IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

10 Pages V  « < 7 8 9 10 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Cit Publishes Response To David Chandler & Jonathan Cole's Joint Statement About The 9/11 Pentagon Attack

9elevened
post Feb 13 2011, 04:05 AM
Post #161





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 27
Joined: 12-January 11
Member No.: 5,583



thanks. I don't know how much I would've gotten into this without the Operation Northwoods doc. Very chilling reading the Joint Chiefs planning matter of factly to attack their own country in order to start a war. JFK and McNamara forbade it, did Bush/Cheney or very definitely Cheney/Rumsfeld who are at the very center of all this okay "Operation 911"? Rumsfeld's June 2001 stand down order definitely had the effect of stopping fighter pilots who normally would have arrived in time to if nothing else observe the "airliners."

Funny thing about Gage over at A&E, he appears to have no problem with the idea of remote controlled planes hitting the WTC.

As for the Pentagon, the plotters would have known they could not reliably hit the comptrollers office with a 757, so I see the timeline as this (largely Barbara Honegger's):

Just after 9:30: bombs go off INSIDE the Pentagon, destroying the comptrollers offices and killing most of those attempting to trace the $2.3 trillion. Witnesses including those injured notice smell of explosives. No damage outside as of yet. I think one of Honegger's injured witnesses whose watch was broken at just after 9:30 by the explosions is the same one who is currently suing Cheney/Rumsfeld. (remember NORAD maintained for two years that the Pentagon was hit at 9:45. That's almost 15 minutes between the first reports of explosions and the arrival of a plane)

9:37-9:38: the patrolling fighter pilot (remember NORAD said Flight 77 could not be tracked) ordered to observe the Pentagon after the reports of the 9:30 explosions arrives. THIS is the high speed turn and dive plane observed by ATC. The pilot reports no OBSERVABLE damage (nothing outside) and immediately leaves the area.

just after 9:40: the time described by outside witnesses for the plane hit/OUTSIDE explosions. The plane sent in to cover for the earlier explosions, perhaps arriving late.

Again, the plotters would have known they could not send in reliably a remote-controlled big plane to hit exactly where they wanted because of the potential ground effect. Did they instead supply a small, souped-up plane mocked up to resemble an AA jet (not unlike the phony Cuban MIG suggested for Operation Northwoods)?

was this smaller plane sent in by remote control, even guided by the C130 or the Boeing E4 govt command and control plane that the govt has admitted was also over the Pentagon that morning? The C-130 pilot also most curiously was the first to see the smoking remains of "Flight 93."

The Boeing E4 with its blue stripes running along the sides (at least in the version pictured on govt etc websites) is a good candidate as a "double" for Flight 77, a AA Boeing 757. Such as the retired general on the freeway describing Flight 77 as loitering in the air instead of coming in like a bullet. The E4 obviously could have arrived first at a much slower speed, circling and flying low over the Pentagon as it was guiding the smaller incoming craft (which would also have been filled with explosives).

We have several witnesses to a small plane including it hitting the Pentagon (tho it seems Khavkin for one exaggerated about what she could actually see, but she may also merely have made assumptions about the outcome once the small plane left her POV. I for one find it extremely doubtful that the plotters would see fit to plant stories about a small plane, it's just unnecessary as far as they would be concerned even if you're talking merely flyover/bombs.).

We also have several witnesses to two planes flying low, one hitting the Pentagon and the other flying off. Could the notorious black box be from this other plane (assuming the E4), flying 100 feet above the Pentagon, knowing there was no real danger to the country, its flight deck door never opened, controlling the smaller "missile"? The damage to the Pentagon is definitely suggestive of a smaller, explosive-laden plane that could have hit the generator where the higher wings of a 757 couldn't, especially if it was banking to the left as according to the NIST at time of impact. There is also the (ultimately burning) tree that should have been bisected by the wings of a 757.

