Global Outlook. 9/11 Truth Movement Magazine.
EagleEye
Sky King
Too bad you don't understand denial in its full form, Eaglette. "Truth"
is the 9/11 Denial Movement's euphemism for "Denial."
That is why we all know that the real title is obviously:
"The Magazine of the 9/11 Denial Movement."
When will you ever get it, Eaglette?
Stevel
Asmodeus
Get what?
That you are a drooling retard.
Sky King
How are those phone calls coming, StarIdiot? Got those statements from
the Pentagon rescue and recovery people yet? Or are you afriad like all
the other 9/11 Denier frauds and charlatans to face the truth?
Of course you are scared witless to make one single call, Starbozo,
knowing full well what the answer will be.
Asmodeus
Sky King wrote:
> Asmodeus wrote:
> > Sky King wrote:
> > > EagleEye wrote:
> > > > Global Outlook
> > > > The Magazine of the 9/11 Truth Movement
> > > > http://globaloutlook.ca/
> > >
> > > Too bad you don't understand denial in its full form, Eaglette. "Truth"
> > > is the 9/11 Denial Movement's euphemism for "Denial."
> > >
> > > That is why we all know that the real title is obviously:
> > >
> > > "The Magazine of the 9/11 Denial Movement."
> > >
> > > When will you ever get it, Eaglette?
> >
> > Get what?
> >
> > That you are a drooling retard.
>
> How are those phone calls coming, StarIdiot?
I think you should phone home Sky King.
Got those statements from
> the Pentagon rescue and recovery people yet?
What are you blathering about?
Or are you afriad like all
> the other 9/11 Denier frauds and charlatans to face the truth?
We've already faced the truth, that you are a government ass clown who
can't stay on topic.
>
> Of course you are scared witless to make one single call, Starbozo,
> knowing full well what the answer will be.
"Witless" is would definitely describe you Sky Clown.
ceniza
"EagleEye" <jne...@globalmanagement.ca> wrote in message
news:1126637634.6...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Sky King
Movement.
MuhammadColumbo
administration and its parrots on the net like Sky Confusor.
"Sky King" <sky...@scientist.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
1126702083.0...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
ceniza
some patsies put on a plane.
"MuhammadColumbo" <muhammad...@swing.be> wrote in message
news:43287485$0$2545$ba62...@news.skynet.be...
Sky King
MuhammadColumbo wrote:
> There is nothing more clear than the dishonesty about 9/11 of the US
> administration and its parrots on the net like Sky Confusor.
We're still waiting for you to tell us what happened to AA7, Muhammad.
What is taking you so long.
For your sci-fi scenario to work and for you to negate ALL of the
evince that shows AA77 hit the pentagon, you are going to have to tell
us what happned to it, what the wreakage at the Pentagon was, and who
is buried in the passengers grave.
But you won't because you cannot.
But you will lie through your teeth to avoid the fact that you MUST
answer many questions about AA77
MuhammadColumbo
"ceniza" <cen...@genserconadv.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
i9ydnaRzlJ5...@ntd.net...
> good poind, M-man. Your arab brethren had nothing to do with 9/11.
You have right. For proofs and evidences, see
http://users.swing.be/muhammadcolumbo/
> Just some patsies put on a plane.
Totally wrong. Accprding to the passenger's list published by the aviation
companies, there are NO ONE of the 19 arabs. We can imagine that some of
them, one, two or three hve used false identities. But 19 people with false
identities while they can use their own one, that is totally impossible.
For more proofs, see the link here up.
MuhammadColumbo
MuhammadColumbo wrote:
> There is nothing more clear than the dishonesty about 9/11 of the US
> administration and its parrots on the net like Sky Confusor.
*We're still waiting for you to tell us what happened to AA7, Muhammad.
*What is taking you so long.
You know, it never hit the Pentagone. If you consider that they find the
pasengers bodies and the debris, the conclusion is easy : Tt was crashed on
an other place. What ever can be that place, it is not the Pentagone.
That is at least the 4th answer.
Sky King
What answer?
No, it is at least the 50th evasion.
So it is clear that you cannot provide any evidence to show that AA77
crashed somewhere else (as I already showed when I debunked your
science-fiction scenario, Muhammad.)
The plane's wreakage was found in the Pentagon. Many witnesses saw AA7
hit the Pentagon. The remains of the passengers and crew were found at
the Pentagon. Hundreds of people cleaned up the wreakage and you
admitted that you could not interview them since, of course, you know
they would refute you.
So, it is clear, our dear little liar, Muhammad, that you have provided
no evidence to support your assertion that AA77 did not crash at the
Pentagon as ALL of the evidence demonstrates conclusively.
So, the question still remains. When are you are you going to provide
evidence that AA77 crashed somewhere else?
When, little Muhammad, when?
Sky King
MuhammadColumbo wrote:
> "ceniza" <cen...@genserconadv.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
> i9ydnaRzlJ5...@ntd.net...
> > good poind, M-man. Your arab brethren had nothing to do with 9/11.
>
> You have right. For proofs and evidences, see
> http://users.swing.be/muhammadcolumbo/
Proofs? There is no proof of anything on your sci-fi website, Muhammad.
You kiow that. There is only craziness and fiction, lies and more lies.
You REFUSE to provide one single proof of what happened to AA77 when
you claimed it did not hit the Pentagon.
You are a classic liar, Muhammad Columbo.
>
>
> > Just some patsies put on a plane.
>
> Totally wrong. Accprding to the passenger's list published by the aviation
> companies, there are NO ONE of the 19 arabs. We can imagine that some of
> them, one, two or three hve used false identities. But 19 people with false
> identities while they can use their own one, that is totally impossible.
ALL of the hijackers were Arabs working for OBL. There is no question
about that, Muhammad.
Stevel
Sky King wrote:
> MuhammadColumbo wrote:
> > "Sky King" <sky...@scientist.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
> > 1126792299.6...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > MuhammadColumbo wrote:
> > > There is nothing more clear than the dishonesty about 9/11 of the US
> > > administration and its parrots on the net like Sky Confusor.
> >
> > *We're still waiting for you to tell us what happened to AA7, Muhammad.
> > *What is taking you so long.
> >
> > You know, it never hit the Pentagone. If you consider that they find the
> > pasengers bodies and the debris, the conclusion is easy : Tt was crashed on
> > an other place. What ever can be that place, it is not the Pentagone.
> >
> > That is at least the 4th answer.
>
> What answer?
>
> No, it is at least the 50th evasion.
>
> So it is clear that you cannot provide any evidence to show that AA77
> crashed somewhere else (as I already showed when I debunked your
> science-fiction scenario, Muhammad.)
>
> The plane's wreakage was found in the Pentagon. Many witnesses saw AA7
> hit the Pentagon.
In fact no witnesses saw A77 crash into the Pentagon.
The only way flt A77 could be identified would be by its tail number
which would be far to small to be observed by any witnesses.
Flt AA77's transponder was switched off more than 30 minutes before an
aircraft crashed into the Pentagon. No transponder means no radar ID.
The aircraft was lost from all radar. An aircraft was picked up on
radar heading for Washington about 10 mins before it aparrantly crashed
into the Pentagon but there was no way for any independant witnesses
including ATC staff to verify that aircrafts identity.
> The remains of the passengers and crew were found at
> the Pentagon.
There is no verifiable way to prove this.
Remains were found somwhere. That is all we know.
>Hundreds of people cleaned up the wreakage
None of them saw an identifiable body and nothing was found to prove
the plane was flt AA77 that has been verified at the site a being from
a 757 or from AA77.
Some engine parts have been photographed at the site but nobody has
been able to demonstrate that it came from a 757 or from AA77
> and you
> admitted that you could not interview them since, of course, you know
> they would refute you.
>
> So, it is clear, our dear little liar, Muhammad, that you have provided
> no evidence to support your assertion that AA77 did not crash at the
> Pentagon as ALL of the evidence demonstrates conclusively.
>
> So, the question still remains. When are you are you going to provide
> evidence that AA77 crashed somewhere else?
>
> When, little Muhammad, when?
Muhammad does not have to prove what happened to AA77 but you claim it
ended up
in the Pentagon. You prove it.
Show us the videos that we all know exist and it might put an end to
speculation from both sides.
Stevel
Sky King
Stevel wrote:
> Sky King wrote:
> > MuhammadColumbo wrote:
> > > "Sky King" <sky...@scientist.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
> > > 1126792299.6...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > > MuhammadColumbo wrote:
> > > > There is nothing more clear than the dishonesty about 9/11 of the US
> > > > administration and its parrots on the net like Sky Confusor.
> > >
> > > *We're still waiting for you to tell us what happened to AA7, Muhammad.
> > > *What is taking you so long.
> > >
> > > You know, it never hit the Pentagone. If you consider that they find the
> > > pasengers bodies and the debris, the conclusion is easy : Tt was crashed on
> > > an other place. What ever can be that place, it is not the Pentagone.
> > >
> > > That is at least the 4th answer.
> >
> > What answer?
> >
> > No, it is at least the 50th evasion.
> >
> > So it is clear that you cannot provide any evidence to show that AA77
> > crashed somewhere else (as I already showed when I debunked your
> > science-fiction scenario, Muhammad.)
> >
> > The plane's wreakage was found in the Pentagon. Many witnesses saw AA7
> > hit the Pentagon.
>
> In fact no witnesses saw A77 crash into the Pentagon.
Yes, they did. Muhammad and every other twit here called them liars
without a stitch of evidence (as usual.)
> The only way flt A77 could be identified would be by its tail number
> which would be far to small to be observed by any witnesses.
LOL. They didn't have to identify the tail number to know the bloody
big thing was an American Airlines passenger jet, idiot.
> Flt AA77's transponder was switched off more than 30 minutes before an
> aircraft crashed into the Pentagon. No transponder means no radar ID.
> The aircraft was lost from all radar. An aircraft was picked up on
> radar heading for Washington about 10 mins before it aparrantly crashed
> into the Pentagon but there was no way for any independant witnesses
> including ATC staff to verify that aircrafts identity.
Many witnesses - the one you claim don't exist - were not only
knowledgable like most people are to identify that not only was it an
American Airlines passenger jet, but that it was a Boeing 757. The fact
that you have no concept of the convergence of evidence is irrelevant.
There is no question that the Boeing 757 was the missing AA77 minutes
after it crashed, but the identification of the remains of the
passengers only added to the irrefutable evidence.
>
> > The remains of the passengers and crew were found at
> > the Pentagon.
>
> There is no verifiable way to prove this.
Done. DNA.
> Remains were found somwhere. That is all we know.
They were found in the Pentagon. No rational person contests that.
>
> >Hundreds of people cleaned up the wreakage
>
> None of them saw an identifiable body and nothing was found to prove
> the plane was flt AA77 that has been verified at the site a being from
> a 757 or from AA77.
Provide their testimony to support that assertion. There were hundreds
of rescue and recovery personnel. Please note that NO 9/11 Denier
Movement member has ever DARED contact those rescuers since they were
first asked to almost 4 years ago. Not one single 9/11 denier.
You could be the first. Wiil you?
> Some engine parts have been photographed at the site but nobody has
> been able to demonstrate that it came from a 757 or from AA77
Yes they have. Both engines and the APU.
>
> > and you
> > admitted that you could not interview them since, of course, you know
> > they would refute you.
> >
> > So, it is clear, our dear little liar, Muhammad, that you have provided
> > no evidence to support your assertion that AA77 did not crash at the
> > Pentagon as ALL of the evidence demonstrates conclusively.
> >
> > So, the question still remains. When are you are you going to provide
> > evidence that AA77 crashed somewhere else?
> >
> > When, little Muhammad, when?
>
> Muhammad does not have to prove what happened to AA77 but you claim it
> ended up
> in the Pentagon.
Ah... the classic evasion. Nobody credible disputes the overwheleming
evidence that AA77 hit the Pentagon. Muhammad and YOU have to refute
that evidence. Muhammad and YOU HAVE to provide evidence of what did
happen to AA77 if you claim it didn't hit the Pentagon. You cannot
wiggle out of that responsibility as much as it is necessary for every
9/11 denier here to deny inconvenient evidence.
You lose.
Muhammad HAS to support his scenario with factual evidence. He does not
get to choose what evidence he doesn't want to include. Neither do you.
But he REFUSES and you do too.
Your house of cards is falling, bubba stevel.
You'd better start calling those rescue and recovery personnel to learn
what they saw, walked through, and recovered to support you assertion,
bubba stevel.
Here are the numbers:
Arlinton County Fire Dept
Phone: 703-228-3362
Alexandria Fire Department
703-706-3940 x218
Fort Myer Fire Department
703-696-3483
Fairfax County Fire and Rescue Department
703-815-5523
703-246-2126
Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority
(703) 417-8370
Virginia State Police, Virginia Department of Emergency Management, the
FBI, FEMA, National Medical Response Team, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
and Firearms,
> You prove it.
No. its your responsibility to prove your case.
> Show us the videos that we all know exist and it might put an end to
> speculation from both sides.
There is no speculation. There is NO need of videos to PROVE what the
evidence already conclusively demonstrates.
You need to overturn all of that evidence. You'd better get to work.
You got a lot of phone calls to make, bubba stevel.
Then you can refute this:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.html
age...@justicespammail.com
>
>Sky King wrote:
>> MuhammadColumbo wrote:
>> > "Sky King" <sky...@scientist.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
>> > 1126792299.6...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > MuhammadColumbo wrote:
>> > > There is nothing more clear than the dishonesty about 9/11 of the US
>> > > administration and its parrots on the net like Sky Confusor.
>> >
>> > *We're still waiting for you to tell us what happened to AA7, Muhammad.
>> > *What is taking you so long.
>> >
>> > You know, it never hit the Pentagone. If you consider that they find the
>> > pasengers bodies and the debris, the conclusion is easy : Tt was crashed on
>> > an other place. What ever can be that place, it is not the Pentagone.
>> >
>> > That is at least the 4th answer.
>>
>> What answer?
>>
>> No, it is at least the 50th evasion.
>>
>> So it is clear that you cannot provide any evidence to show that AA77
>> crashed somewhere else (as I already showed when I debunked your
>> science-fiction scenario, Muhammad.)
>>
>> The plane's wreakage was found in the Pentagon. Many witnesses saw AA7
>> hit the Pentagon.
>
>In fact no witnesses saw A77 crash into the Pentagon.
Lie.
>The only way flt A77 could be identified would be by its tail number
>which would be far to small to be observed by any witnesses.
But it could be identified as an American Airlines passenger jet.
>Flt AA77's transponder was switched off more than 30 minutes before an
>aircraft crashed into the Pentagon. No transponder means no radar ID.
>The aircraft was lost from all radar. An aircraft was picked up on
>radar heading for Washington about 10 mins before it aparrantly crashed
>into the Pentagon but there was no way for any independant witnesses
>including ATC staff to verify that aircrafts identity.
So where is N644AA?
>> The remains of the passengers and crew were found at
>> the Pentagon.
>
>There is no verifiable way to prove this.
>Remains were found somwhere. That is all we know.
Only the testimony of the people who found them and identified them.
But then to you they are all liars. Just like the people who saw the
plane. And the people who recovered the aircraft parts. And the
American Airlines people who "lost" an aircraft. Right?
>>Hundreds of people cleaned up the wreakage
>
>None of them saw an identifiable body
Cite?
>and nothing was found to prove the plane was flt AA77
Only pieces of the aircrafts engines, skin, wheels, landing gear, etc.
>that has been verified at the site a being from
>a 757 or from AA77.
Only pieces of the aircrafts engines, skin, wheels, landing gear, etc.
>Some engine parts have been photographed at the site but nobody has
>been able to demonstrate that it came from a 757 or from AA77
Only because you keep your eyes closed and your fingers in your ears
when people show them to you.
>> and you
>> admitted that you could not interview them since, of course, you know
>> they would refute you.
>>
>> So, it is clear, our dear little liar, Muhammad, that you have provided
>> no evidence to support your assertion that AA77 did not crash at the
>> Pentagon as ALL of the evidence demonstrates conclusively.
>>
>> So, the question still remains. When are you are you going to provide
>> evidence that AA77 crashed somewhere else?
>>
>> When, little Muhammad, when?
>
>Muhammad does not have to prove what happened to AA77 but you claim it
>ended up
>in the Pentagon. You prove it.
>Show us the videos that we all know exist and it might put an end to
>speculation from both sides.
You've already said that you won't be able to identify the aircraft as
Flight 77 by looking at it in a video. But besides that you'll just
claim that any videos of a 757 flying into the Pentagon were doctored.
So what's the point?
sste...@aol.com
Yes they do moron. No tail number then no ID.
They saw an aircraft. Various witnesses saw small plane,big plane.more
than one plane! None could positivley ID the plane as AA77.
> > Flt AA77's transponder was switched off more than 30 minutes before an
> > aircraft crashed into the Pentagon. No transponder means no radar ID.
