Red M&M's were bad for you! I wonder if "the first interenet reporter" reported that too.
I think it was a missile shaped plane. Anyway, a plane was used as a "missile", to technically, if you want to argure semantics, I suppose... hmmm..
Maybe I got too far ahead on my question so let me start over. According to you, AGS, please answer this: 1) What hit the pentagon? 2) What hit the towers? 3) What, if anything, crashed in Pennsylvania? I ask for simple answers, no links please.
Saying missles hit the towers and pentagon is so disrespectful to the families who lost loved ones on 9/11...
Well, if your beloved heroes would release some proper CCTV footage we might find out. That's a dumbass question. It was 2 planes. We've all seen that mate. Looking at the evidence I would say nothing crashed there.
Does it really matter? I mean isn't the 911-CTs going to accuse the released footage for being edited? I would like to say that there's enough evidence to conclude that it was a plane. Eyewitnesses saw a plane, parts of planes were found, DNA samples from bodyparts, plane being tracked towards Pentagon. And where would that plane other dissappear(because we all know that the plane took off)? Also, it's common in other investigations that not all evidence is released to the public. That's because of emotional and moral reasons. Nothing? Eyewitnesses Debris
It's funny that you that you define Mia's posts as BS instead of doing your homework and start answering some posts that waits to be answered. I would like you to debunk my comment about your stand-down site, my Pentagon evidence and my Flight-93 evidence.
AGS, for all we know is really a bored scared 12 year old living in a trailer somewhere down by a river like Gworld. That or he is a really bored, scared, spoiled 30 year old living in Vale or Aspen, with mummy and daddy. I guess I would define a BS post as a post that contains an argument that is unsubstantiated, never backed up, and when the poster is called out, they simply ignore the thread they started the post in, and move onto another thread to post the same BS. Every one of AGS's posts resemble this "pattern". It's more than a "pattern" Lorien, it is a disease.
http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=227952 Could I get all of your opinions on 9/11? Mostly for the lefters, as I am trying to see both sides.
It's always enlightening to come into a thread and see someone else blast another with "low IQ" or "sheep" remarks to fight their little "I'm smarter than you" internet wars. Anyone can play the "I know more than you" on the Internet - but they're usually the sheep themselves. Anyone who tends to have a closed mind on the world and how governments work DEFINITELY, themselves, has a low enough IQ to become the sheep. Free your minds. Nobody is right ... Nobody is wrong. Stop acting like you know all.
A bunch of terrorists boarded planes, hijacked them, then flew them into various things, like buildings and dirt. That's pretty much it.
clenard, if you look through the thread.. "low IQ" comments is mostly used when the 911 CTs show inability in answering comments and questions. The sheeple argument is usually used when the 911-CT is about to give up. Also, I would like to answer jimmy_uk:s post here in order to not ruin a thread in which the author doesn't want any arguing. First, I would like to say that this kinds of attacks was uncommon in the western world until 911. US had a good army, but it wasn't properly designed to defend against terrorattacks. Attacks from Russia or China was more of an issue. That's another 911 factoid. I believe it was lowered from 4000 and came from the TV station Al-Manar. Read more about the debunk here and please come up with reliable sources. I'm not an expert on the London blast but I must say that coincidences is absent in world of conspiracy theories. Not the old "all people is good and therefore no fraction can be evil" argument again. And by the way, Osama has lots of gold. No seismological evidence of bombs going of in either of the buildings. A completely baseless theory. Finally a 911-CT that agrees on this. Get to the point! I don't think he did claim it and even if he did, he would find himself in trouble in order to prove that it was him and not Osama.