Tho I think this CIT interview with the cab driver is certainly interesting. It would definitely help CITs case if this guy was to suddenly "disappear"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
KP50
post Feb 13 2011, 04:47 AM
Post #162



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 843
Joined: 14-May 07
From: New Zealand
Member No.: 1,044



9elevened,

You seem to be musing aloud here on the forum, which is all very interesting. However - eyewitness evidence is very, very unreliable if you read it from mainstream media reports which often turn out to contain "facts" that the witnesses never stated when the witnesses are interviewed later.

I wonder if you have watched the video National Security Alert (produced by CIT) yet and if not, why not? It contains detailed statements of witnesses on location and their statements point to a flightpath discrepancy such that the plane could not have struck the lightpoles. Examining all witness testimony, it is very difficult to find a single witness who supports the official flightpath, in fact Lloyd England is pretty much the only one - and nobody corroborates his tale.

Please watch the video before commenting again as it may change your views on the Pentagon substantially.

Thanks,
KP
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Feb 13 2011, 12:04 PM
Post #163





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,017
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



9elevened

Good posts, and plausible.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
9elevened
post Feb 13 2011, 03:36 PM
Post #164





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 27
Joined: 12-January 11
Member No.: 5,583



<I wonder if you have watched the video National Security Alert (produced by CIT) yet and if not, why not? It contains detailed statements of witnesses on location and their statements point to a flightpath discrepancy such that the plane could not have struck the lightpoles. Examining all witness testimony, it is very difficult to find a single witness who supports the official flightpath, in fact Lloyd England is pretty much the only one - and nobody corroborates his tale. >

I do plan to watch it tho I think I've read enough here including the various CIT member and other posts to "get it" (including posts on other threads, not just this one). I've already posted some of those discrepancies myself, such as Cissell the faces in windows guy coming forward to say he was misquoted. Whatever these witnesses were seeing, it wasn't Flight 77. Also so far I've read most of the way through the CIT rebuttal to Chandler.

as I tried to point out with that judge/jury post (circumstantial evidence is given more weight than eyewitness testimony), Balsamo etc have proven what COULDN'T have happened and that alone (like the physics at the WTC) is really sufficient.

So really the point specifically on this thread is that Chandler and cohorts are wrong for discounting both Pilots and attacking the CIT investigations, especially as the whole Pentagon thing would have been even easier for the plotters to pull off.

However it was done, whether small guided plane (Rumsfeld's "missile") covering for earlier bombs or just flyover/bombs, they still needed a double for Flight 77. . . or basically a "visual" of a plane attacking the Pentagon. The govt Boeing E4 as a lookalike for an AA jet (even if just govt lettering obscured and blue stripes left intact) fits perfectly.

I read CIT's categorized list of witnesses on another thread and apparently about 9 people still say they saw a small plane (Khavkin discounted since she won't respond, but I don't think that's necessarily "suspicious," maybe she just does not want to be involved especially as it appears she made some assumptions after the plane left her POV).

And there are still three "hard" witnesses to two planes.

Since I see no logical reason for the plotters to plant stories about a small plane (it simply does not fit their purposes), I merely state there is no reason to discount what those witnesses saw, unless you argue they merely mistook a big plane for a smaller one because of the distances.

You could just as easily argue that those who saw a big plane flashing over their heads at nearly the speed of a bullet mistook a small (and I would think somehow supercharged) one for a big one (Cissell says he never saw faces but still says "big plane"). The engine or engines we've been shown are simply too small to be Boeing 757 Rolls Royce engines. Why not "plant" Rolls Royce engines? Somebody saw fit to plant 3 terrorist passport/identifications. If they took down the lampposts with explosives, they apparently forgot the trees. And then there's the USA Today reporter who initially said, on camera or definitely recorded I think, his first impression was there were no engines under the wings.