> > The aircraft was lost from all radar. An aircraft was picked up on
> > radar heading for Washington about 10 mins before it aparrantly crashed
> > into the Pentagon but there was no way for any independant witnesses
> > including ATC staff to verify that aircrafts identity.
>
> Many witnesses - the one you claim don't exist - were not only
> knowledgable like most people are to identify that not only was it an
> American Airlines passenger jet, but that it was a Boeing 757. The fact
> that you have no concept of the convergence of evidence is irrelevant.
> There is no question that the Boeing 757 was the missing AA77 minutes
> after it crashed, but the identification of the remains of the
> passengers only added to the irrefutable evidence.
> >
> > > The remains of the passengers and crew were found at
> > > the Pentagon.
> >
> > There is no verifiable way to prove this.
>
> Done. DNA.
>
> > Remains were found somwhere. That is all we know.
>
> They were found in the Pentagon. No rational person contests that.
Shure the "If you don't believe me you must be mad" excuse.
No rational person believes any thing the Bush administration cooks up
without independent proof. They have never been known to tell the
truth.
Their lies are on the other hand are legion.
> > >Hundreds of people cleaned up the wreakage
> >
> > None of them saw an identifiable body and nothing was found to prove
> > the plane was flt AA77 that has been verified at the site a being from
> > a 757 or from AA77.
>
> Provide their testimony to support that assertion. There were hundreds
> of rescue and recovery personnel. Please note that NO 9/11 Denier
> Movement member has ever DARED contact those rescuers since they were
> first asked to almost 4 years ago. Not one single 9/11 denier.
You are the one who claimes it was flt AA77 where is your proof and
testimony?
> You could be the first. Wiil you?
>
> > Some engine parts have been photographed at the site but nobody has
> > been able to demonstrate that it came from a 757 or from AA77
>
> Yes they have. Both engines and the APU.
Not so.
> > > and you
> > > admitted that you could not interview them since, of course, you know
> > > they would refute you.
> > >
> > > So, it is clear, our dear little liar, Muhammad, that you have provided
> > > no evidence to support your assertion that AA77 did not crash at the
> > > Pentagon as ALL of the evidence demonstrates conclusively.
> > >
> > > So, the question still remains. When are you are you going to provide
> > > evidence that AA77 crashed somewhere else?
> > >
> > > When, little Muhammad, when?
> >
> > Muhammad does not have to prove what happened to AA77 but you claim it
> > ended up
> > in the Pentagon.
>
> Ah... the classic evasion. Nobody credible disputes the overwheleming
> evidence that AA77 hit the Pentagon. Muhammad and YOU have to refute
> that evidence. Muhammad and YOU HAVE to provide evidence of what did
> happen to AA77 if you claim it didn't hit the Pentagon. You cannot
> wiggle out of that responsibility as much as it is necessary for every
> 9/11 denier here to deny inconvenient evidence.
Credibility is the problem. The Bush administration has none at all.
Hearsay evidence won't do. There should have been an immidiate
independent
enquiry with with a full disclosure of all the evidence.
Its never happened. Why is that?????
> You lose.
Not to you.
I keep asking you to produce this mythical conclusive evidence yet so
far you are quite unable to.
You are the one who claims to know what happened but you can't produce
any evidence!!
Phone numbers won't do.
On the other hand I don't claim to know. Only that none of the so
called evidence produced so far gives me any reason to believe that the
"official"
story is anything other than a pack of lies.
Have you ever heard of "Operation Northwoods" ?
> You need to overturn all of that evidence. You'd better get to work.
> You got a lot of phone calls to make, bubba stevel.
As I said phone numbers are not evidence.
> Then you can refute this:
> http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.html
Very glad you produced this link.
The engine shown is not from an RB211 as it claims.
The exaust ports are the wrong shape!
The UC wheel shown is not the same as the one ID'ed as from a 757.
Count the slots!!!
The Graphic of the pentagon only shows the outer wall and the D ring
wall
as though none other exist!
If the Aircraft fuselage made the 16-20 ft hole where are the holes the
engines made? They weren't made of putty!
What happened to the wings? Into thin air? No holes?
Look at the pics of the holes the aircraft wings made in the twin
towers.
You realy are a gullible idiot.
Stevel
Stevel
Ask Donald or Dick'
> >> The remains of the passengers and crew were found at
> >> the Pentagon.
> >
> >There is no verifiable way to prove this.
> >Remains were found somwhere. That is all we know.
>
> Only the testimony of the people who found them and identified them.
> But then to you they are all liars. Just like the people who saw the
> plane. And the people who recovered the aircraft parts. And the
> American Airlines people who "lost" an aircraft. Right?
What testimony?
> >>Hundreds of people cleaned up the wreakage
> >
> >None of them saw an identifiable body
>
> Cite?
I am still waiting for you to come up with some.
All I have is questions but you have no satisfactory answers.
> >and nothing was found to prove the plane was flt AA77
>
> Only pieces of the aircrafts engines, skin, wheels, landing gear, etc.
>
> >that has been verified at the site a being from
> >a 757 or from AA77.
>
> Only pieces of the aircrafts engines, skin, wheels, landing gear, etc.
Not so.
> >Some engine parts have been photographed at the site but nobody has
> >been able to demonstrate that it came from a 757 or from AA77
>
> Only because you keep your eyes closed and your fingers in your ears
> when people show them to you.
Give me some real proof. If what you say is true it would be easy for
you.
> >> and you
> >> admitted that you could not interview them since, of course, you know
> >> they would refute you.
> >>
> >> So, it is clear, our dear little liar, Muhammad, that you have provided
> >> no evidence to support your assertion that AA77 did not crash at the
> >> Pentagon as ALL of the evidence demonstrates conclusively.
> >>
> >> So, the question still remains. When are you are you going to provide
> >> evidence that AA77 crashed somewhere else?
> >>
> >> When, little Muhammad, when?
> >
> >Muhammad does not have to prove what happened to AA77 but you claim it
> >ended up
> >in the Pentagon. You prove it.
> >Show us the videos that we all know exist and it might put an end to
> >speculation from both sides.
>
> You've already said that you won't be able to identify the aircraft as
> Flight 77 by looking at it in a video. But besides that you'll just
> claim that any videos of a 757 flying into the Pentagon were doctored.
> So what's the point?
Why is it being hidden then?
Perhaps they don't show a 757.
Stevel
sste...@aol.com
Yes they do moron. No tail number then no ID.
They saw an aircraft. Various witnesses saw small plane,big plane.more
than one plane! None could positivley ID the plane as AA77.
> > Flt AA77's transponder was switched off more than 30 minutes before an
> > aircraft crashed into the Pentagon. No transponder means no radar ID.
> > The aircraft was lost from all radar. An aircraft was picked up on
> > radar heading for Washington about 10 mins before it aparrantly crashed
> > into the Pentagon but there was no way for any independant witnesses
> > including ATC staff to verify that aircrafts identity.
>
> Many witnesses - the one you claim don't exist - were not only
> knowledgable like most people are to identify that not only was it an
> American Airlines passenger jet, but that it was a Boeing 757. The fact
> that you have no concept of the convergence of evidence is irrelevant.
> There is no question that the Boeing 757 was the missing AA77 minutes
> after it crashed, but the identification of the remains of the
> passengers only added to the irrefutable evidence.
> >
> > > The remains of the passengers and crew were found at
> > > the Pentagon.
> >
> > There is no verifiable way to prove this.
>
> Done. DNA.
>
> > Remains were found somwhere. That is all we know.
>
> They were found in the Pentagon. No rational person contests that.
Shure the "If you don't believe me you must be mad" excuse.
No rational person believes any thing the Bush administration cooks up
without independent proof. They have never been known to tell the
truth.
Their lies are on the other hand are legion.
> > >Hundreds of people cleaned up the wreakage
> >
> > None of them saw an identifiable body and nothing was found to prove
> > the plane was flt AA77 that has been verified at the site a being from
> > a 757 or from AA77.
>
> Provide their testimony to support that assertion. There were hundreds
> of rescue and recovery personnel. Please note that NO 9/11 Denier
> Movement member has ever DARED contact those rescuers since they were
> first asked to almost 4 years ago. Not one single 9/11 denier.
You are the one who claimes it was flt AA77 where is your proof and
testimony?
> You could be the first. Wiil you?
>
> > Some engine parts have been photographed at the site but nobody has
> > been able to demonstrate that it came from a 757 or from AA77
>
> Yes they have. Both engines and the APU.
Not so.
> > > and you
> > > admitted that you could not interview them since, of course, you know
> > > they would refute you.
> > >
> > > So, it is clear, our dear little liar, Muhammad, that you have provided
> > > no evidence to support your assertion that AA77 did not crash at the
> > > Pentagon as ALL of the evidence demonstrates conclusively.
> > >
> > > So, the question still remains. When are you are you going to provide
> > > evidence that AA77 crashed somewhere else?
> > >
> > > When, little Muhammad, when?
> >
> > Muhammad does not have to prove what happened to AA77 but you claim it
> > ended up
> > in the Pentagon.
>
> Ah... the classic evasion. Nobody credible disputes the overwheleming
> evidence that AA77 hit the Pentagon. Muhammad and YOU have to refute
> that evidence. Muhammad and YOU HAVE to provide evidence of what did
> happen to AA77 if you claim it didn't hit the Pentagon. You cannot
> wiggle out of that responsibility as much as it is necessary for every
> 9/11 denier here to deny inconvenient evidence.
Credibility is the problem. The Bush administration has none at all.
Hearsay evidence won't do. There should have been an immidiate
independent
enquiry with with a full disclosure of all the evidence.
Its never happened. Why is that?????
> You lose.
Not to you.
> Muhammad HAS to support his scenario with factual evidence. He does not
I keep asking you to produce this mythical conclusive evidence yet so
far you are quite unable to.
You are the one who claims to know what happened but you can't produce
any evidence!!
Phone numbers won't do.
On the other hand I don't claim to know. Only that none of the so
called evidence produced so far gives me any reason to believe that the
"official"
story is anything other than a pack of lies.
Have you ever heard of "Operation Northwoods" ?
> You need to overturn all of that evidence. You'd better get to work.
> You got a lot of phone calls to make, bubba stevel.
As I said phone numbers are not evidence.
> Then you can refute this:
> http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.html
Very glad you produced this link.
Black People Don't Care About George Bush
Sky King
No they don't, idiot.
> They saw an aircraft.
They saw an American Airlines pasenger jet. Some, knowing passenger
jets like people know auto makes, identified it as a Boeing 757. Some
saw it HIT the Pentagon.
> Various witnesses saw small plane,big plane.more
> than one plane! None could positivley ID the plane as AA77.
They identified it as an American Airlines Boeing 757, dense idiot.
What's the matter with your brain anyway?
Within minutes it was INFERRED by the CONVERGENCE of evidence from
different sources that it was AA77, later CONFIRMED by the
identification of wreakage and DNA identification of the remains.
How long do you think you think you can get away with your irrtional,
illogical, and stupid thinking, bubba stevel?
>
> > > Flt AA77's transponder was switched off more than 30 minutes before an
> > > aircraft crashed into the Pentagon. No transponder means no radar ID.
> > > The aircraft was lost from all radar. An aircraft was picked up on
> > > radar heading for Washington about 10 mins before it aparrantly crashed
> > > into the Pentagon but there was no way for any independant witnesses
> > > including ATC staff to verify that aircrafts identity.
> >
> > Many witnesses - the one you claim don't exist - were not only
> > knowledgable like most people are to identify that not only was it an
> > American Airlines passenger jet, but that it was a Boeing 757. The fact
> > that you have no concept of the convergence of evidence is irrelevant.
> > There is no question that the Boeing 757 was the missing AA77 minutes
> > after it crashed, but the identification of the remains of the
> > passengers only added to the irrefutable evidence.
>
>
> > >
> > > > The remains of the passengers and crew were found at
> > > > the Pentagon.
> > >
> > > There is no verifiable way to prove this.
> >
> > Done. DNA.
> >
> > > Remains were found somwhere. That is all we know.
> >
> > They were found in the Pentagon. No rational person contests that.
>
> Shure the "If you don't believe me you must be mad" excuse.
Why would anyone believe you when you cannot support your silly
conspiracy assertion with one bit of evidence and cannot overturn the
overwhelming, massive, uncontested evidence that it was indeed AA77?
Give us a good reason, bubba stevel.
>
> No rational person believes any thing the Bush administration cooks up
> without independent proof. They have never been known to tell the
> truth.
> Their lies are on the other hand are legion.
That ruse has NEVER worked, bubba.
The Bush adminsistration has NOTHING to do with the evidence confirmed
at the Pentagon by hundreds of different independent sources and
thousands of pieces of evidence.
>
> > > >Hundreds of people cleaned up the wreakage
> > >
> > > None of them saw an identifiable body and nothing was found to prove
> > > the plane was flt AA77 that has been verified at the site a being from
> > > a 757 or from AA77.
> >
> > Provide their testimony to support that assertion. There were hundreds
> > of rescue and recovery personnel. Please note that NO 9/11 Denier
> > Movement member has ever DARED contact those rescuers since they were
> > first asked to almost 4 years ago. Not one single 9/11 denier.
>
> You are the one who claimes it was flt AA77 where is your proof and
> testimony?
You've already been called on that one, bubba. Quit stalling.
When are you going to being evidence supporting your contention that it
was not AA77.
When, bubba stevel, WHEN?
When are you going to sart making those phobe calss, idiot?
>
> > You could be the first. Wiil you?
> >
> > > Some engine parts have been photographed at the site but nobody has
> > > been able to demonstrate that it came from a 757 or from AA77
> >
> > Yes they have. Both engines and the APU.
>
> Not so.
Absolutely so.
>
> > > > and you
> > > > admitted that you could not interview them since, of course, you know
> > > > they would refute you.
> > > >
> > > > So, it is clear, our dear little liar, Muhammad, that you have provided
> > > > no evidence to support your assertion that AA77 did not crash at the
> > > > Pentagon as ALL of the evidence demonstrates conclusively.
> > > >
> > > > So, the question still remains. When are you are you going to provide
> > > > evidence that AA77 crashed somewhere else?
> > > >
> > > > When, little Muhammad, when?
> > >
> > > Muhammad does not have to prove what happened to AA77 but you claim it
> > > ended up
> > > in the Pentagon.
> >
> > Ah... the classic evasion. Nobody credible disputes the overwheleming
> > evidence that AA77 hit the Pentagon. Muhammad and YOU have to refute
> > that evidence. Muhammad and YOU HAVE to provide evidence of what did
> > happen to AA77 if you claim it didn't hit the Pentagon. You cannot
> > wiggle out of that responsibility as much as it is necessary for every
> > 9/11 denier here to deny inconvenient evidence.
>
> Credibility is the problem. The Bush administration has none at all.
The evidence has zero to do with Bush. Quit dodging.
> Hearsay evidence won't do. There should have been an immidiate
> independent
> enquiry with with a full disclosure of all the evidence.
There is no hearsay evbidence. There is a MASSIVE amount of independent
evidence that converges on the FACT that it was AA77.
Now, bubba stevel, WHEN are you going to quit weaseling and bring us
the evidence to support your assertion that it was NOT AA77. How long
are you going to continue to stall and evade the issue?
> Its never happened. Why is that?????
AA77 hit the Pentagon. No rational person contests the evidence.
>
> > You lose.
>
> Not to you.
So far, you've lost to me big time. You can't provide the answer to any
question concerning AA77.
Quit evading, idiot.
> You are the one who claims to know what happened but you can't produce
> any evidence!!
You are the one disputing the evidence. Prove it.
> Phone numbers won't do.
Phone numbers do very nicely, idiot. It is up to YOU to contact those
rescue and recovery personel to get their statemnts to SUPPORT your
assertion. Got that through your thick skull, bubba stevel?
>
> On the other hand I don't claim to know.
Well, duh, why in hell do you think YOU have to gather the evidence
from those who were there? Why do you think I gave YOU the contact
numbers so you can CONFIRM for yourself that AA77 did or did not crash
into the Pentagon. YOU are the one contesting the evidence - no
rational person is.
So far you cannot explain what happened to AA77 and what crashed into
the Pentagon. That is a problem that is YOURS and yours alone. Support
your assertions or concede.
> Only that none of the so
> called evidence produced so far gives me any reason to believe that the
> "official"
> story is anything other than a pack of lies.
There is no "official story" that you have to contend with. There is
only the evidence from hundreds of idependent sources which you are
evading and refusing to deal with, the hallmark of all deniers. All you
are doing is makin
>
> Have you ever heard of "Operation Northwoods" ?
>
>
> > You need to overturn all of that evidence. You'd better get to work.
> > You got a lot of phone calls to make, bubba stevel.
>
> As I said phone numbers are not evidence.
