yep the same dance i saw as well.Yeah they hate the term cause the truth hurts that we can see right through them.lol.
I dont think you understand what a shill really is.They are people that get piad by the government and the zionests to post propaganda and lies defending the official version of 9/11.All these people your arguing with about this are paid shills that have penetrated this site.They are easy as pie to spot.Notice how they come here everyday constantly and ignore the facts presented in this video and wont acknowledge them? the ones that are in denial and just brainwashed,they dont constantly come here everyday defending the lies and coverup.they leave when they see videos like this,they dont keep coming back here everyday.oh and be careful on reading Chomskys books. He is a clever paid shill as well.He is bought off and paid for.He is a much more clever shill than most.He likes to get people tot hink he is interested in government corruption but he is really in it with them.He mixes in half truths with many truths.Much more clever than the ones your arguing with here. Look around and you can see there are quite a few of them in this section.they got them at message boards EVERYWHERE.Naw you were never a shill obviously.You were just like I was at one time,a brainwashed Bush dupe.For three years I was a brainwashed Bush dupe and you were as well at one time.Your awake about things now and arent brainwashed anymore which is good . If you really want to learn more about shills send me a PM sometime and I'll give you more evidence about it.dont want to discuss it here where the shills will just try and derail it.
If we are shills, why is it you can't defend your lies? Seriously. Whether or not someone is paid has no bearing on the truth, does it? The truth is the truth. Surely you have one single shred of real evidence that isn't based on opinion or outright lies, right? Care to share your best one? I know you claim to have tons, but all I am asking for is your best one. What is the one piece of evidence that proves the government or the Jews or whomever you hate the most this week are behind 9/11. The one thing truthers can't stand is that they don't stand for the truth.
Paid propaganda is hard to defeat with unlimited resources dedicated to the cause. You can't offer proof of anything when it will never be acknowledged. I point to a blue sky, and the teams says it's polka dotted. No truth involved in that "official" presentation of BS.
Is that the "official" position there? You know...rule number one...NEVER agree with something "unofficial". Thanks for that stunning display of....whatever that was though...
Wrong yet again. The truth is still the truth. You should be able to present evidence your theories are correct. It is PAINFULLY obvious you cannot. It doesn't matter WHAT resources anyone has at their disposal. The evidence should speak for itself. The evidence does speak for itself in regards to 9/11. YOU have to make up lies in order for your bull(*)(*)(*)(*) theories (whichever ones you believe today) to work. Things like pretending the Pentagon is the most secure building in the world. Ever been to Cheyenne Mountain? I have. FAR more secure than the Pentagon and just one example of NUMEROUS examples of more secure buildings. Even still, I don't think Cheyenne Mountain has cameras pointed up into the sky to try and capture incomming planes. Apparently the military doesn't have the extreme paranoia of truthers.
I don't know what the official position is on the color of the sky. I'm just doing what I always do. Objectively examining the available evidence and arriving at my own conclusion. You should try it sometime. It's quite exhilarating. Are you quite sure you could bring yourself to contradict DRG if in his next book he claimed that the sky is green and that the government is faking the blue sky color? No problem. Anytime. Glad I could help.
Didn't need them pointed up in the sky. There were plenty of surrounding cameras all over the place that they confiscated film from at the time. None of them show the magic act.
Well now see...I knew that was a baited question. Now you're mad at DRG? You should try to focus more versus random points of anger at anyone and everyone who doesn't play "official" ball. Just a suggestion though.
I'm not mad at DRG or anyone else. I'm just wondering about your ability to objectively look at evidence that doesn't support the conclusion you like. You look at the sky for yourself and you accept that it is blue. That's a start.
Well now one would think your side could do the same, and supposing both sides did just that, perhaps somehow the truth would fall out of all that "open mindedness". That's why I attempted (some time ago) to go point by point but, was successfully derailed from doing so. You're not open minded though. Isn't that right? Thank you for your honesty in advance.