One of the things that really sticks in my mind about 911 was how many pilots all over the world including military pilots came forward to immediately say they could not have duplicated Hanjour's feat. Again, Mr. Chandler and cohorts (tho I do respect your work on the WTC), what more "evidence" do we really need . . .
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
9elevened
post Feb 13 2011, 05:20 PM
Post #165





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 27
Joined: 12-January 11
Member No.: 5,583



<Whatever these witnesses were seeing, it wasn't Flight 77. >

unless Charles Burlingame obviously an "insider" who had participated in planning against a terror attack on the Pentagon agreed to overfly the Pentagon and land the plane elsewhere. Presumably any innocents aboard would have been taken care of after the flight, or detained at the airport before boarding. Note we don't have any security footage from departure lounges, that would identify passengers if not hijackers.

The Dulles footage of Hanjour and crew is obviously bogus (no date or time stamp) and was publicly released by a judge over the objections of the govt in a civil suit. It is obviously surveillance footage made by an intelligence agency as Hanjour was lured around the country under false promises of an airline career.

Michael Chertoff was named to head the FBI investigation of 911. When the 911 Commission asked for the actual impounded plane/passenger phone records, Chertoff refused and instead provided his own written "summary" of the calls. According to a German researcher, an AA spokesman has confirmed that the plane operating as Flight 77 that day did not have back of seat phones. No one has been able to successfully complete a cell phone call from Flight 77's stated altitude and speed

There is also the suggestion of remote control (which ultimately becomes part of Gage's WTC presentation at least as presented on Coast to Coast radio). Raytheon defense contractors related to pilotless flight, DOD personnel etc were aboard three of the four planes. Were they lured aboard to take control of the planes as part of Cheney's war games to stage an international incident, not knowing it would actually end in their deaths? One's wife (not a 911 Truther) stated he was unusually nervous as he waited for the limousine to take him for the weekly trip to the airport.

Flight 93 was 45 minutes late taking off. Maybe they couldn't get the remote control to work (and so was ultimately shot down)? Beamer worked for Ellison at Oracle, a potential 911 conspirator. Was Flight 93 arranged as the patriotic/ray of hope plane?

any or all of the above could obviously have been elements of an Operation Northwoods type plot

in other words, Chandler and crew are ignoring A LOT of circumstantial evidence
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Feb 13 2011, 05:39 PM
Post #166



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



QUOTE (amazed! @ Feb 13 2011, 05:04 PM) *
9elevened

Good posts, and plausible.


Hi Amazed!

Each of the points 9elevened raised regarding the Pentagon op itself are almost a carbon copy of what I once considered viable. "Missile", Honegger, "small second plane", etc but having watched CIT's presentations (which I recommend 9elevened to do, especially the extended versions - The Pentacon and Northside Flyover Part 1) and went through the other much touted available (alleged) testimonies and I personally ruled each of them out. Why?

Because for one to conclude that there was indeed a "second smaller plane", you first need to find somebody who saw both the "smaller plane" and simultaneously witnessed the commercial sized jet many witnesses did describe (whether a souped up version disguised as an AA jet as per Operation Northwoods - that I can believe).

As for the "predetonated explosives" at 09:32 that Honegger suggests, there simply aren't any witnesses that I know of that describe this. April Gallup did say that her watch stopped at 09:32(?) and the famous Pentagon clock image suggest this but how could they possibly detonate internal explosives even a minute before the attack plane entered the area, never mind 6, 7 or 8 minutes prior without Pentagon staff or people in traffic on Route 27 or Boger not be aware of this? Sorry, not buying it.

The "missile" theory IMO was purposely planted. CIT has countered this as far as I'm concerned. I personally believe that a projectile was fired from the generator trailer in mortar form but that's my personal opinion given that the aircraft wasn't on the trajectory necessary to "strike" it.

Speculation is all well and good but having been down this road, I believe the best course of action is to leave it up to the relevant authorities to explain what happened. The evidence is there. Why not hold their feet to the fire to explain just wtf happened instead of well intentioned individuals like the good people who post here bickering over theories?

Just my 2cents.