>
> > Then you can refute this:
> > http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.html
>
> Very glad you produced this link.
> The engine shown is not from an RB211 as it claims.
The outside picture is of the APU. Duh.
The engine shown inside is indeed the Rolls Royce engine from AA77.
> The exaust ports are the wrong shape!
Nope.
> The UC wheel shown is not the same as the one ID'ed as from a 757.
Yes it is.
> Count the slots!!!
No need to. It is identical.
> The Graphic of the pentagon only shows the outer wall and the D ring
> wall
> as though none other exist!
A lack of a graphic is not a lack of evidence.
> If the Aircraft fuselage made the 16-20 ft hole where are the holes the
> engines made? They weren't made of putty!
The engines, aircraft parts, seats, passenger remains, are those of
AA77. What part still confuses your dense brain, bubba?
> What happened to the wings? Into thin air? No holes?
The wings disintegrated. Duh.
> Look at the pics of the holes the aircraft wings made in the twin
> towers.
Different construction. Duh.
>
> You realy are a gullible idiot.
Then how come you just listed all the reasons why you are a full blown
idiot, bubba stevel.
Refute the evidence by bringing evidence to the table.
WHEN are you going to do that?
WHEN are you going to make those phone calls, idiot boy?
sste...@aol.com
Exactly who has all this evidence?
> > > > >Hundreds of people cleaned up the wreakage
> > > >
> > > > None of them saw an identifiable body and nothing was found to prove
> > > > the plane was flt AA77 that has been verified at the site a being from
> > > > a 757 or from AA77.
> > >
> > > Provide their testimony to support that assertion. There were hundreds
> > > of rescue and recovery personnel. Please note that NO 9/11 Denier
> > > Movement member has ever DARED contact those rescuers since they were
> > > first asked to almost 4 years ago. Not one single 9/11 denier.
> >
> > You are the one who claimes it was flt AA77 where is your proof and
> > testimony?
>
> You've already been called on that one, bubba. Quit stalling.
>
> When are you going to being evidence supporting your contention that it
> was not AA77.
>
> When, bubba stevel, WHEN?
>
> When are you going to sart making those phobe calss, idiot?
You have called nobody on anything.
I am still waiting for you to produce but you can't because you know
you have
nothing but tainted hearsay nonsense.
It has everything to do with the lies and evasions of the Bush
ADMINISTRATION.
> > Hearsay evidence won't do. There should have been an immediate
> > independent
> > enquiry with with a full disclosure of all the evidence.
>
> There is no hearsay evbidence. There is a MASSIVE amount of independent
> evidence that converges on the FACT that it was AA77.
>
> Now, bubba stevel, WHEN are you going to quit weaseling and bring us
> the evidence to support your assertion that it was NOT AA77. How long
> are you going to continue to stall and evade the issue?
All I know is that an aircraft hit the most heavily defended building
in America
even though Rumsfeld knew it was coming for at least 10 minutes.
Nothing was done to prevent it. Why was that?
No reliable evidence has shown it was Flt AA77 some of the photos
suggest
it was not even a 757.
> > Its never happened. Why is that?????
>
> AA77 hit the Pentagon. No rational person contests the evidence.
>
>
> >
> > > You lose.
> >
> > Not to you.
>
> So far, you've lost to me big time. You can't provide the answer to any
> question concerning AA77.
You have no proof that it was.
You are the evading one moron.
> > You are the one who claims to know what happened but you can't produce
> > any evidence!!
>
> You are the one disputing the evidence. Prove it.
What evidence????
> > Phone numbers won't do.
>
> Phone numbers do very nicely, idiot. It is up to YOU to contact those
> rescue and recovery personel to get their statemnts to SUPPORT your
> assertion. Got that through your thick skull, bubba stevel?
>
> >
> > On the other hand I don't claim to know.
>
> Well, duh, why in hell do you think YOU have to gather the evidence
> from those who were there? Why do you think I gave YOU the contact
> numbers so you can CONFIRM for yourself that AA77 did or did not crash
> into the Pentagon. YOU are the one contesting the evidence - no
> rational person is.
>
> So far you cannot explain what happened to AA77 and what crashed into
> the Pentagon. That is a problem that is YOURS and yours alone. Support
> your assertions or concede.
When you provide the proof.
> > Only that none of the so
> > called evidence produced so far gives me any reason to believe that the
> > "official"
> > story is anything other than a pack of lies.
>
> There is no "official story" that you have to contend with. There is
> only the evidence from hundreds of idependent sources which you are
> evading and refusing to deal with, the hallmark of all deniers. All you
> are doing is makin
> >
Have you ever heard of "Operation Northwoods" ?
> >
> >
> > > You need to overturn all of that evidence. You'd better get to work.
> > > You got a lot of phone calls to make, bubba stevel.
> >
> > As I said phone numbers are not evidence.
> >
> > > Then you can refute this:
> > > http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.html
> >
> > Very glad you produced this link.
> > The engine shown is not from an RB211 as it claims.
>
> The outside picture is of the APU. Duh.
>From what aircraft?
> The engine shown inside is indeed the Rolls Royce engine from AA77.
>
The exaust ports are the wrong shape!
>
> Nope.
Yep
> > The UC wheel shown is not the same as the one ID'ed as from a 757.
>
> Yes it is.
>
> > Count the slots!!!
>
> No need to. It is identical.
You really are stupid aren't you.
COUNT THE SLOTS!!!!
> > The Graphic of the pentagon only shows the outer wall and the D ring
> > wall
> > as though none other exist!
>
> A lack of a graphic is not a lack of evidence.
It shows an intention to mislead.
> > If the Aircraft fuselage made the 16-20 ft hole where are the holes the
> > engines made? They weren't made of putty!
>
> The engines, aircraft parts, seats, passenger remains, are those of
> AA77. What part still confuses your dense brain, bubba?
>
> > What happened to the wings? Into thin air? No holes?
>
> The wings disintegrated. Duh.
>
> > Look at the pics of the holes the aircraft wings made in the twin
> > towers.
>
> Different construction. Duh.
>
Where are the remains??
You really are a gullible idiot.
>
> Then how come you just listed all the reasons why you are a full blown
> idiot, bubba stevel.
>
> Refute the evidence by bringing evidence to the table.
Bring the evidence first moron.
WHEN are you going to do that?
>
> WHEN are you going to make those phone calls, idiot boy?
When are you going to put up?
You are a shit scared Neocon moron who knows your leaders lies are
unravelling.
Stevel
EagleEye
> in America even though Rumsfeld knew it was coming for at least 10 minutes.
Make that well over 30 minutes - even AFTER the 2nd plane hit the south
tower.
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/mastermap5.jpg
And that Hani Hanjour - what a PILOT!!!
Navitages like a true aviator and pulls an incredible downward spiral
from 7000 feet, to finally make a high performance turn to hit the
OPPOSITE side of the Pentagon, skimming the grass without leaving a
mark, and depositing a Boeing 757 through a 14-16 foot hole, leaving no
impact damage on the outer wall from wings, engines, or verticle
stabilizer.
Pretty incredible for a man who, months prior was not even permitted to
fly a Cessna solo due to extremely poor navigation and flying
capabilities, even though he was apparently awarded a commercial pilots
liscence. Pretty amazing for someone with ZERO flight time in a real
Boeing. Quite ABSURD in fact, is the official story regarding the
Pentagon strike, and why no shots of the plane hitting the building,
except a "leaked" FIVE frame piece of shit, showing what looks like the
smoke of the Roadrunner trailing the ground, with a rear verticle
stablizer wing (in one frame) with no nose section (in the same frame).
Utterly absurd, and anyone who, knowing all of this and much much more,
who still clings to the official story at any and all cost, even to the
truth and reality itself, ought to be ashamed really. People like 9/11
Liar Sky King and Frank Dwyer.
Sky King
LOL. Who has the evidence that the Titantic sank?
What a dumb question, revealing of the idiocy of the 9/11 Denial
Movement.
What to the eyewitnesses to the crash of AA77 into the Pentagon "have"?
What do the hundreds of rescue and recovery personel who were at the
Pentagon in the minutes, hours, and days "have", bubba stevel?
What does the independent ASCE "have", bubba?
>
> > > > > >Hundreds of people cleaned up the wreakage
> > > > >
> > > > > None of them saw an identifiable body and nothing was found to prove
> > > > > the plane was flt AA77 that has been verified at the site a being from
> > > > > a 757 or from AA77.
> > > >
> > > > Provide their testimony to support that assertion. There were hundreds
> > > > of rescue and recovery personnel. Please note that NO 9/11 Denier
> > > > Movement member has ever DARED contact those rescuers since they were
> > > > first asked to almost 4 years ago. Not one single 9/11 denier.
> > >
> > > You are the one who claimes it was flt AA77 where is your proof and
> > > testimony?
> >
> > You've already been called on that one, bubba. Quit stalling.
> >
> > When are you going to being evidence supporting your contention that it
> > was not AA77.
> >
> > When, bubba stevel, WHEN?
> >
> > When are you going to sart making those phobe calss, idiot?
>
> You have called nobody on anything.
Of course not. I am not the one contesting the evidence. I am not the
one make wild-ass claims; YOU are!
> I am still waiting for you to produce but you can't because you know
> you have
> nothing but tainted hearsay nonsense.
Cite?
Of course you are dodging your responsibility to support YOUR assertion
that what happened did not happen, bubba stevel.
I don't have to do a bloody thing other than to make it clear that you
are not getting away with your evasions and your responsibility to
support YOUR assertions.
Now, when are you going to start making those phone calls to prove YOUR
case, weasel stevel?
Your desperation is showing again.
You know, bubba, that worn-out, desperate dodge of the 9/11 Denial
Movement has long-since been laughed away. You can't be SO dumb not to
know that.
The evidence from hundreds of independent sources from credible
witnesses, unconnected in any way and from different locations, who saw
the 757 hit the Pentagon right on down the line who were never
controlled by the government nor could be puts your whining to shame.
Grow up.
>
> > > Hearsay evidence won't do. There should have been an immediate
> > > independent
> > > enquiry with with a full disclosure of all the evidence.
> >
> > There is no hearsay evbidence. There is a MASSIVE amount of independent
> > evidence that converges on the FACT that it was AA77.
> >
> > Now, bubba stevel, WHEN are you going to quit weaseling and bring us
> > the evidence to support your assertion that it was NOT AA77. How long
> > are you going to continue to stall and evade the issue?
>
> All I know is that an aircraft hit the most heavily defended building
> in America
> even though Rumsfeld knew it was coming for at least 10 minutes.
Cite.
> Nothing was done to prevent it. Why was that?
Cite.
> No reliable evidence has shown it was Flt AA77 some of the photos
> suggest
> it was not even a 757.
FALSE. NO one has ever shown it NOT to be a 757 or NOT to be AA77. This
is why you are in such deep crap with your assertions. YOU have to
prove it wasn't AA77.
>
> > > Its never happened. Why is that?????
> >
> > AA77 hit the Pentagon. No rational person contests the evidence.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > You lose.
> > >
> > > Not to you.
> >
> > So far, you've lost to me big time. You can't provide the answer to any
> > question concerning AA77.
>
> You have no proof that it was.
Then you should eaqsily be able to make those phone calls and PROVE it.
But like every other loony 9/11 Denier, you are scared shitless to pick
up the phone.
You KNOW what the answer will be: that AA77 hit the Pentagon.
LOL. Youy're the one running away from proving your case.
>
> > > You are the one who claims to know what happened but you can't produce
> > > any evidence!!
> >
> > You are the one disputing the evidence. Prove it.
>
> What evidence????
All the evidence you can't refute. Duh.
Pick up the phone, chicken. Make the calls. Bring us evidence instead
of incessant whining, bubba stevel.
>
> > > Phone numbers won't do.
> >
> > Phone numbers do very nicely, idiot. It is up to YOU to contact those
> > rescue and recovery personel to get their statemnts to SUPPORT your
> > assertion. Got that through your thick skull, bubba stevel?
> >
> > >
> > > On the other hand I don't claim to know.
> >
> > Well, duh, why in hell do you think YOU have to gather the evidence
> > from those who were there? Why do you think I gave YOU the contact
> > numbers so you can CONFIRM for yourself that AA77 did or did not crash
> > into the Pentagon. YOU are the one contesting the evidence - no
> > rational person is.
> >
> > So far you cannot explain what happened to AA77 and what crashed into
> > the Pentagon. That is a problem that is YOURS and yours alone. Support
> > your assertions or concede.
>
> When you provide the proof.
You have to prove it didn't. You know that. Pick up the phoine and quit
stalling, bubba.
So far you cannot explain what happened to AA77 and what crashed into
the Pentagon. That is a problem that is YOURS and yours alone. Support
your assertions or concede.
>
> > > Only that none of the so
> > > called evidence produced so far gives me any reason to believe that the
> > > "official"
> > > story is anything other than a pack of lies.
> >
> > There is no "official story" that you have to contend with. There is
> > only the evidence from hundreds of idependent sources which you are
> > evading and refusing to deal with, the hallmark of all deniers. All you
> > are doing is makin
> > >
>
> Have you ever heard of "Operation Northwoods" ?
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > You need to overturn all of that evidence. You'd better get to work.
> > > > You got a lot of phone calls to make, bubba stevel.
> > >
> > > As I said phone numbers are not evidence.
> > >
> > > > Then you can refute this:
> > > > http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.html
> > >
> > > Very glad you produced this link.
> > > The engine shown is not from an RB211 as it claims.
> >
> > The outside picture is of the APU. Duh.
>
> >From what aircraft?
AA77 Duh.
Enough of your evasions, bubba idiot. It's time to put up or shut up.
Make those phone calls and tell us what those huindreds of rescue and
recovery personel recoverd, bubba stevel.
Chicken idiot.
Sky King
Of course you are. You know you can't prove your case.
<snicker>
gbl...@hnpl.net
Quote
Mickey Bell :
The jet came in from the south and banked left as it entered the
building, narrowly missing the Singleton Electric trailer and the
on-site foreman, Mickey Bell. Bell had just left the trailer when he
heard a loud noise. The next thing he recalled was picking himself off
the floor, where he had been thrown by the blast. Bell, who had been
less than 100 feet from the initial impact of the plane, was nearly
struck by one of the plane's wings as it sped by him. In shock, he got
into his truck, which had been parked in the trailer compound, and sped
away. He wandered around Arlington in his truck and tried to make
wireless phone calls. He ended up back at Singleton's headquarters in
Gaithersburg two hours later, according to President Singleton, not
remembering much. The full impact of the closeness of the crash wasn't
realized until coworkers noticed damage to Bell's work vehicle. He had
plastic and rivets from an airplane imbedded in its sheet metal, but
Bell had no idea what had happened. During Bell's close call, other
Singleton workers, including sub-foreman Greg Cobaugh, were doing other
work on the first and third floors. The blast wasn't very loud to them.
They were talking about reports that two planes crashed into the World
Trade Center in Manhattan, New York - not considering the noise they
heard could be a similar attack.
http://www.necanet.org/whats_new/report.cfm?ID=1003
MuhammadColumbo
According to all information that we have, it is sure the AA77 didn't hit
the Pentagone. That is totally sure and we may not consider the question
again. Unless USA administration free all classified information. Then we
can review the question.
"Stevel" <sste...@aol.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
1126821180.4...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
age...@justicespammail.com
>> LOL. They didn't have to identify the tail number to know the bloody
>> big thing was an American Airlines passenger jet, idiot.
>Yes they do moron. No tail number then no ID.
>They saw an aircraft. Various witnesses saw small plane,big plane.more
>than one plane! None could positivley ID the plane as AA77.
But several identified it as an American Airlines plane
>> Then you can refute this:
>> http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.html
>
>Very glad you produced this link.
>The engine shown is not from an RB211 as it claims.
Yes it is.
>The exaust ports are the wrong shape!
No, they aren't.
>The UC wheel shown is not the same as the one ID'ed as from a 757.
>Count the slots!!!
There's 9 in each of them.
>The Graphic of the pentagon only shows the outer wall and the D ring
>wall
>as though none other exist!
It came from a computer simulation.
>If the Aircraft fuselage made the 16-20 ft hole where are the holes the
>engines made? They weren't made of putty!
And at least one made it into the building.
http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/pentagon/images/4.jpg
>What happened to the wings? Into thin air? No holes?
They pretty much disintegrated on contact, but still damaged the
building for 141 feet across its front.
>Look at the pics of the holes the aircraft wings made in the twin
>towers.
Check the difference of materials that the Pentagon and the WTC towers
were made from.
age...@justicespammail.com
Let me correct something I said in my previous post.
>> Then you can refute this:
>> http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.html
>The Graphic of the pentagon only shows the outer wall and the D ring
>wall
>as though none other exist!