And we're suppose to believe a known proven liar that the pentagon was surrounded by cameras that would have shown the plane? The FBI released the confiscated film. It didn't show anything except the explosion. Looking at the quality and position of the cameras, that is not a surprise. Do you have evidence of other cameras that were on or around the Pentagon that should have caught Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon? Do you have evidence that the 100+ witnesses are all lying about seeing a plane you claim wasn't there because YOU don't see it in any video?
I don't have a side. But yes if everyone looked at the evidence objectively one would expect the truth to lie not at either extreme but somewhere along the continuum between the two. Why do you say that? Because I don't agree with you?
Nobody actually saw it hit the Pentagon is what I find mostly. People like to say they saw a plane, in that direction ,etc. Some even claim it went in the opposite direction. Nobody DID see it, because it flew OVER the Pentagon, at best. Who knows for sure though? The evidence that it did doesn't exist (probably because no plane hit it to begin with).
Oh yeah...the "cruise missile with wings" dude. He saw something for sure. Wasn't a plane though. http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2004/110804factsstraight.htm
Quit being obtuse....He clearly says he saw an American Airlines jet hit the pentagon and he said it LOOKED LIKE a cruise missile with wings,not that it was.
How does somebody who's not the witness know better than the witness about what they saw? How does somebody who wasn't there know better about what the people who were there saw? I heard the men in black are hiring.. It might be a good job opportunity. "What you saw was the planet Venus"
I love it when truthers prove their utter dishonesty by cherry picking quotes and leaving out key words like "like" that change the entire meaning. Did Mike Walters say it was a cruise missile with wings like RWAF is lying about? No. He says it was LIKE a cruise missile with wings. Right before that he clearly states it was an American Airlines jet. So we can either believe known, proven liars lying their ass off yet again, or we can believe the words of the guy who saw it happen despite the fact RWAF claimed nobody saw a plane hit the building. Looks like RWAF is building a lie lasagne with layer after layer of lies. So let's break down RWAF's bull(*)(*)(*)(*) down and prove him wrong yet again. This is what Mike Walters actually said: "I was sitting in the northbound on 27 and the traffic was, you know, typical rush-hour -- it had ground to a standstill. I looked out my window and I saw this plane, this jet, an American Airlines jet, coming. And I thought, 'This doesn't add up, it's really low.' "And I saw it. I mean it was like a cruise missile with wings. It went right there and slammed right into the Pentagon." So there you have it. He says it WAS a plane, a jet and an American Airlines jet. He says it was LIKE a cruise missile with wings. Truthers need to learn grammar. But WAIT! There's MORE! Truthers love to spread lies and these lies eventually make their way back to the source. Here is what Mike Walters had to say about obvious lies like RWAF's; "Undicisettembre: An Italian conspiracy theorist said you might have mistaken a cruise missile for an airplane. I guess you can rule out this crazy idea too, right? Mike Walter: Here again people have taken my words and twisted them. The fact that I mentioned the trees has been used to discount my testimony. This cruise missile notion also comes from an interview that day when someone asked if I thought the plane was really aiming at the Pentagon or was it simply an accident. That's when I said "It was like a cruise missile with wings and it went right over there." I gestured to the area of impact. My point was that the plane was no longer a plane... Whoever was piloting the jet had every intention of turning it into a weapon... like a missile. But the notion that it was a missile and not a jet would be laughable if it wasn't so sad. I think it is really sad because some people actually believe this stuff. Undicisettembre: Did you see any wreckage of the airplane on the ground? Mike Walter: Yes I did. But I wasn’t alone, other witnesses and some reporters and photographers who were there to cover the attack also saw the wreckage.[/quote] Like I said. Who are we going to believe? Someone who was there, had a clear view of the event and has no reason to lie? Or a known, proven liar who has been shown once again to be lying? It isn't a hard call.
