Slate Article: The Rise of "Truth"

Phone calls made from the planes, the CVR from UA93, the confessions, the evidence found and presented in court ... Etc, etc, ...

The unfortunate passengers of UA93 figured it out in minutes. You've had ten years.

 

I guess she missed the whole thing where Atta says, "We have some planes."

 

Your post is hilarious when juxtaposed against your signature line.

So much for credibility.

 

I guess you got to say something, since you didn't answer any of the questions.

 

Hanibal already did that. After which you followed up with an even more ridiculous quote than the previous one I quoted.

It went something like this . . . Neener, neener, I don't believe you. Everything the government claimed is part of the conspiracy and is alleged. PROVE this, PROVE that.

Like ordinary citizens have access to the CVR and other forms of evidence that you deny and if they can't produce it that somehow substantiates your ridiculous position.

Interestingly enough, I came to this subforum after watching some of the truther videos and I had questions. But the more research I did, the more I was convinced that the truther theories had serious flaws. The "debunking" if that's what you want to call it, of the truther theories are way more logical than the truther theories themselves. Can't get a straight answer from a truther when you get down to the sticky facts that they can't explain. All you get is a bunch of maniacal or childish petulant rantings.

 

Who were their "leaders" ?

 

Really? On the same site as your sample I found this:

http://www.tailstrike.com/110901.pdf

And over on Scribd I found this:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/14780831/...orts-AA-77-and-UA-93-Paperclipped-Together260

Would you like to retract your statement?

 

I have no problem with truthers asking for proof, but ask for proof of provable facts. Not negatives, not things that are unprovable like Bush didn't know or prove that the phone calls were real etc.

That's the kind of silly stuff you guys throw out there when you're cornered.

 

The 1st one looks like an unofficial transcript, the 2nd site one has some kind of bug trying to get into my computer so I can't see it.

So...no

 

It comes directly from the exact same link you posted. So are you saying your post was bogus?

 

Point Hannibal!

Next we turn to Fraud's exasperated text...Oh Fraud?

 

The link is irrelevant, the doc is alleged to be a transcript of the CVR from the flight. There has been several reports that family members of those who were allegedly on the jet, claim that the transcript produced for the trial is NOT what they heard when the feds let them listen to the recording.

 

Source for this claim?

 

It's out there...Google it.

 

I see: you have no source.

You made the claim, once again you fail to back it up.