They didn't. The building was continuous from the outer wall to AE
drive for two stories. There were no spaces between the first three
wings for the first two floors.
age...@justicespammail.com
>
>age...@justicespammail.com wrote:
>> On 15 Sep 2005 14:53:00 -0700, "Stevel" <sste...@aol.com> wrote:
<snip>
>> >The only way flt A77 could be identified would be by its tail number
>> >which would be far to small to be observed by any witnesses.
>>
>> But it could be identified as an American Airlines passenger jet.
>>
>> >Flt AA77's transponder was switched off more than 30 minutes before an
>> >aircraft crashed into the Pentagon. No transponder means no radar ID.
>> >The aircraft was lost from all radar. An aircraft was picked up on
>> >radar heading for Washington about 10 mins before it aparrantly crashed
>> >into the Pentagon but there was no way for any independant witnesses
>> >including ATC staff to verify that aircrafts identity.
>>
>> So where is N644AA?
>
>Ask Donald or Dick'
I'm asking you. You're making a claim that it didn't crash into the
Pentagon. Where is it?
>> >> The remains of the passengers and crew were found at
>> >> the Pentagon.
>> >
>> >There is no verifiable way to prove this.
>> >Remains were found somwhere. That is all we know.
>>
>> Only the testimony of the people who found them and identified them.
>> But then to you they are all liars. Just like the people who saw the
>> plane. And the people who recovered the aircraft parts. And the
>> American Airlines people who "lost" an aircraft. Right?
>
>What testimony?
Don't you pay attention?
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.html
Eye Witness Testimony
Lets look at some eye witness testimony sticking only to people who
saw a plane hit the building, and not look at people who saw an
airliner, but didn't see an airplane hit the building because they
looked away or were too far away (behind a hill, behind a building,
etc) to see it actually hit the building.
"Aydan Kizildrgli, an English language student who is a native of
Turkey, saw the jetliner bank slightly then strike a western wall of
the huge five-sided building that is the headquarters of the nation's
military. 'There was a big boom,' he said. 'Everybody was in shock. I
turned around to the car behind me and yelled "Did you see that?"
Nobody could believe it.'"
- "Bush Vows Retaliation for 'Evil Acts'." USA Today, 11 Sep 2001
"Frank Probst, an information management specialist for the Pentagon
Renovation Program, left his office trailer near the Pentagon's south
parking lot at 9:36 a.m. Sept. 11. Walking north beside Route 27, he
suddenly saw a commercial airliner crest the hilltop Navy Annex.
American Airlines Flight 77 reached him so fast and flew so low that
Probst dropped to the ground, fearing he'd lose his head to its right
engine."
- "A Defiant Recovery." The Retired Officer Magazine, January 2002
"Omar Campo, a Salvadorean, was cutting the grass on the other side of
the road when the plane flew over his head. 'It was a passenger plane.
I think an American Airways plane,' Mr Campo said. 'I was cutting the
grass and it came in screaming over my head. I felt the impact. The
whole ground shook and the whole area was full of fire. I could never
imagine I would see anything like that here.'"
- "Pentagon Eyewitness Accounts." The Guardian, 12 Sep 2001
"Afework Hagos, a computer programmer, was on his way to work but
stuck in a traffic jam near the Pentagon when the plane flew over.
'There was a huge screaming noise and I got out of the car as the
plane came over. Everybody was running away in different directions.
It was tilting its wings up and down like it was trying to balance. It
hit some lampposts on the way in.'"
- "Pentagon Eyewitness Accounts." The Guardian, 12 Sep 2001
"Henry Ticknor, intern minister at the Unitarian Universalist Church
of Arlington, Virginia, was driving to church that Tuesday morning
when American Airlines Flight 77 came in fast and low over his car and
struck the Pentagon. 'There was a puff of white smoke and then a huge
billowing black cloud,' he said."
- "Hell on Earth." UU World, Jan/Feb 20
"We were the only people, we think, who saw it live," Dan Creed said.
He and two colleagues from Oracle software were stopped in a car near
the Naval Annex, next to the Pentagon, when they saw the plane dive
down and level off. "It was no more than 30 feet off the ground, and
it was screaming. It was just screaming. It was nothing more than a
guided missile at that point," Creed said. "I can still see the plane.
I can still see it right now. It's just the most frightening thing in
the world, going full speed, going full throttle, its wheels up," -
Ahwatukee Foothill News
Gary Bauer former Presidential candidate, "I looked at the woman
sitting in the car next to me. She had this startled look on her face.
We were all thinking the same thing. We looked out the front of our
windows to try to see the plane, and it wasn?t until a few seconds
later that we realized the jet was coming up behind us on that major
highway. And it veered to the right into the Pentagon. The blast
literally rocked all of our cars. It was an incredible moment."
Massachusetts News
Sean Boger, Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower chief - "I just
looked up and I saw the big nose and the wings of the aircraft coming
right at us and I just watched it hit the building," Air Traffic
Controller and Pentagon tower chief Sean Boger said. "It exploded. I
fell to the ground and covered my head. I could actually hear the
metal going through the building." dcmilitary.com November 16, 2001
"The only way you could tell that an aircraft was inside was that we
saw pieces of the nose gear. The devastation was horrific. It was
obvious that some of the victims we found had no time to react. The
distance the firefighters had to travel down corridors to reach the
fires was a problem. With only a good 25 minutes of air in their SCBA
bottles, to save air they left off their face pieces as they walked
and took in a lot of smoke," Captain Defina said. Captain Defina was
the shift commander [of an aircraft rescue firefighters crew.] NFPA
Journal November 1, 2001
That's just a small smattering of people who have gone on record as
seeing the plane, and the plane hit the Pentagon. I could have
included the dozens of people who saw the plane, but didn't see it hit
(because it went behind a bridge, a hill, or some trees), but I choose
only to post the ones that sounded the most valid and actually saw the
plane hit the building. (I included the one firechief who states he
saw some plane wreckage during firefighting/rescue attempts.) There
are most likely twenty times more that either haven't been publicly
recorded as seeing the crash, or simply don't want the attention. You
can't honeslty sit there and deny the witnesses, the photographs, the
facts, the science, and the reality that there was a terrorist attack
on the Pentagon if you look at everything available and not one single
tidbit of information at a time.
911 Tape of EMV responding to the Pentagon - includes video outside
and inside the building in some areas. (Real Audio Required)
>> >>Hundreds of people cleaned up the wreakage
>> >
>> >None of them saw an identifiable body
>>
>> Cite?
>
>I am still waiting for you to come up with some.
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/witnesses/bart.html#witnesses
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/witnesses/bart.html#press
Alan Wallace -- firefighter with safety crew at Pentagon's heliport
We have had a commercial carrier crash into the west side of the
Pentagon at the heliport, Washington Boulevard side. The crew is OK.
The airplane was a 757 Boeing or a 320 Airbus.
www.gosanangelo.com...
Albert Hemphill -- from inside the Naval Annex
Immediately, the large silver cylinder of an aircraft appeared in my
window, coming over my right shoulder as I faced the Westside of the
Pentagon directly towards the heliport. The aircraft, looking to be
either a 757 or Airbus, seemed to come directly over the annex
lists.travellercentral.com/pipermail/tml/2001-September/013153.html
James S. Robbins -- Robbins, a national-security analyst and
'nationalreviewonline' contributor, watched from his 6th story office
window in Arlington
The Pentagon is about a mile and half distant in the center of the
tableau. I was looking directly at it when the aircraft struck. The
sight of the 757 diving in at an unrecoverable angle is frozen in my
memory, ...
www.nationalreview.com/robbins/robbins040902.asp
Tim Timmerman --
... said it had been an American Airways 757.
www.guardian.co.uk/wtccrash/story/0,1300,550486,00.html
Tim Timmerman -- from 16th floor apartment near National Airport
It was a Boeing 757, American Airlines, no question.
www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/11/bn.32.html
Mike Dobbs -- observed from upper level of outer ring of Pentagon
... looking out the window when he saw an American Airlines 737
twin-engine airliner strike the building.
www.abqtrib.com/archives/news01/091201_news_dcscene.shtml
Terry Morin -- watched from 5th wing of BMDO offices at the old Navy
Annex
The plane had a silver body with red and blue stripes down the
fuselage. I believed at the time that it belonged to American
Airlines, but I couldn't be sure. It looked like a 737 and I so
reported to authorities.
www.coping.org/911/survivor/pentagon.htm
Jim Sutherland -- from his car
... saw ... a white 737 twin-engine plane with multicolored trim fly
50 feet over I-395 in a straight line, striking the side of the
Pentagon.
www.cincypost.com/2001/sep/11/wash091101.html
Noel Sepulveda --
... saw a commercial airliner coming from the direction of Henderson
Hall the Marine Corps headquarters.
www.jimroche.com/pentagon_hero.htm
Madelyn Zakhem --
... she heard what she thought was a jet fighter directly overhead. It
wasn't. It was an airliner coming straight up Columbia Pike at
tree-top level. It was huge! It was silver. It was low --
unbelievable! I could see the cockpit.
www.roadstothefuture.com/VA_Sept21.txt
Joel Sucherman --
Do you know how many engines? - I did not see the engines, I saw the
body and the tail; it was a silver jet with the markings along the
windows that spoke to me as an American Airlines jet, it was not a
commercial, excuse me, a business jet, it was not a Lear jet, ... it
was a bigger plane than that.
play.rbn.com/?url=usat/usat/g2demand/010911_joel.rm&proto=rtsp
Dave Winslow -- Winslow is an AP reporter
I saw the tail of a large airliner ... It ploughed right into the
Pentagon.
www.guardian.co.uk/wtccrash/story/0,1300,550486,00.html
http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/publish/article_124.shtml
http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf
page 20-21, location of fatalities
>All I have is questions but you have no satisfactory answers.
No one will ever have satisfactory answers for you.
>> >and nothing was found to prove the plane was flt AA77
>>
>> Only pieces of the aircrafts engines, skin, wheels, landing gear, etc.
>>
>> >that has been verified at the site a being from
>> >a 757 or from AA77.
>>
>> Only pieces of the aircrafts engines, skin, wheels, landing gear, etc.
>
>Not so.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/PENTPLANE/aedrive6.jpg
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/PENTPLANE/landinggear002.jpg
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/PENTPLANE/Damage9.jpg
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/PENTPLANE/fuselagefragment_MVC-027S.jpg
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/PENTPLANE/pentagonplanetire.jpg
http://www.newsfollowup.com/flight77_5.htm#The%20Notch
http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm
>> >Some engine parts have been photographed at the site but nobody has
>> >been able to demonstrate that it came from a 757 or from AA77
>>
>> Only because you keep your eyes closed and your fingers in your ears
>> when people show them to you.
>
>Give me some real proof. If what you say is true it would be easy for
>you.
See above.
>> >Show us the videos that we all know exist and it might put an end to
>> >speculation from both sides.
>>
>> You've already said that you won't be able to identify the aircraft as
>> Flight 77 by looking at it in a video. But besides that you'll just
>> claim that any videos of a 757 flying into the Pentagon were doctored.
>> So what's the point?
>
>Why is it being hidden then?
>Perhaps they don't show a 757.
And if it does, what will you say?
Stevel
age...@justicespammail.com wrote:
> On 15 Sep 2005 18:32:43 -0700, sste...@aol.com wrote:
>
> >> LOL. They didn't have to identify the tail number to know the bloody
> >> big thing was an American Airlines passenger jet, idiot.
>
> >Yes they do moron. No tail number then no ID.
> >They saw an aircraft. Various witnesses saw small plane,big plane.more
> >than one plane! None could positivley ID the plane as AA77.
>
> But several identified it as an American Airlines plane
Others identified it as an exec jet.
> >> Then you can refute this:
> >> http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.html
> >
> >Very glad you produced this link.
> >The engine shown is not from an RB211 as it claims.
>
> Yes it is.
>
> >The exaust ports are the wrong shape!
>
> No, they aren't.
Yes they are. They are the same as a PW JT8 never used in a 757.
> >The UC wheel shown is not the same as the one ID'ed as from a 757.
> >Count the slots!!!
>
> There's 9 in each of them.
Now you have totaly blown it.
Ether You can't count or as usual you are willfuly misrepresenting the
evidence
The penta wheel has 7 or just possibly 8 but no more.
> >The Graphic of the pentagon only shows the outer wall and the D ring
> >wall
> >as though none other exist!
>
> It came from a computer simulation.
>
> >If the Aircraft fuselage made the 16-20 ft hole where are the holes the
> >engines made? They weren't made of putty!
>
> And at least one made it into the building.
Through what hole?
> http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/pentagon/images/4.jpg
>
> >What happened to the wings? Into thin air? No holes?
>
> They pretty much disintegrated on contact, but still damaged the
> building for 141 feet across its front.
>
> >Look at the pics of the holes the aircraft wings made in the twin
> >towers.
>
> Check the difference of materials that the Pentagon and the WTC towers
> were made from.
So what happened to the wreckage? There would have been enough to ID
the plane.
The one pic of an "identifiable" part on the lawn has the wrong colors
compared to a real AA plane.
What ever the airplane was it was faked up to resemble an AA plane.
This has all the hallmarks of an "Operation Northwoods" style black
ops.
Go Google "Operation Northwoods".
age...@justicespammail.com
<snip>
>> The Bush adminsistration has NOTHING to do with the evidence confirmed
>> at the Pentagon by hundreds of different independent sources and
>> thousands of pieces of evidence.
>
>Exactly who has all this evidence?
Lots of it is available on the Internet.
>I am still waiting for you to produce but you can't because you know
>you have
>nothing but tainted hearsay nonsense.
And what do you call what appears on conspiracy wacko websites?
>> So far you cannot explain what happened to AA77 and what crashed into
>> the Pentagon. That is a problem that is YOURS and yours alone. Support
>> your assertions or concede.
>
>When you provide the proof.
You're the one asserting that AA77 didn't crash into the Pentagon.
where is your proof?
Frank Dwyer
It never materialized
>>>>You need to overturn all of that evidence. You'd better get to work.
>>>>You got a lot of phone calls to make, bubba stevel.
>>>
>>>As I said phone numbers are not evidence.
>>>
>>>
>>>>Then you can refute this:
>>>>http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.html
>>>
>>>Very glad you produced this link.
>>>The engine shown is not from an RB211 as it claims.
>>
>>The outside picture is of the APU. Duh.
>
>
>>From what aircraft?
>
>
>>The engine shown inside is indeed the Rolls Royce engine from AA77.
>>
>
> The exaust ports are the wrong shape!
>
>>Nope.
>
>
> Yep
>
>
>>>The UC wheel shown is not the same as the one ID'ed as from a 757.
>>
>>Yes it is.
>>
>>
>>>Count the slots!!!
>>
>>No need to. It is identical.
>
>
> You really are stupid aren't you.
>
> COUNT THE SLOTS!!!!
Eight
>
>
>>>The Graphic of the pentagon only shows the outer wall and the D ring
>>>wall
>>>as though none other exist!
>>
>>A lack of a graphic is not a lack of evidence.
>
>
> It shows an intention to mislead.
The old "absence of evidence is evidence of a conspiracy" schtick.
>>>If the Aircraft fuselage made the 16-20 ft hole where are the holes the
>>>engines made? They weren't made of putty!
>>
>>The engines, aircraft parts, seats, passenger remains, are those of
>>AA77. What part still confuses your dense brain, bubba?
>>
>>
>>>What happened to the wings? Into thin air? No holes?
>>
>>The wings disintegrated. Duh.
>>
>>
>>>Look at the pics of the holes the aircraft wings made in the twin
>>>towers.
>>
>>Different construction. Duh.
>>
>
>
> Where are the remains??
The wings disintegrated.
Where are the remains?... everywhere
Frank Dwyer
For someone who claims to "only have questions", you certainly make an
awful lot of claims.
It isn't being hidden, it's being used.
Frank Dwyer
> Thanks for your help Stevel. I become tired with that Sky Confusor.
> According to all information that we have, it is sure the AA77 didn't hit
> the Pentagone. That is totally sure and we may not consider the question
> again. Unless USA administration free all classified information. Then we
> can review the question.
So you admit that you don't have all the evidence, but you claim to have
the answers.
> "Stevel" <sste...@aol.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
> 1126821180.4...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Sky King wrote:
>
>>MuhammadColumbo wrote:
>>
>>>"Sky King" <sky...@scientist.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
>>>1126792299.6...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>MuhammadColumbo wrote:
>>>
>>>>There is nothing more clear than the dishonesty about 9/11 of the US
>>>>administration and its parrots on the net like Sky Confusor.
>>>
>>>*We're still waiting for you to tell us what happened to AA7, Muhammad.
>>>*What is taking you so long.
>>>
>>>You know, it never hit the Pentagone. If you consider that they find the
>>>pasengers bodies and the debris, the conclusion is easy : Tt was crashed
>>>on
>>>an other place. What ever can be that place, it is not the Pentagone.
>>>
>>>That is at least the 4th answer.
>>
>>What answer?
