Actually they do. http://www.snopes.com/rumors/coincidence.asp http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.asp Nullifying arguments doesn't require a "debate". Informing/warning the public of a con can and should be done without giving a platform to conspiracy craziness. Or lining the pockets of the people inventing these "theories".
I see. So, two people (a husband and wife team) constitute the entirety of the argument? (the Mickelson's site also plainly admits that the information they present may or may not be true). I'm not sure how this helps your position but, maybe you could expand on it?
and "snopes" is supposed to be an authoritative source? what? The statements on the snopes web-site only serve to knock down straw men and really not answer the critical bits of the debate. There are a good many reasons why an airliner could not have crashed into the Pentagon and produced the pattern of wreckage & damage as was photographed. Regardless of if anybody is making any $$$ from sales of books, DVDs or whatever, the real question at hand is Was 9/11/2001 a false flag attack? and for my interpretation, all the evidence points to a YES answer to the question.
Okay,list the 'reasons' then... And NO evidence points to a 'false flag' attack,other than evidence truthers have made up
>First of all, airliner wings simply do not "fold" they break off in a crash situation, and please do note that as a broken off bit, the KE of the wing will be less than the original whole, and by its absence from the body of the aircraft would have also diminished the total KE available to cause penetration as was alleged. The idea that the airliner could strike the wall at the angle indicated in the official story and not bust up into a multitude of bits is ludicrous, the aircraft would have broken up as is the case in every other airline disaster recorded. Airliners are not missiles and can not be expected to perform as missiles. There is also the matter of broken off bits of the aircraft that would have insufficient KE to actually penetrate the wall and therefore would bounce off ending up on the lawn. >Another problem, the Pentagon would become a toxic waste site because the airliners fuel would not burn off 100% before having an opportunity to soak into the floor, there is a possible hundreds if not thousand gallons of fuel that would have hit the floor and soaked into the soil beneath the building requiring removal of many yards of earth and replacing it with clean fill. >The fact that April Gallop has been suppressed rather than allowed her day in court to articulate the case, speaks volumes.
She's had several days in court. Most notably where she successfully sued the airline for their plane hitting the Pentagon.
and this isn't front page news for what reason? Also, the lawsuit was settled out of court. Unless you have some other revelation of a lawsuit to have gone to judgement and she won(?)
1:How exactly do you know they break off' every time? 2: you have some special knowledge about the pentagon cleanup? 3:April Gallup is a liar and a hypocrite. her whole case is that no airliner hit the pentagon,but that wasn't so when she wanted to get paid for the injuries she recieved from a plane HITTING THE PENTAGON'
So because the lawsuit was settled out of court,this means a plane didn't hit the pentagon,and gallup isn't a hypocrite?
There really shouldn't be any debate on the subject at all, unless the state can produce better evidence & lots more of it, than what has been previously presented, the Pentagon was NOT struck by any big Boeing airliner. If YOU can not fathom the magnitude of the fraud involved here, I'm sorry but I can't help you.
Oh climb off the cross already, there was adequate crash evidence found in and around the pentagon that a 757 hit YOU truhers haven't adequately proven it didn't Which is why the hypocrite gallups lawsuit was thrown out
Exactly why the statement "Oh climb off the cross already" what is up with that? and I object to every time you mention a member of the loyal opposition, you have to add a word, such as "hypocrite" You really don't need to do that, and really it does nothing to promote your case.
That's over stating the case. She was charmed and manipulated by two con men from California. Who went on to start a band. Go figure. Reserve rage for these ghouls exploiting survivors of a tragedy. They're worse than ambulance chasers. Some readers may be confused. Gallop didn't have a previous lawsuit. She was paid out of the 9/11 and Pentagon Survivors Fund. She probably just had to prove she was at the Pentagon and had injuries.
This is where it gets truly strange {more credibility than everyone in the "9/11 truth movement" } Right, & I'm Charlie Manson's sock puppet.
Hundreds (or maybe thousands) of professionals ranging from architects, scientists, pilots, structural engineers, demolition experts, and on and on or, some guy and his wife? If you're satisfied they meet your criteria then, so be it. They don't meet mine.
This thread started out as "fear of debate?" and morphed .... whatever .... My take on this is that the failure to debate, speaks volumes about the official story, who will step forward to defend the official story? Chris Mohr? .... what?
So if I am following this correctly. Bin laden was taken out, not because of his roll in the planning and execution of the attacks, but to silence the patsy before he could sill the beans. is that right or did I miss something?
