Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
"Loaded" as in having full tanks! I thought it was obvious that this is what was meant as "loaded with fuel".
ON and some of it happening on 9/11 exactly as it had been written means nothing to your camp bcause you dont have the guts to admit our nation's top military leaders planned on attacking the US. To honest people it would, in the very least, show a false flag is not as crazy as your camp tries to make it.
Common sense sprouts. Doing it outside a courtroom tips the hand too much because it allows a lot of time to neutralize the information. My point is it was intellectually dishonest to mislead readers in to thinking all he said was he knows of a General when clearly that is very different from him stating he is willing to name the General under oath.
Once again, it doesn't matter what the government WOULD do. Appealing to Operation Northwoods, which never happened, does nothing to prove your 9/11 Inside Job.
Just like appealing to the sun having come up in the past does nothing to show that it did today.
Love the appeals to 'guts' and 'honesty' as usual, when your argument fails.
Btodd
Isn't it a little late in the game to be editing posts? I mean, wow. I can't imagine anything you'd say that would trump what you've posted thus far!
The Boeing 767 is capable of carrying up to 23,980 gallons of fuel and it is estimated that, at the time of impact, each aircraft had approximately 10,000 gallons of unused fuel on board (compiled from Government sources). Quote from the FEMA report into the collapse of WTC's One and Two (Chapter Two); That amount of fuel is enough to cause a devastating fire! But what are we arguing here? Are you implying that the twin towers were blown up in a conspiracy? What exactly are you trying to prove?Neither plane had full tanks as both only had half a tank at impact. So basically you are trying to comment without having knowledge of fundamental facts.
Isn't it a little late in the game to be editing posts? I mean, wow. I can't imagine anything you'd say that would trump what you've posted thus far!
Neither plane had full tanks as both only had half a tank at impact. So basically you are trying to comment without having knowledge of fundamental facts.
The Boeing 767 is capable of carrying up to 23,980 gallons of fuel and it is estimated that, at the time of impact, each aircraft had approximately 10,000 gallons of unused fuel on board (compiled from Government sources). Quote from the FEMA report into the collapse of WTC's One and Two (Chapter Two); That amount of fuel is enough to cause a devastating fire! But what are we arguing here? Are you implying that the twin towers were blown up in a conspiracy? What exactly are you trying to prove?
Relax. No "gotcha" there.Is there something wrong with editing out a post, if you feel the point you had made wasn't relevant? I don't see how you 'got me' there, but if it helps you sleep...
Btodd
Relax. No "gotcha" there.
Just a funny observation.
You did see the laughing guy right?
The Boeing 767 is capable of carrying up to 23,980 gallons of fuel and it is estimated that, at the time of impact, each aircraft had approximately 10,000 gallons of unused fuel on board (compiled from Government sources). Quote from the FEMA report into the collapse of WTC's One and Two (Chapter Two); That amount of fuel is enough to cause a devastating fire! But what are we arguing here? Are you implying that the twin towers were blown up in a conspiracy? What exactly are you trying to prove?
You are aware that you can give information under oath outside of a courtroom correct? Especially if you feared that you were going to be killed, and that your information could save the Republic from potential treason, it's it the epitome of cowardice not to simply swear an affidavit which could be introduced into evidence should you "disappear" or "have an accident". Any doubts about admissibility would likely be completely wiped away should you also tape it while it is being administered.
Indeed. The arguments are pretty weak as it stands, but all this resorting back to what the government 'could do' is really rather desperate.
Once again, it doesn't matter what the government WOULD do. Appealing to Operation Northwoods, which never happened, does nothing to prove your 9/11 Inside Job.
Just like appealing to the sun having come up in the past does nothing to show that it did today.
Love the appeals to 'guts' and 'honesty' as usual, when your argument fails.
Btodd
My argument did not fail since I never claimed ON proves and inside job. Im pointing out the lack of guts in your camp because not a single person has ever had the balls to address ON and how some events on 9/11 happened exactly as planned in ON.
RealDealNeverStop said:or those who have missed it, the main reason ON matters is because it proves our nation's top military leaders planned on attacking the US for political reasons.
I would like to again point out your 'lack of guts' at never admitting that you used the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy to try to support your ridiculous contention about remote-controlled planes at the Pentagon, then.
Are we really gonna play this 'no, you're the dishonest one' game again?
Or do you have anything of substance in regard to your theories, other than pointing to a conspiracy that never happened to help us accept another one that didn't happen as well?
Which ones? You're gonna have to get into a bit more detail than that. Since the plan wasn't carried out, but merely mentioned...who mentioned it? What were the results?
But as you stated above, you're not trying to prove anything. Right?
Btodd
How do you know he has not done what you have proposed regarding the taping? The guy is pretty bright and his bio is worth a read.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?