>>
>>No, it is at least the 50th evasion.
>>
>>So it is clear that you cannot provide any evidence to show that AA77
>>crashed somewhere else (as I already showed when I debunked your
>>science-fiction scenario, Muhammad.)
>>
>>The plane's wreakage was found in the Pentagon. Many witnesses saw AA7
>>hit the Pentagon.
>
>
> In fact no witnesses saw A77 crash into the Pentagon.
Some most certainly saw "an American Airways 757" hit the Pentagon.
> The only way flt A77 could be identified would be by its tail number
> which would be far to small to be observed by any witnesses.
> Flt AA77's transponder was switched off more than 30 minutes before an
> aircraft crashed into the Pentagon. No transponder means no radar ID.
> The aircraft was lost from all radar. An aircraft was picked up on
> radar heading for Washington about 10 mins before it aparrantly crashed
> into the Pentagon but there was no way for any independant witnesses
> including ATC staff to verify that aircrafts identity.
They verified the identity of the aircraft from the debris. That's
usually how it's done.
>>The remains of the passengers and crew were found at
>>the Pentagon.
>
>
> There is no verifiable way to prove this.
> Remains were found somwhere. That is all we know.
lol! Yeah, ok.
>>Hundreds of people cleaned up the wreakage
>
>
> None of them saw an identifiable body
They found body parts.
> and nothing was found to prove
> the plane was flt AA77 that has been verified at the site a being from
> a 757 or from AA77.
Yes there was. You just admitted above that you haven't seen all the
evidence. This is part of the evidence you haven't seen (and probably
will never see).
> Some engine parts have been photographed at the site but nobody has
> been able to demonstrate that it came from a 757 or from AA77
Yes they have.
> Muhammad does not have to prove what happened to AA77 but you claim it
> ended up in the Pentagon.
You need to prove that your claims are true.
> You prove it.
> Show us the videos that we all know exist and it might put an end to
> speculation from both sides.
You'll see them next year. Until then, relax.
Sky King
MuhammadColumbo wrote:
> Thanks for your help Stevel.
9/11 Deniers always thank other liars.
> I become tired with that Sky Confusor.
Of course you have, Muhammad! I and others just show in how much denial
you are, we call you on your lies, and we demonstrate logically that
you have NO proof of anything and NO evidence to support your claims.
> According to all information that we have, it is sure the AA77 didn't hit
> the Pentagone.
What information do you have that any of us don't have, Muhammad.
Answer: NONE.
> That is totally sure and we may not consider the question
> again.
More proof that you are a liar, Muhammad. You have no evidence whhat
happened to AA77. You ADMITTED that you cannot explain what happened to
a large 757 but its wrekage was found in the Pentagon, and so were the
remains of its passengers and crew.
> Unless USA administration free all classified information. Then we
> can review the question.
We have already reviewed it and you admitted that you cannot prove your
sci-fi scenario is true. Then you claim it is the only truth. Your
contradictions are the classic sign of lying, Muhammad. You cannot keep
track of all your lies and we force you to contradict yourself.
Tell us in your own words why you feel it is necessary to lie about
9/11, Muhammad.
>
> "Stevel" <sste...@aol.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
> 1126821180.4...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Sky King wrote:
> > MuhammadColumbo wrote:
> > > "Sky King" <sky...@scientist.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
> > > 1126792299.6...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > > MuhammadColumbo wrote:
> > > > There is nothing more clear than the dishonesty about 9/11 of the US
> > > > administration and its parrots on the net like Sky Confusor.
> > >
> > > *We're still waiting for you to tell us what happened to AA7, Muhammad.
> > > *What is taking you so long.
> > >
> > > You know, it never hit the Pentagone. If you consider that they find the
> > > pasengers bodies and the debris, the conclusion is easy : Tt was crashed
> > > on
> > > an other place. What ever can be that place, it is not the Pentagone.
> > >
> > > That is at least the 4th answer.
> >
> > What answer?
> >
> > No, it is at least the 50th evasion.
> >
> > So it is clear that you cannot provide any evidence to show that AA77
> > crashed somewhere else (as I already showed when I debunked your
> > science-fiction scenario, Muhammad.)
> >
> > The plane's wreakage was found in the Pentagon. Many witnesses saw AA7
> > hit the Pentagon.
>
> In fact no witnesses saw A77 crash into the Pentagon.
In fact they did and you know they did, Muhammad. Another Columbo lie
for the record.
> The only way flt A77 could be identified would be by its tail number
> which would be far to small to be observed by any witnesses.
What a stupid statement. Eye witnesses to the crash of a 757 into the
Pentagon do NOT need to see the registration number. How stupid can you
be, Muhammad?
The confirmation of the identity of the plane came from the convergence
of evidence from different sources. You really do not understand a
thing, Muhammad.
> Flt AA77's transponder was switched off more than 30 minutes before an
> aircraft crashed into the Pentagon. No transponder means no radar ID.
> The aircraft was lost from all radar. An aircraft was picked up on
> radar heading for Washington about 10 mins before it aparrantly crashed
> into the Pentagon but there was no way for any independant witnesses
> including ATC staff to verify that aircrafts identity.
LOL. They didn't have to. Duh.
>
> > The remains of the passengers and crew were found at
> > the Pentagon.
>
> There is no verifiable way to prove this.
Yes there is, but you told me that you REFUSE to verify the identity of
the passengers AND the wreakage.
Maybe you can tell us all why you REFUSE to do that, Muhammad. Are you
afriad of the answers you would get?
Well, by your posts we know that you are very afraid of revealing what
you would be told. That is easy to see by your admission, Muhammad
Columbo, 9/11 Denier.
> Remains were found somwhere. That is all we know.
They were found IN and OUTSIDE the Pentagon. Just ask, Muhammad.
>
> >Hundreds of people cleaned up the wreakage
>
> None of them saw an identifiable body and nothing was found to prove
> the plane was flt AA77 that has been verified at the site a being from
> a 757 or from AA77.
Cite?
YOU have not provided ANY evidence to support that phony assertion,
Muhammad. You know you REFUSED to provide evidence, so here we have
just one more proof from Muhammad that he is a big Muslim liar,
contrary to the teachings of his religion.
> Some engine parts have been photographed at the site but nobody has
> been able to demonstrate that it came from a 757 or from AA77
Yes they have. Easily.
>
> > and you
> > admitted that you could not interview them since, of course, you know
> > they would refute you.
> >
> > So, it is clear, our dear little liar, Muhammad, that you have provided
> > no evidence to support your assertion that AA77 did not crash at the
> > Pentagon as ALL of the evidence demonstrates conclusively.
> >
> > So, the question still remains. When are you are you going to provide
> > evidence that AA77 crashed somewhere else?
> >
> > When, little Muhammad, when?
So, Muahhamd, you have been caught in several lies again. How do you
explain your evasions, lies, and REFUSAL to provide evidence for your
sci-fi scenario?
Sky King
Stevel wrote:
> age...@justicespammail.com wrote:
> > On 15 Sep 2005 18:32:43 -0700, sste...@aol.com wrote:
> >
> > >> LOL. They didn't have to identify the tail number to know the bloody
> > >> big thing was an American Airlines passenger jet, idiot.
> >
> > >Yes they do moron. No tail number then no ID.
> > >They saw an aircraft. Various witnesses saw small plane,big plane.more
> > >than one plane! None could positivley ID the plane as AA77.
> >
> > But several identified it as an American Airlines plane
>
> Others identified it as an exec jet.
The sum total of the eyewitnesses confirmed it was an American Airlines
757. But then you already knew that, bubba steve.
>
> > >> Then you can refute this:
> > >> http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.html
> > >
> > >Very glad you produced this link.
> > >The engine shown is not from an RB211 as it claims.
> >
> > Yes it is.
> >
> > >The exaust ports are the wrong shape!
> >
> > No, they aren't.
>
> Yes they are. They are the same as a PW JT8 never used in a 757.
>
> > >The UC wheel shown is not the same as the one ID'ed as from a 757.
> > >Count the slots!!!
> >
> > There's 9 in each of them.
>
> Now you have totaly blown it.
Says the one caught lying! Gosh, steviepoo, you're really dumb.
> Ether You can't count or as usual you are willfuly misrepresenting the
> evidence
> The penta wheel has 7 or just possibly 8 but no more.
>
> > >The Graphic of the pentagon only shows the outer wall and the D ring
> > >wall
> > >as though none other exist!
> >
> > It came from a computer simulation.
> >
> > >If the Aircraft fuselage made the 16-20 ft hole where are the holes the
> > >engines made? They weren't made of putty!
> >
> > And at least one made it into the building.
>
> Through what hole?
AA77, a Boeing 757, made the hole, bunky.
>
> > http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/pentagon/images/4.jpg
> >
> > >What happened to the wings? Into thin air? No holes?
> >
> > They pretty much disintegrated on contact, but still damaged the
> > building for 141 feet across its front.
> >
> > >Look at the pics of the holes the aircraft wings made in the twin
> > >towers.
> >
> > Check the difference of materials that the Pentagon and the WTC towers
> > were made from.
>
> So what happened to the wreckage? There would have been enough to ID
> the plane.
The plane was easily ID's by the wreakage. You knew that too, of
course.
> The one pic of an "identifiable" part on the lawn has the wrong colors
> compared to a real AA plane.
False. Plus all the wreakage inside the pentagon was easily identified
as that from AA77. No problem there.
> What ever the airplane was it was faked up to resemble an AA plane.
How? By whom? Your evidence on how that was accomplished, by whom,
when? (See how easy it is to make a fool of you, stevel?)
> This has all the hallmarks of an "Operation Northwoods" style black
> ops.
> Go Google "Operation Northwoods".
Not by anything you've provided, bubba stevelidiot.
Instead, you've just confirmed the idiocy of the 9/11 Denial Movement
for all to see!
Daniel
Sky King wrote:
> MuhammadColumbo wrote:
> > There is nothing more clear than the dishonesty about 9/11 of the US
> > administration and its parrots on the net like Sky Confusor.
>
>
> evince that shows AA77 hit the pentagon, you are going to have to tell
> us what happned to it, what the wreakage at the Pentagon was, and who
> is buried in the passengers grave.
>
> But you won't because you cannot.
>
> But you will lie through your teeth to avoid the fact that you MUST
> answer many questions about AA77
Actually, you are the one who needs to provide credible evidence if you
want to debunk anything. Do you have any?
Daniel
Forget that, I read your post wrong. Carry on.
Daniel
MuhammadColumbo wrote:
> "ceniza" <cen...@genserconadv.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
> i9ydnaRzlJ5...@ntd.net...
> > good poind, M-man. Your arab brethren had nothing to do with 9/11.
>
> You have right. For proofs and evidences, see
> http://users.swing.be/muhammadcolumbo/
>
>
> > Just some patsies put on a plane.
>
> Totally wrong. Accprding to the passenger's list published by the aviation
> companies, there are NO ONE of the 19 arabs. We can imagine that some of
> them, one, two or three hve used false identities. But 19 people with false
> identities while they can use their own one, that is totally impossible.
>
> For more proofs, see the link here up.
You mean to tell us that 19 people cannot use false ID's? What kind of
fucking idiot are you?
Daniel
MuhammadColumbo wrote:
> "Sky King" <sky...@scientist.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
> 1126792299.6...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> MuhammadColumbo wrote:
> > There is nothing more clear than the dishonesty about 9/11 of the US
> > administration and its parrots on the net like Sky Confusor.
>
> *What is taking you so long.
>
> You know, it never hit the Pentagone. If you consider that they find the
> pasengers bodies and the debris, the conclusion is easy : Tt was crashed on
> an other place. What ever can be that place, it is not the Pentagone.
>
> That is at least the 4th answer.
Got any proof? Credible proof that is, not some nutjob k00k website.
Daniel
Stevel wrote:
> Sky King wrote:
> >
> > No, it is at least the 50th evasion.
> >
> > So it is clear that you cannot provide any evidence to show that AA77
> > crashed somewhere else (as I already showed when I debunked your
> > science-fiction scenario, Muhammad.)
> >
> > The plane's wreakage was found in the Pentagon. Many witnesses saw AA7
> > hit the Pentagon.
>
> In fact no witnesses saw A77 crash into the Pentagon.
> which would be far to small to be observed by any witnesses.
> aircraft crashed into the Pentagon. No transponder means no radar ID.
> The aircraft was lost from all radar. An aircraft was picked up on
> radar heading for Washington about 10 mins before it aparrantly crashed
> into the Pentagon but there was no way for any independant witnesses
> including ATC staff to verify that aircrafts identity.
>
> > the Pentagon.
>
> There is no verifiable way to prove this.
>
>
> None of them saw an identifiable body and nothing was found to prove
> the plane was flt AA77 that has been verified at the site a being from
> a 757 or from AA77.
> been able to demonstrate that it came from a 757 or from AA77
>
> > admitted that you could not interview them since, of course, you know
> > they would refute you.
> >
> > So, it is clear, our dear little liar, Muhammad, that you have provided
> > no evidence to support your assertion that AA77 did not crash at the
> > Pentagon as ALL of the evidence demonstrates conclusively.
> >
> > So, the question still remains. When are you are you going to provide
> > evidence that AA77 crashed somewhere else?
> >
> > When, little Muhammad, when?
>
> ended up
> Show us the videos that we all know exist and it might put an end to
> speculation from both sides.
the 9/11 commission already proved it. If you disagree with the
commission, YOU must provide credible evidence to the contrary.
Stevel
Er so what? I have never said no plane hit the Pentagon. I do question
the
identity of the aircraft.
Some of the testomony of the whitnesses is suspect as some called it a
737 and others a 757. Some claimed it hit the ground before smashing
into the Pentagon.
Some saw it go straight in.
None could ID the aircraft as AA77.
Interesting the images from the security cam show clear signs of
PS manipulation (fig 3.3 and 3.4)
> page 20-21, location of fatalities
No claim as to how many or the physical state of possible passengers.
> >All I have is questions but you have no satisfactory answers.
>
> No one will ever have satisfactory answers for you.
>
> >> >and nothing was found to prove the plane was flt AA77
> >>
> >> Only pieces of the aircrafts engines, skin, wheels, landing gear, etc.
> >>
> >> >that has been verified at the site a being from
> >> >a 757 or from AA77.
> >>
> >> Only pieces of the aircrafts engines, skin, wheels, landing gear, etc.
> >
> >Not so.
>
> http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/PENTPLANE/aedrive6.jpg
>
> http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/PENTPLANE/landinggear002.jpg
>
> http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/PENTPLANE/Damage9.jpg
>
> http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/PENTPLANE/fuselagefragment_MVC-027S.jpg
>
> http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/PENTPLANE/pentagonplanetire.jpg
>
> http://www.newsfollowup.com/flight77_5.htm#The%20Notch
>
> http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm
None of these prove the plane was AA77 or a 757
some sugest it was not a 757.
The diffusor ring was from a JT8 and the wheel has to few slots to be
from
a 757.
> >> >Some engine parts have been photographed at the site but nobody has
> >> >been able to demonstrate that it came from a 757 or from AA77
> >>
> >> Only because you keep your eyes closed and your fingers in your ears
> >> when people show them to you.
> >
> >Give me some real proof. If what you say is true it would be easy for
> >you.
>
> See above.
See above yourself.
So far you have not proved the aircraft was AA77 as you claim.
Stevel
Sky King
facts disprove your nonsense.
Until you agree to tell the truth, we'll just keep catching you in your
lies.
AA77 crashed into the Pentagon and was easily identified. You know
that, little lair stevel.
MuhammadColumbo
"Daniel" <sabot...@hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
1126914889.0...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
MuhammadColumbo wrote:
> "ceniza" <cen...@genserconadv.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
> i9ydnaRzlJ5...@ntd.net...
> > good poind, M-man. Your arab brethren had nothing to do with 9/11.
>
> You have right. For proofs and evidences, see
> http://users.swing.be/muhammadcolumbo/
>
>
> > Just some patsies put on a plane.
>
> Totally wrong. Accprding to the passenger's list published by the aviation
> companies, there are NO ONE of the 19 arabs. We can imagine that some of
> them, one, two or three hve used false identities. But 19 people with
> false
> identities while they can use their own one, that is totally impossible.
>
> For more proofs, see the link here up.
*You mean to tell us that 19 people cannot use false ID's? What kind of
*fucking idiot are you?
The idiot is yourself. I don't told that. They can, but they don't need it.
And you imagine the bearded arab people with american names crossing the
checkpoints! It is more dangerrous than using their own identities. That is
not true for Atta who is not bearded. So, he may have been used false
identity. But you can not take one people and tell there were 19 in the same
conditions.
MuhammadColumbo
"Daniel" <sabot...@hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
1126914933.3...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
*Got any proof? Credible proof that is, not some nutjob k00k website.
What do you mean? Read my web site and you will have enough information to
tell AA77 did not hit the Pentagone.
http://users.swing.be/muhammadcolumbo/
MuhammadColumbo
"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@-=Citlink=-.net> a écrit dans le message de news:
K%HWe.7213$cg....@news02.roc.ny...
> MuhammadColumbo wrote:
>
>> Thanks for your help Stevel. I become tired with that Sky Confusor.
>> According to all information that we have, it is sure the AA77 didn't hit
>> the Pentagone. That is totally sure and we may not consider the question
>> again. Unless USA administration free all classified information. Then we
>> can review the question.
>
> So you admit that you don't have all the evidence, but you claim to have
> the answers.
USA administration have all the information, you must ask them to give you
the totality of teh information about 9/11.
In the mean time, I have enough information to tell clearly : 9/11 strikes
were made by USA administration. You know where are the proofs.
sste...@aol.com
What lies? You are such an idiot that you sell your country to a bunch
of treasonous crooks.
You have yet to come up with a single fact to prove AA77 hit the
Pentagon.
Only one would do but you have none because there are none.
End of story.
You are a disgrace to your country as are the Bush crime family.
Stevel
Sky King
sstev...@aol.com wrote:
> Sky King wrote:
> > Tell us when you decide to stop lying, bubba stevel. You know that the
> > facts disprove your nonsense.
> >
> > Until you agree to tell the truth, we'll just keep catching you in your
> > lies.
> >
> > AA77 crashed into the Pentagon and was easily identified. You know
> > that, little lair stevel.
>
> What lies? You are such an idiot that you sell your country to a bunch
> of treasonous crooks.
We're still waiting for YOU to prove your conspiracy theories. You have
yet to provide one single piece of credible evidence, stevel. When is
that going to finally penetrate your little brainwashed head?
> You have yet to come up with a single fact to prove AA77 hit the
> Pentagon.
I am not the one claiming there is a conspiracy theory. YOU are. Prove
it or admit you have no evidence.
> Only one would do but you have none because there are none.
Prove it and stop your ridiculous evasions, bubba stevel.
> End of story.
End of your silly conspiracy theories. YOU have no evidence, bubba
stevel, and you admission that you don't is crystal clear to all.
It is clear to everyone that you have evaded providing ANY support for
ANY conspiracy whatsoever. Nobody in his or her right mind would listen
to your crap and idiocy when you REFUSE to provide evidence, stevel.
So you're exposed as another 9/11 fraud and charlatan, bubba stevel.
You can go back to your sandbox now.
Sky King
It is clear that AA77 hit the Pentagon. Your website has already been
debunked fully, Muhammad.
age...@justicespammail.com
wrote:
No, that's not it at all. The passenger lists provided by the
airlines include the hijackers.
Atta, Omari, and Suqami took their seats in business class (seats 8D,
8G, and 10B, respectively). The Shehri brothers had adjacent seats in
row 2 (Wail in 2A,Waleed in 2B), in the first-class cabin. They
boarded American 11 between 7:31 and 7:40.
9. See TSA report, "Selectee Status of September 11th Hijackers,"
undated. For boarding and seating information, see AAL record, SABRE
information on Flight 11, Sept. 11, 2001.
Shehhi and his team, none of whom had been selected by CAPPS, boarded
United 175 between 7:23 and 7:28 (Banihammad in 2A, Shehri in 2B,
Shehhi in 6C, Hamza al Ghamdi in 9C, and Ahmed al Ghamdi in 9D).
10. See TSA report, "Selectee Status of September 11th Hijackers,
"undated; see also UAL letter, "Flight 175- 11 Sep01 Passenger ACI
Check-in History," July 11, 2002.
At 7:50, Majed Moqed and Khalid al Mihdhar boarded the flight and were
seated in 12A and 12B in coach. Hani Hanjour, assigned to seat 1B
(first class), soon followed.The Hazmi brothers, sitting in 5E and 5F,
joined Hanjour in the first-class cabin.
11.The Hazmis checked in at 7:29; the airline has not yet been able to
confirm the time of Hanjour's check-in. However, it had to have taken
place by 7:35, when he appears on the checkpoint videotape. See AAL
record, SABRE information for Flight 77, Sept. 11, 2001; AAL response
to the Commission's February 3, 2004, requests, Mar. 15, 2004;
Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority videotape, Dulles main
terminal checkpoints, Sept. 11, 2001.
17. See AAL record, SABRE information for Flight 77, Sept. 11,
2001;AAL response to the Commission's February 3, 2004, requests, Mar.
15, 2004.
The four men boarded the plane between 7:39 and 7:48. All four had
seats in the first-class cabin; their plane had no business-class
section. Jarrah was in seat 1B, closest to the cockpit; Nami was in
3C, Ghamdi in 3D, and Haznawi in 6B.
20. UAL record, Flight 93 EWR ACI passenger history, Sept. 11, 2001;
see also FBI report, "The Final 24 Hours," Dec. 8, 2003.
You'll no doubt notice the citations to information supplied by the
airlines.
L Alpert
Flat earther websites, even if they are your own, are not verifiable proof,
just your own twist of the facts.
These attacks were carried out by Islamic terrorist extremists. That does
not mean that all those that follow Islam are bad people. Many people
throughout history have died due to someone's belief that their deity is
better than another. Fanaticism is just a byproduct of religion.
sste...@aol.com
Sky King wrote:
> sstev...@aol.com wrote:
> > Sky King wrote:
> > > Tell us when you decide to stop lying, bubba stevel. You know that the
> > > facts disprove your nonsense.
> > >
> > > Until you agree to tell the truth, we'll just keep catching you in your
> > > lies.
> > >
> > > AA77 crashed into the Pentagon and was easily identified. You know
> > > that, little lair stevel.
> >
> > What lies? You are such an idiot that you sell your country to a bunch
> > of treasonous crooks.
>
> We're still waiting for YOU to prove your conspiracy theories. You have
> yet to provide one single piece of credible evidence, stevel. When is
> that going to finally penetrate your little brainwashed head?
All you have to do is GIVE US THE EVIDENCE flt AA77 hit the Pentagon.
You have yet to come up with a single fact to prove AA77 hit the
Pentagon.
>
> I am not the one claiming there is a conspiracy theory. YOU are. Prove
> it or admit you have no evidence.
I am not claiming a "conspiracy theory"
I am asking you to prove your contention that AA77 hit the Pentagon.
You can't do it. Get over it and see the light.
> > Only one would do but you have none because there are none.
>
> Prove it and stop your ridiculous evasions, bubba stevel.
>
> > End of story.
>
> End of your silly conspiracy theories. YOU have no evidence, bubba
> stevel, and you admission that you don't is crystal clear to all.
>
> It is clear to everyone that you have evaded providing ANY support for
> ANY conspiracy whatsoever. Nobody in his or her right mind would listen
> to your crap and idiocy when you REFUSE to provide evidence, stevel.
You are the one who has no evidence. I have asked time and time again
for you to prove your claim but you can't.
You say AA77 hit the Pentagon I say prove it.
I am not the one making a claim you are.
You are the one who supports the Bush liars and frauds.
If Bush told you his shit was icecream you would eat it with relish.
> So you're exposed as another 9/11 fraud and charlatan, bubba stevel.
I am neither but you are a traitor to America with a big mouth and no
brain.
Stevel
sste...@aol.com
Well now we are getting to it. Now you claim there is evidence but
nobody will
ever see it !!!!!
So you haven't seen it either. You take far to much on trust from a
totaly
untrustwothy administration.
> > Some engine parts have been photographed at the site but nobody has
> > been able to demonstrate that it came from a 757 or from AA77
>
> Yes they have.
>
> > Muhammad does not have to prove what happened to AA77 but you claim it
> > ended up in the Pentagon.
>
> You need to prove that your claims are true.
You claim AA77 hit the pentagon you prove it.
> > You prove it.
> > Show us the videos that we all know exist and it might put an end to
> > speculation from both sides.
>
> You'll see them next year. Until then, relax.
I can't wait.
There is a FOI suit on at the moment. Just what is there to hide???
Perhaps they are to hard to edit. They have already tried with the one
tape
released so far. They couldn't even get the date right !!!!
Stevel
age...@justicespammail.com
>
>age...@justicespammail.com wrote:
>> On 15 Sep 2005 18:32:43 -0700, sste...@aol.com wrote:
>>
>> >> LOL. They didn't have to identify the tail number to know the bloody
>> >> big thing was an American Airlines passenger jet, idiot.
>>
>> >Yes they do moron. No tail number then no ID.
>> >They saw an aircraft. Various witnesses saw small plane,big plane.more
>> >than one plane! None could positivley ID the plane as AA77.
>>
>> But several identified it as an American Airlines plane
>
>Others identified it as an exec jet.
It sort of depends on their power of observation and their knowledge
of passenger aircraft, doesn't it?
>> >> Then you can refute this:
>> >> http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.html
>> >
>> >Very glad you produced this link.
>> >The engine shown is not from an RB211 as it claims.
>>
>> Yes it is.
>>
>> >The exaust ports are the wrong shape!
>>
>> No, they aren't.
>
>Yes they are. They are the same as a PW JT8 never used in a 757.
No, they aren't. They are from an RB211.
>> >The UC wheel shown is not the same as the one ID'ed as from a 757.
>> >Count the slots!!!
>>
>> There's 9 in each of them.
>
>Now you have totaly blown it.
>Ether You can't count or as usual you are willfuly misrepresenting the
>evidence
>The penta wheel has 7 or just possibly 8 but no more.
Oops, you're right, there's only eight slots in each of the pictures.
It's still the same number of slots.
>> >The Graphic of the pentagon only shows the outer wall and the D ring
>> >wall
>> >as though none other exist!
>>
>> It came from a computer simulation.
>>
>> >If the Aircraft fuselage made the 16-20 ft hole where are the holes the
>> >engines made? They weren't made of putty!
>>
>> And at least one made it into the building.
>
>Through what hole?
The one in the E-wing wall.
>> http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/pentagon/images/4.jpg
>>
>> >What happened to the wings? Into thin air? No holes?
>>
>> They pretty much disintegrated on contact, but still damaged the
>> building for 141 feet across its front.
>>
>> >Look at the pics of the holes the aircraft wings made in the twin
>> >towers.
>>
>> Check the difference of materials that the Pentagon and the WTC towers
>> were made from.
>
>So what happened to the wreckage? There would have been enough to ID
>the plane.
There was.
>The one pic of an "identifiable" part on the lawn has the wrong colors
>compared to a real AA plane.
No it doesn't. It's been matched to a location on an AA 757.
>What ever the airplane was it was faked up to resemble an AA plane.
I thought you were claiming that the eyewitnesses saw a smaller jet.
Now you claim that it looked like an AA aircraft? Can you keep your
story straight?
EagleEye
Globe, by the FBI, and showed each original name of each of the 19 who
also came through with visas in their own name.
age...@justicespammail.com
>agen...@justicespammail.com wrote:
>> On 15 Sep 2005 18:45:14 -0700, "Stevel" <sste...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >age...@justicespammail.com wrote:
>> >> On 15 Sep 2005 14:53:00 -0700, "Stevel" <sste...@aol.com> wrote:
>> <snip>
>>
>> >> >The only way flt A77 could be identified would be by its tail number
>> >> >which would be far to small to be observed by any witnesses.
>> >>
>> >> But it could be identified as an American Airlines passenger jet.
>> >>
>> >> >Flt AA77's transponder was switched off more than 30 minutes before an
>> >> >aircraft crashed into the Pentagon. No transponder means no radar ID.
>> >> >The aircraft was lost from all radar. An aircraft was picked up on
>> >> >radar heading for Washington about 10 mins before it aparrantly crashed
>> >> >into the Pentagon but there was no way for any independant witnesses
>> >> >including ATC staff to verify that aircrafts identity.
>> >>
>> >> So where is N644AA?
>> >
>> >Ask Donald or Dick'
>>
>> I'm asking you. You're making a claim that it didn't crash into the
>> Pentagon. Where is it?
None answer noted.
Then how come 757 parts were found?
>Some of the testomony of the whitnesses is suspect as some called it a
>737 and others a 757. Some claimed it hit the ground before smashing
>into the Pentagon.
>Some saw it go straight in.
And all of that is a matter of the frame of reference of the observer
at the time.
>None could ID the aircraft as AA77.
Which is about the stupidest argument that anyone could ever make. No
plane is marked anywhere with its flight number.
And who claims that the images from the security cam show a 757?
Certainly not the government.
>> page 20-21, location of fatalities
>
>No claim as to how many or the physical state of possible passengers.
Read the coroner's report sometime. The remains of all but one
passenger was identified. The remains of five additional people, not
accounted for in the submitted DNA were also identified.
>> >All I have is questions but you have no satisfactory answers.
>>
>> No one will ever have satisfactory answers for you.
>>
>> >> >and nothing was found to prove the plane was flt AA77
>> >>
>> >> Only pieces of the aircrafts engines, skin, wheels, landing gear, etc.
>> >>
>> >> >that has been verified at the site a being from
>> >> >a 757 or from AA77.
>> >>
>> >> Only pieces of the aircrafts engines, skin, wheels, landing gear, etc.
>> >
>> >Not so.
>>
>> http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/PENTPLANE/aedrive6.jpg
>>
>> http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/PENTPLANE/landinggear002.jpg
>>
>> http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/PENTPLANE/Damage9.jpg
>>
>> http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/PENTPLANE/fuselagefragment_MVC-027S.jpg
>>
>> http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/PENTPLANE/pentagonplanetire.jpg
>>
>> http://www.newsfollowup.com/flight77_5.htm#The%20Notch
>>
>> http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm
>
>None of these prove the plane was AA77 or a 757
You asked for photographs of plane wreckage.
>some sugest it was not a 757.
Only the conspiracy wacko websites. That doesn't mean that they are
right.
>The diffusor ring was from a JT8
The diffusor ring was from an RB211.
>and the wheel has to few slots to be
>from a 757.
The wheel has the same number of slots as from a 757 wheel.
>> >> >Some engine parts have been photographed at the site but nobody has
>> >> >been able to demonstrate that it came from a 757 or from AA77
>> >>
>> >> Only because you keep your eyes closed and your fingers in your ears
>> >> when people show them to you.
>> >
>> >Give me some real proof. If what you say is true it would be easy for
>> >you.
>>
>> See above.
>
>See above yourself.
You first.
>So far you have not proved the aircraft was AA77 as you claim.
Let's see. Wheel from 757. Engines from 757. Skin parts from AA
aircraft. Tail number from AA77. Oh, you missed that one did you?
http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm
1) "Most of the wreckage was in very small pieces and most was
carried out in drywall buckets. Some was large enough to identify --
including the tail number on the aircraft. I don't think there's any
doubt about what it was and who owned it." (From a letter by an
employee of the Pentagon)
http://www.humanunderground.com/11september/comments-general.html
And your proof that it wasn't?
age...@justicespammail.com
>
>Sky King wrote:
>> Tell us when you decide to stop lying, bubba stevel. You know that the
>> facts disprove your nonsense.
>>
>> Until you agree to tell the truth, we'll just keep catching you in your
>> lies.
>>
>> AA77 crashed into the Pentagon and was easily identified. You know
>> that, little lair stevel.
>
>What lies? You are such an idiot that you sell your country to a bunch
>of treasonous crooks.
>You have yet to come up with a single fact to prove AA77 hit the
>Pentagon.
http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm
1) "Most of the wreckage was in very small pieces and most was
carried out in drywall buckets. Some was large enough to identify --
***
including the tail number on the aircraft.
***
age...@justicespammail.com
ROTFLMAO.
Daniel
Sorry, assclown, that is most certainly what you said.
Daniel
I asked for credible evidence. You have nothing.
age...@justicespammail.com
>
>Sky King wrote:
>> sstev...@aol.com wrote:
>> > Sky King wrote:
>> > > Tell us when you decide to stop lying, bubba stevel. You know that the
>> > > facts disprove your nonsense.
>> > >
>> > > Until you agree to tell the truth, we'll just keep catching you in your
>> > > lies.
>> > >
>> > > AA77 crashed into the Pentagon and was easily identified. You know
>> > > that, little lair stevel.
>> >
>> > What lies? You are such an idiot that you sell your country to a bunch
>> > of treasonous crooks.
>>
>> We're still waiting for YOU to prove your conspiracy theories. You have
>> yet to provide one single piece of credible evidence, stevel. When is
>> that going to finally penetrate your little brainwashed head?
>
>All you have to do is GIVE US THE EVIDENCE flt AA77 hit the Pentagon.
>
>You have yet to come up with a single fact to prove AA77 hit the
>Pentagon.
sste...@aol.com
No its not
> >and the wheel has to few slots to be
> >from a 757.
>
> The wheel has the same number of slots as from a 757 wheel.
So you can't count either.
> >> >> >Some engine parts have been photographed at the site but nobody has
> >> >> >been able to demonstrate that it came from a 757 or from AA77
> >> >>
> >> >> Only because you keep your eyes closed and your fingers in your ears
> >> >> when people show them to you.
> >> >
> >> >Give me some real proof. If what you say is true it would be easy for
> >> >you.
> >>
> >> See above.
> >
> >See above yourself.
>
> You first.
>
> >So far you have not proved the aircraft was AA77 as you claim.
>
> Let's see. Wheel from 757. Engines from 757. Skin parts from AA
> aircraft. Tail number from AA77. Oh, you missed that one did you?
Not a 757 wheel and the engine is not an rb211.
No tail number shown. Just a hear-say report "my friend told me"
Get real will you ?
> http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm
>
> 1) "Most of the wreckage was in very small pieces and most was
> carried out in drywall buckets. Some was large enough to identify --
> including the tail number on the aircraft. I don't think there's any
> doubt about what it was and who owned it." (From a letter by an
> employee of the Pentagon)
> http://www.humanunderground.com/11september/comments-general.html
>
If you bother to read the whole letter it turns out to be hear-say.
That is not evidence or proof of anything.
> And your proof that it wasn't?
I don't need to prove anything but you do. You are the one who claims
to know what plane hit.
Give me proof not hear-say garbage.
Stevel.
gbl...@hnpl.net
Frank Dwyer wrote:
> Stevel wrote:
>
> > age...@justicespammail.com wrote:
> >
> >>On 15 Sep 2005 14:53:00 -0700, "Stevel" <sste...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>>>MuhammadColumbo wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>"Sky King" <sky...@scientist.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
> >>>>>1126792299.6...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >>>>>
> >>>>>MuhammadColumbo wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>There is nothing more clear than the dishonesty about 9/11 of the US
> >>>>>>administration and its parrots on the net like Sky Confusor.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>*We're still waiting for you to tell us what happened to AA7, Muhammad.
> >>>>>*What is taking you so long.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>You know, it never hit the Pentagone. If you consider that they find the
> >>>>>pasengers bodies and the debris, the conclusion is easy : Tt was crashed on
> >>>>>an other place. What ever can be that place, it is not the Pentagone.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>That is at least the 4th answer.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>No, it is at least the 50th evasion.
> >>>>
> >>>>So it is clear that you cannot provide any evidence to show that AA77
> >>>>crashed somewhere else (as I already showed when I debunked your
> >>>>science-fiction scenario, Muhammad.)
> >>>>
> >>>>The plane's wreakage was found in the Pentagon. Many witnesses saw AA7
> >>>>hit the Pentagon.
> >>>
> >>>In fact no witnesses saw A77 crash into the Pentagon.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>The only way flt A77 could be identified would be by its tail number
> >>>which would be far to small to be observed by any witnesses.
> >>
> >>But it could be identified as an American Airlines passenger jet.
> >>
> >>
> >>>Flt AA77's transponder was switched off more than 30 minutes before an
> >>>aircraft crashed into the Pentagon. No transponder means no radar ID.
> >>>The aircraft was lost from all radar. An aircraft was picked up on
> >>>radar heading for Washington about 10 mins before it aparrantly crashed
> >>>into the Pentagon but there was no way for any independant witnesses
> >>>including ATC staff to verify that aircrafts identity.
> >>
> >>So where is N644AA?
> >
> >
> > Ask Donald or Dick'
> >
> >
> >>>>the Pentagon.
> >>>
> >>>There is no verifiable way to prove this.
> >>>Remains were found somwhere. That is all we know.
> >>
> >>Only the testimony of the people who found them and identified them.
> >>But then to you they are all liars. Just like the people who saw the
> >>plane. And the people who recovered the aircraft parts. And the
> >>American Airlines people who "lost" an aircraft. Right?
> >
> >
> > What testimony?
> >
> >
> >>>
> >>>None of them saw an identifiable body
> >>
> >>Cite?
> >
> >
> > I am still waiting for you to come up with some.
>
> awful lot of claims.
>
> >>>and nothing was found to prove the plane was flt AA77
> >>
> >>Only pieces of the aircrafts engines, skin, wheels, landing gear, etc.
> >>
> >>
> >>>that has been verified at the site a being from
> >>>a 757 or from AA77.
> >>
> >>Only pieces of the aircrafts engines, skin, wheels, landing gear, etc.
> >
> >
> > Not so.
> >
> >
> >>>been able to demonstrate that it came from a 757 or from AA77
> >>
> >>Only because you keep your eyes closed and your fingers in your ears
> >>when people show them to you.
> >
> >
> > Give me some real proof. If what you say is true it would be easy for
> > you.
> >
> >
> >>>>admitted that you could not interview them since, of course, you know
> >>>>they would refute you.
> >>>>
> >>>>So, it is clear, our dear little liar, Muhammad, that you have provided
> >>>>no evidence to support your assertion that AA77 did not crash at the
> >>>>Pentagon as ALL of the evidence demonstrates conclusively.
> >>>>
> >>>>So, the question still remains. When are you are you going to provide
> >>>>evidence that AA77 crashed somewhere else?
> >>>>
> >>>>When, little Muhammad, when?
> >>>
> >>>ended up
> >>>Show us the videos that we all know exist and it might put an end to
> >>>speculation from both sides.
> >>
> >>Flight 77 by looking at it in a video. But besides that you'll just
> >>claim that any videos of a 757 flying into the Pentagon were doctored.
> >>So what's the point?
> >
> >
> > Why is it being hidden then?
> > Perhaps they don't show a 757.
>
> It isn't being hidden, it's being used.
Tiny problem there.
Thousands of people are aircraft watchers. They log every aircraft they
see. When anything unusual comes up its immediately a worldwide
subject..
and yet another tiny problem there. All aircraft fly under a particular
type of maintenance release.
Engineers have to replace parts after they have completed a number of
hours.
All those parts are numbered.
The airframe and engines have identities in that they have their
logbooks. Missing,incomplete or unusual logbooks attract a LOT of
attention...
The aircraft was flown into the Pentagon and all on board were murdered
as were people working in the Pentagon.
MuhammadColumbo
<age...@justicespammail.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
v19oi1pg2ofgjq18g...@4ax.com...
> On 16 Sep 2005 16:54:49 -0700, "Daniel" <sabot...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>MuhammadColumbo wrote:
>>> "ceniza" <cen...@genserconadv.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
>>> i9ydnaRzlJ5...@ntd.net...
>>> > good poind, M-man. Your arab brethren had nothing to do with 9/11.
>>>
>>> You have right. For proofs and evidences, see
>>> http://users.swing.be/muhammadcolumbo/
>>>
>>>
>>> > Just some patsies put on a plane.
>>>
>>> Totally wrong. Accprding to the passenger's list published by the
>>> aviation
>>> companies, there are NO ONE of the 19 arabs. We can imagine that some of
>>> them, one, two or three hve used false identities. But 19 people with
>>> false
>>> identities while they can use their own one, that is totally impossible.
>>>
>>> For more proofs, see the link here up.
>>
>>
>>You mean to tell us that 19 people cannot use false ID's? What kind of
>>fucking idiot are you?
>
> No, that's not it at all. The passenger lists provided by the
> airlines include the hijackers.
Where is that written? All the lists that I have seen contains no one of the
hijackers. Please give us your sources.
Please remove hollywood scenarios like the commission report that you copied
below.
MuhammadColumbo
"L Alpert" <alp...@xxgmail.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
_5idneE4PuKHqLHe...@comcast.com...
> MuhammadColumbo wrote:
>> "Daniel" <sabot...@hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
>> 1126914933.3...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> MuhammadColumbo wrote:
>>> "Sky King" <sky...@scientist.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
>>> 1126792299.6...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> MuhammadColumbo wrote:
>>>> There is nothing more clear than the dishonesty about 9/11 of the US
>>>> administration and its parrots on the net like Sky Confusor.
>>>
>>> *We're still waiting for you to tell us what happened to AA7,
>>> Muhammad. *What is taking you so long.
>>>
>>> You know, it never hit the Pentagone. If you consider that they find
>>> the pasengers bodies and the debris, the conclusion is easy : Tt was
>>> crashed on
>>> an other place. What ever can be that place, it is not the Pentagone.
>>>
>>> That is at least the 4th answer.
>>
>>
>> *Got any proof? Credible proof that is, not some nutjob k00k website.
>>
>> What do you mean? Read my web site and you will have enough
>> information to tell AA77 did not hit the Pentagone.
>>
>> http://users.swing.be/muhammadcolumbo/
>
> Flat earther websites, even if they are your own, are not verifiable
> proof, just your own twist of the facts.
Sorry! You can verify all important facts referenced in my web site. You
just need to take a few time, be sincere and make the search.
> These attacks were carried out by Islamic terrorist extremists.
YOU HAVE NO RELIABLE PROOF.
> That does not mean that all those that follow Islam are bad people. Many
> people throughout history have died due to someone's belief that their
> deity is better than another. Fanaticism is just a byproduct of religion.
Islamic governments installed thousand years peace life in mixed religions.
So, Islam is not concerned on your tellings.
MuhammadColumbo
MuhammadColumbo wrote:
> "Daniel" <sabot...@hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
> 1126914933.3...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> *Got any proof? Credible proof that is, not some nutjob k00k website.
>
> What do you mean? Read my web site and you will have enough information to
> tell AA77 did not hit the Pentagone.
>
> http://users.swing.be/muhammadcolumbo/
*I asked for credible evidence. You have nothing.
Only one photo of the Pentagone showing the entry hole and the position of
the exit hole on the walls are solid evidences that proofs there was no 757
plane:
The plane can not hit he Pentagone at that height (top of the first floor or
bottom of the second floor) while it leaves intact the window of the third
floor, and leaves intact the laun, and break only two windows of the second
floor. And in the same time drill 6 vertical walls. The weapon that hit the
Pentagone is small and heavy. A 757 is wide and has distributed weight that
avoid him to reach 6th wall while dont widely damage the façade.
That is easy, clear, solid, evidence, proof, ... You just need to be able to
think a little bit. Very little bit.
Daniel
Still waiting for credible evidence, your opinion does not count.
L Alpert
Verifying them is your job, not mine.
>
>> These attacks were carried out by Islamic terrorist extremists.
>
> YOU HAVE NO RELIABLE PROOF.
Look at the world, sonny. You will see the truth if you open your eyes.
>
>> That does not mean that all those that follow Islam are bad people. Many
>> people throughout history have died due to someone's belief
>> that their deity is better than another. Fanaticism is just a
>> byproduct of religion.
>
> Islamic governments installed thousand years peace life in mixed
> religions. So, Islam is not concerned on your tellings.
Fallacy. It is a religion and therefore incapable of peace.
James Of Tucson
"Actually, you are the one who needs to provide credible evidence if
you
want to debunk anything. Do you have any? "
If nobody believes your theory in the first place, it doesn't need any
debunking.
age...@justicespammail.com
>
>age...@justicespammail.com wrote:
>> On 16 Sep 2005 17:58:50 -0700, "Stevel" <sste...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> >agen...@justicespammail.com wrote:
>> >> On 15 Sep 2005 18:45:14 -0700, "Stevel" <sste...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >age...@justicespammail.com wrote:
>> >> >> On 15 Sep 2005 14:53:00 -0700, "Stevel" <sste...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >> <snip>
>> >>
>> >> >> >The only way flt A77 could be identified would be by its tail number
>> >> >> >which would be far to small to be observed by any witnesses.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> But it could be identified as an American Airlines passenger jet.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >Flt AA77's transponder was switched off more than 30 minutes before an
>> >> >> >aircraft crashed into the Pentagon. No transponder means no radar ID.
>> >> >> >The aircraft was lost from all radar. An aircraft was picked up on
>> >> >> >radar heading for Washington about 10 mins before it aparrantly crashed
>> >> >> >into the Pentagon but there was no way for any independant witnesses
>> >> >> >including ATC staff to verify that aircrafts identity.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> So where is N644AA?
>> >> >
>> >> >Ask Donald or Dick'
>> >>
>> >> I'm asking you. You're making a claim that it didn't crash into the
>> >> Pentagon. Where is it?
>>
>> No answer noted.
Still no answer noted.
<snip>
>> >None of these prove the plane was AA77 or a 757
>>
>> You asked for photographs of plane wreckage.
>>
>> >some sugest it was not a 757.
>>
>> Only the conspiracy wacko websites. That doesn't mean that they are
>> right.
>>
>> >The diffusor ring was from a JT8
>>
>> The diffusor ring was from an RB211.
>
>No its not
And your qualifications for making that assertion are?
>> >and the wheel has to few slots to be
>> >from a 757.
>>
>> The wheel has the same number of slots as from a 757 wheel.
>
>So you can't count either.
The wheel has the same number of slots as from a 757 wheel.
<snip>
>> Let's see. Wheel from 757. Engines from 757. Skin parts from AA
>> aircraft. Tail number from AA77. Oh, you missed that one did you?
>
>Not a 757 wheel and the engine is not an rb211.
Unfortunately for you, yes they are.
>No tail number shown. Just a hear-say report "my friend told me"
You wouldn't believe it if it were shown.
>Get real will you ?
You first.
>> http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm
>>
>> 1) "Most of the wreckage was in very small pieces and most was
>> carried out in drywall buckets. Some was large enough to identify --
>> including the tail number on the aircraft. I don't think there's any
>> doubt about what it was and who owned it." (From a letter by an
>> employee of the Pentagon)
>> http://www.humanunderground.com/11september/comments-general.html
>>
>If you bother to read the whole letter it turns out to be hear-say.
>That is not evidence or proof of anything.
It's better than anything you've presented.
And then, of course, the "black boxes" belonging to AA77, tail number
N644AA were found and identified.
sste...@aol.com
I take it you mean you are a "nobody"
Stevel
Sky King
kooks and loons. The evidence is conclusive to all of us.
Not one of you silly little conspiracists has come up with anything to
prove your case, bubba stevel, despite our constant requests that you
do so.
Keep whining like a child, but it does not relieve you of your
responsibility to support your own assertions.
Sky King
MuhammadColumbo wrote:
> "Daniel" <sabot...@hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
> 1126985570.3...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> MuhammadColumbo wrote:
> > "Daniel" <sabot...@hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
> > 1126914933.3...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > *Got any proof? Credible proof that is, not some nutjob k00k website.
> >
> > What do you mean? Read my web site and you will have enough information to
> > tell AA77 did not hit the Pentagone.
> >
> > http://users.swing.be/muhammadcolumbo/
>
>
> *I asked for credible evidence. You have nothing.
>
> Only one photo of the Pentagone showing the entry hole and the position of
> the exit hole on the walls are solid evidences that proofs there was no 757
> plane:
One photo is insufficient.
All the other evidence irrefutably demonstrates that AA77 hit the
Pentagon. There is no question about that amongst honest, thinking
people.
You might have an easier time proving that the Titanic never sank,
Muhammad, but your refusal to provide any evidence has gotten you
nowhere here.
Sky King
You've already been given the proof.
It is inconvenient for your political purposes, Muhammad, so you deny
it.
MuhammadColumbo
> MuhammadColumbo wrote:
>> "L Alpert" <alp...@xxgmail.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
>> _5idneE4PuKHqLHe...@comcast.com...
>>>>
>>>
>>> Flat earther websites, even if they are your own, are not verifiable
>>> proof, just your own twist of the facts.
>>
>> Sorry! You can verify all important facts referenced in my web site.
>> You just need to take a few time, be sincere and make the search.
>
> Verifying them is your job, not mine.
I still did that. But if you want to check if I made the job seriously, or
if you want to criticise me, you need to make it yourself.
>>> These attacks were carried out by Islamic terrorist extremists.
>>
>> YOU HAVE NO RELIABLE PROOF.
>
> Look at the world, sonny. You will see the truth if you open your eyes.
Don't worry my eyes are totally open. Now, it time for you to open your eyes
: If no 9/11 (which is made by USA), there will be no Bali, no Madrid, no
London, ... But also, no Afghanistan invasion, no Iraq invasion.
>>> That does not mean that all those that follow Islam are bad people. Many
>>> people throughout history have died due to someone's belief
>>> that their deity is better than another. Fanaticism is just a
>>> byproduct of religion.
>>
>> Islamic governments installed thousand years peace life in mixed
>> religions. So, Islam is not concerned on your tellings.
>
> Fallacy. It is a religion and therefore incapable of peace.
I understand you. That is true with the christianism. See the history for
that. And if you analyse enough precisely, you will understand why that is
true with christianism.
But for all other religions, that is wrong. So, Irefuse to consider all
religions like christianism. I sincerely invite you to study other religions
to see the truth. Without that, you can not assimilate all religion to the
same one.
MuhammadColumbo
*Still waiting for credible evidence, your opinion does not count.
I can't make understanding any iota to people who are not able to think.
Begin to think, you will understand yourself. You don't need me.
L Alpert
> "L Alpert" <alp...@xxgmail.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
> kPqdnYhkMbb...@comcast.com...
>> MuhammadColumbo wrote:
>>> "L Alpert" <alp...@xxgmail.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
>>> _5idneE4PuKHqLHe...@comcast.com...
>>>>>
>>>>> http://users.swing.be/muhammadcolumbo/
>>>>
>>>> Flat earther websites, even if they are your own, are not
>>>> verifiable proof, just your own twist of the facts.
>>>
>>> Sorry! You can verify all important facts referenced in my web site.
>>> You just need to take a few time, be sincere and make the search.
>>
>> Verifying them is your job, not mine.
>
> I still did that. But if you want to check if I made the job
> seriously, or if you want to criticise me, you need to make it
> yourself.
No, you referenced a biased site.
>
>>>> These attacks were carried out by Islamic terrorist extremists.
>>>
>>> YOU HAVE NO RELIABLE PROOF.
>>
>> Look at the world, sonny. You will see the truth if you open your
>> eyes.
>
> Don't worry my eyes are totally open. Now, it time for you to open
> your eyes
>> If no 9/11 (which is made by USA), there will be no Bali, no Madrid,
>> no
> London, ... But also, no Afghanistan invasion, no Iraq invasion.
It matters not the invasions, terrorists will do what they do and will
always find a reason. It is acceptable behavior by the host society that is
the problem.
>
>>>> That does not mean that all those that follow Islam are bad
>>>> people. Many people throughout history have died due to someone's
>>>> belief that their deity is better than another. Fanaticism is just a
>>>> byproduct of religion.
>>>
>>> Islamic governments installed thousand years peace life in mixed
>>> religions. So, Islam is not concerned on your tellings.
>>
>> Fallacy. It is a religion and therefore incapable of peace.
>
> I understand you. That is true with the christianism. See the history
> for that. And if you analyse enough precisely, you will understand
> why that is true with christianism.
>
> But for all other religions, that is wrong. So, Irefuse to consider
> all religions like christianism. I sincerely invite you to study
> other religions to see the truth. Without that, you can not
> assimilate all religion to the same one.
The base religion makes no difference. There are fanatics within each one.
It is the nature of the beast when one must accept things on faith instead
of fact. I do not care to assimilate all into one, rather, we would be
better off as a planet to get rid of them all.
Sky King
But you refuse to listen to us.
Daniel
MuhammadColumbo wrote:
> *Still waiting for credible evidence, your opinion does not count.
>
> I can't make understanding any iota to people who are not able to think.
> Begin to think, you will understand yourself. You don't need me.
Since YOU are the one making the claim, YOU are the one who needs to
provide the evidence.
age...@justicespammail.com
Actually, Stevie, you're the "nobody".
sste...@aol.com
No I am somebody who knows that the Bush Presidency is the most corrupt
and dangerous in the history of the US. I also know that you are an
idiot who cannot see the truth when it slaps you in the face.
Stevel
MuhammadColumbo
All evidences are given and explained in the link
http://users.swing.be/muhammadcolumbo/
If you still have any problem with a precise point, I can explain it again.
But you need to use a little bit your thinking. It is no matter to tell
"provide evidences".
MuhammadColumbo
> MuhammadColumbo wrote:
>> "L Alpert" <alp...@xxgmail.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
>> kPqdnYhkMbb...@comcast.com...
>>>> You just need to take a few time, be sincere and make the search.
>>>
>>> Verifying them is your job, not mine.
>>
>> I still did that. But if you want to check if I made the job
>> seriously, or if you want to criticise me, you need to make it
>> yourself.
>
> No, you referenced a biased site.
To tell that, you must give at least one example. And that don't means all
are on biased sites. So, the lone biased is yourself.
>> Don't worry my eyes are totally open. Now, it time for you to open
>> your eyes
>>> If no 9/11 (which is made by USA), there will be no Bali, no Madrid,
>>> no
>> London, ... But also, no Afghanistan invasion, no Iraq invasion.
>
> It matters not the invasions, terrorists will do what they do and will
> always find a reason. It is acceptable behavior by the host society that
> is the problem.
You have totally wrong. Invasion bring too much money to the big orderers
while they risk nothing. So the ywill find any to justify the invasion. And
here, it was 9/11 that they made themself.
For terrorists, as the people who did it are almost always poor and
oppressed, they must have serious reasons to do it. Specially when people
die in the action, like in Palestine suicide bombers. So their reasons must
be enough strong.
>> But for all other religions, that is wrong. So, Irefuse to consider
>> all religions like christianism. I sincerely invite you to study
>> other religions to see the truth. Without that, you can not
>> assimilate all religion to the same one.
>
> The base religion makes no difference. There are fanatics within each one.
> It is the nature of the beast when one must accept things on faith instead
> of fact. I do not care to assimilate all into one, rather, we would be
> better off as a planet to get rid of them all.
Notice clearly, all messages coming from muslims request to stop to agress
them, without that they will never stop. Her, they don't tell "we will
continue until all teh world becames muslim". Not at all. So the actions of
muslims are not religion based. They are defensive and based on the action
of others who invade them.
FartStarter is an idiot
Asmodeus wrote:
> Sky King wrote:
> > Asmodeus wrote:
> > > Sky King wrote:
> > > > EagleEye wrote:
> > > > > Global Outlook
> > > > > The Magazine of the 9/11 Truth Movement
> > > > > http://globaloutlook.ca/
> > > >
> > > > Too bad you don't understand denial in its full form, Eaglette. "Truth"
> > > > is the 9/11 Denial Movement's euphemism for "Denial."
> > > >
> > > > That is why we all know that the real title is obviously:
> > > >
> > > > "The Magazine of the 9/11 Denial Movement."
> > > >
> > > > When will you ever get it, Eaglette?
> > >
> > > Get what?
> > >
> > > That you are a drooling retard.
> >
> > How are those phone calls coming, StarIdiot?
>
> I think you should phone home Sky King.
>
>
> Got those statements from
> > the Pentagon rescue and recovery people yet?
>
> What are you blathering about?
>
> Or are you afriad like all
> > the other 9/11 Denier frauds and charlatans to face the truth?
>
> We've already faced the truth, that you are a government ass clown who
> can't stay on topic.
> >
> > Of course you are scared witless to make one single call, Starbozo,
> > knowing full well what the answer will be.
>
> "Witless" is would definitely describe you Sky Clown.
"Imbecile" would definitely describe you, moron.
Asmodeus
$20378$ba62...@news.skynet.be:
> For terrorists, as the people who did it are almost always poor and
> oppressed
Bullshit. Utter bullshit.
--
/"\ ||
\ / ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN || Oderint Dum Metuant
X AGAINST HTML MAIL || VRWC Proud Life Member
/ \ AND POSTINGS || http://www.rightwingnation.com
Asmodeus
$20378$ba62...@news.skynet.be:
> All evidences are given and explained in the link
Congratulations! You are a finalist for One of the Nuttiest
and Most Paranoid Bullshit Sites on the Web for September!
age...@justicespammail.com
>
>age...@justicespammail.com wrote:
>> On 18 Sep 2005 08:38:16 -0700, sste...@aol.com wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >James Of Tucson wrote:
>> >> "Actually, you are the one who needs to provide credible evidence if
>> >> you
>> >> want to debunk anything. Do you have any? "
>> >>
>> >> If nobody believes your theory in the first place, it doesn't need any
>> >> debunking.
>> >
>> >I take it you mean you are a "nobody"
>>
>> Actually, Stevie, you're the "nobody".
>
>No I am somebody who knows that the Bush Presidency is the most corrupt
>and dangerous in the history of the US.
And that clouds your reasoning about everything.
>I also know that you are an
>idiot who cannot see the truth when it slaps you in the face.
I've already used that line, stevieboy.
Daniel
MuhammadColumbo wrote:
> "Daniel" <sabot...@hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
> 1127088369.0...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > MuhammadColumbo wrote:
> >
> >> *Still waiting for credible evidence, your opinion does not count.
> >>
> >> I can't make understanding any iota to people who are not able to think.
> >> Begin to think, you will understand yourself. You don't need me.
> >
> > Since YOU are the one making the claim, YOU are the one who needs to
> > provide the evidence.
>
> All evidences are given and explained in the link
> http://users.swing.be/muhammadcolumbo/
I said CREDIBLE. Your drooling BS hardly counts. I see you cannot
refute the 9/11 commission.
L Alpert
> "L Alpert" <alp...@xxgmail.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
> FbCdnfrO0pD...@comcast.com...
>> MuhammadColumbo wrote:
>>> "L Alpert" <alp...@xxgmail.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
>>> kPqdnYhkMbb...@comcast.com...
>>>>> Sorry! You can verify all important facts referenced in my web
>>>>> site. You just need to take a few time, be sincere and make the
>>>>> search.
>>>>
>>>> Verifying them is your job, not mine.
>>>
>>> I still did that. But if you want to check if I made the job
>>> seriously, or if you want to criticise me, you need to make it
>>> yourself.
>>
>> No, you referenced a biased site.
>
> To tell that, you must give at least one example. And that don't
> means all are on biased sites. So, the lone biased is yourself.
The onus is on you to prove what you ascertain with unbiased material, not
mine to refute your unsubstantiated claims.
>
>>> Don't worry my eyes are totally open. Now, it time for you to open
>>> your eyes
>>>> If no 9/11 (which is made by USA), there will be no Bali, no
>>>> Madrid, no
>>> London, ... But also, no Afghanistan invasion, no Iraq invasion.
>>
>> It matters not the invasions, terrorists will do what they do and
>> will always find a reason. It is acceptable behavior by the host
>> society that is the problem.
>
> You have totally wrong. Invasion bring too much money to the big
> orderers while they risk nothing. So the ywill find any to justify
> the invasion. And here, it was 9/11 that they made themself.
Proof.
>
> For terrorists, as the people who did it are almost always poor and
> oppressed, they must have serious reasons to do it. Specially when
> people die in the action, like in Palestine suicide bombers. So their
> reasons must be enough strong.
>
They may be strong to them, that doesn't mean they are right in the eyes of
anyone but themselves.
>>> But for all other religions, that is wrong. So, Irefuse to consider
>>> all religions like christianism. I sincerely invite you to study
>>> other religions to see the truth. Without that, you can not
>>> assimilate all religion to the same one.
>>
>> The base religion makes no difference. There are fanatics within
>> each one. It is the nature of the beast when one must accept things
>> on faith instead of fact. I do not care to assimilate all into one,
>> rather, we would be better off as a planet to get rid of them all.
>
> Notice clearly, all messages coming from muslims request to stop to
> agress them, without that they will never stop. Her, they don't tell
> "we will continue until all teh world becames muslim". Not at all. So
> the actions of muslims are not religion based. They are defensive and
> based on the action of others who invade them.
The fanatics use religion as there base for justification. I never heard
any of them claim it was for only the people, but rather it is "Allah is
great" as the cut of someone's head.
Religion breeds those that believe they are morally justified to do almost
anything in the name of a deity.
L Alpert
Biased. Plain and simple.
sste...@aol.com
age...@justicespammail.com wrote:
> On 19 Sep 2005 06:42:50 -0700, sste...@aol.com wrote:
>
> >
> >age...@justicespammail.com wrote:
> >> On 18 Sep 2005 08:38:16 -0700, sste...@aol.com wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >James Of Tucson wrote:
> >> >> "Actually, you are the one who needs to provide credible evidence if
> >> >> you
> >> >> want to debunk anything. Do you have any? "
> >> >>
> >> >> If nobody believes your theory in the first place, it doesn't need any
> >> >> debunking.
> >> >
> >> >I take it you mean you are a "nobody"
> >>
> >> Actually, Stevie, you're the "nobody".
> >
> >No I am somebody who knows that the Bush Presidency is the most corrupt
> >and dangerous in the history of the US.
>
> And that clouds your reasoning about everything.
Not clouds, it informs my judgement.
Clearly something you don't have.
> >I also know that you are an
> >idiot who cannot see the truth when it slaps you in the face.
>
> I've already used that line, stevieboy.
Care to give a cite?
Stevel
Sky King
How about you answer the questions posed to you, bubba stevel? How long
shall we wait.
Is it because you're still intimidated by the facts, bubba stevel?
Or is it because you are in total denial as is expected of you by your
fellow 9/11 Denial Movement members?
Either way, you're still a wimp.
sste...@aol.com
I don't have to answer your questions untill you and your lover Agent86
prove your case. You ain't done it yet.
> Is it because you're still intimidated by the facts, bubba stevel?
You have produced no facts intimidating or otherwise relevent.
> Or is it because you are in total denial as is expected of you by your
> fellow 9/11 Denial Movement members?
>
> Either way, you're still a wimp.
I don't even know what you mean by "9/11 Denial Movement"
No body denies that a real horror happened on 9/11.
Either way you are still a fool.
Stevel
MuhammadColumbo
MuhammadColumbo wrote:
> "Daniel" <sabot...@hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
> 1127088369.0...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > MuhammadColumbo wrote:
> >
> >> *Still waiting for credible evidence, your opinion does not count.
> >>
> >> I can't make understanding any iota to people who are not able to
> >> think.
> >> Begin to think, you will understand yourself. You don't need me.
> >
> > Since YOU are the one making the claim, YOU are the one who needs to
> > provide the evidence.
>
> All evidences are given and explained in the link
> http://users.swing.be/muhammadcolumbo/
*I said CREDIBLE. Your drooling BS hardly counts.
??
*I see you cannot refute the 9/11 commission.
I don't want to waste time with official lies. And I also refuted them. Read
in detail.
MuhammadColumbo
> MuhammadColumbo wrote:
>> "L Alpert" <alp...@xxgmail.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
>> FbCdnfrO0pD...@comcast.com...
>>
>> To tell that, you must give at least one example. And that don't
>> means all are on biased sites. So, the lone biased is yourself.
>
> The onus is on you to prove what you ascertain with unbiased material, not
> mine to refute your unsubstantiated claims.
If you don't refute anything, then just shut up.
>> You have totally wrong. Invasion bring too much money to the big
>> orderers while they risk nothing. So the ywill find any to justify
>> the invasion. And here, it was 9/11 that they made themself.
>
> Proof.
Open your eyes: The actual USA debt of 400b $ is mostly payed to Bush or
Chenney or Rumsfeld linked companies.
>> For terrorists, as the people who did it are almost always poor and
>> oppressed, they must have serious reasons to do it. Specially when
>> people die in the action, like in Palestine suicide bombers. So their
>> reasons must be enough strong.
>
> They may be strong to them, that doesn't mean they are right in the eyes
> of anyone but themselves.
Go to leave in Palestine during 10 years, you will understand. Don't forget
your family who will die under the weapons of israeli soldiers.
>>>> But for all other religions, that is wrong. So, Irefuse to consider
>>>> all religions like christianism. I sincerely invite you to study
>>>> other religions to see the truth. Without that, you can not
>>>> assimilate all religion to the same one.
>>>
>>> The base religion makes no difference. There are fanatics within
>>> each one. It is the nature of the beast when one must accept things
>>> on faith instead of fact. I do not care to assimilate all into one,
>>> rather, we would be better off as a planet to get rid of them all.
>>
>> Notice clearly, all messages coming from muslims request to stop to
>> agress them, without that they will never stop. Her, they don't tell
>> "we will continue until all teh world becames muslim". Not at all. So
>> the actions of muslims are not religion based. They are defensive and
>> based on the action of others who invade them.
>
> The fanatics use religion as there base for justification.
You understand NOTHING. You just imagine muslims like christians that are
able to go to the reversed part of the world to convert people to the
christianism. Muslims do nothing like that.
> I never heard any of them claim it was for only the people, but rather it
> is "Allah is great" as the cut of someone's head.
> Religion breeds those that believe they are morally justified to do almost
> anything in the name of a deity.
Even OBL, even in his speach before the elections, he told : "Any country
who doesn't agres us ahs automatically guarantied its security". That is
clearly based on teh action and never speak about religious justification.
You became unable to understand any word. For you everything is religious
based, while people don't speak about religion.
MuhammadColumbo
"Asmodeus" <bondcATrightwingnationDOTcom> a écrit dans le message de news:
Xns96D6B17D446B8bo...@216.196.97.142...
> "MuhammadColumbo" <muhammad...@swing.be> wrote in news:432f1e3c$0
> $20378$ba62...@news.skynet.be:
>
>> For terrorists, as the people who did it are almost always poor and
>> oppressed
>
> Bullshit. Utter bullshit.
The lone rich is OBL. And he participate to no action. Surely no suicide
action.
But all Palestinians are totally poor people.
MuhammadColumbo
"L Alpert" <alp...@xxgmail.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
bYqdnezF6vE...@comcast.com...
I just wanted to explain how the strikes can be done technically and I
checked if they were in that manner. THe answer is clearly YES, they were
made by technical possibilities.