The Pentacon (Smoking Gun Version)

The Northside Flyover

National Security Alert

CIT FAQ

Extended videos and shorts
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Feb 13 2011, 06:34 PM
Post #167





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



I am curious about the cell phone matter.

Why is the speed of the plane a factor? At what speed would a cell phone have to be moving to have its signal dropped?

Since a cell phone is a low energy radio signal which is sent and received from ground based repeater antennas... isn't the issue, signal strength and signal to noise ratio and not speed of the phone?

I would like some one explain the speed which is often mentioned as being the reason a cell phone could not work on a plane.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
paranoia
post Feb 13 2011, 08:24 PM
Post #168


dig deeper
Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 1,033
Joined: 16-October 06
From: dc
Member No.: 96



QUOTE (SanderO @ Feb 13 2011, 05:34 PM) *
I am curious about the cell phone matter.

Why is the speed of the plane a factor? At what speed would a cell phone have to be moving to have its signal dropped?

Since a cell phone is a low energy radio signal which is sent and received from ground based repeater antennas... isn't the issue, signal strength and signal to noise ratio and not speed of the phone?

I would like some one explain the speed which is often mentioned as being the reason a cell phone could not work on a plane.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handoff
http://it.toolbox.com/wiki/index.php/Handoff

see also:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10413405
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10430448
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10432026
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Feb 13 2011, 10:15 PM
Post #169





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



I quickly read the references about hand off and so forth, but I don't understand or didn't read anything that would determine why traveling a 300-400 mph would be too fast.

Can you explain or reference the maximum speed limit for a moving cell phone.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
albertchampion
post Feb 13 2011, 10:39 PM
Post #170





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 1,843
Joined: 1-March 07
Member No.: 710



depends upon the spacing of the towers, but 100mph is a good, rough figure.

as i have written[and many others too, i suppose] a connection cannot be sustained because the speed of an aircraft cruising at 200+ nautical miles per hour will be moving too fast. everyone in the telecom industry knows this by the way.

and it is as true today as it was ten years ago.

as i wrote some months ago, altitude is no longer the problem that it may have been in 2001. new, taller towers erected east of el paso and east of palm springs[along the interstate 10 sprint corridor] were able to connect with my top of the line samsung cell phone in a port side window seat, first class, continental 737-800 at 33,000 ft. but, even though i immediately responded to the call so as to pick-up the voice mail msg that i had my secretary leave just before my flight departed iah, the connections were lost. because of the aircraft's speed, we had flown beyond the tower's range[so a connection could not be cemented].

what was of even greater interest to me was the inability to even find a connection during the descent from palm springs into lax. consider, descending from 33,000 ft to nominal sea level, over one of the most cell towered metropolises in north america, i could find no signals. in all my many efforts since september 2001, and until the last two years, i was traveling iah-lax, lax-iah 4-8 times a year, i was never able to find a signal until after crossing I405 on virtual touchdown.

finally, now let us go back to all the purportedly commercial airliners on that day. i had sales engineering personnel who traveled in those areas. via automobile. with no exceptions, in 2001, those areas were virtually cell dead zones. there was virtually no cell coverage. and that was specifically the case with the area involving todd beamer's and barbara olson's flights.

and once again, everyone in the cell phone industry knows this.

capiche?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Feb 13 2011, 11:22 PM
Post #171



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



And we're talking 2000-2001 mobile phone "technology".. biggrin.gif

http://k-tai.impress.co.jp/cda/static/imag.../13/ippin01.jpg

http://jamesoff.net/site/wp-content/upload...02/dsc_4159.jpg

http://jamesoff.net/site/wp-content/upload...02/dsc_4160.jpg

I used to have to go to my front door to get 2 bars of reception so I can't imagine travelling a couple of thousand feet AGL at 540 mph inside an aluminium aircraft (one alleged mobile call was from inside the toilet on "Flight 93"!)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Feb 14 2011, 01:47 AM
Post #172





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



I am not an electronics person by any means. But my hunch is that it has little top do with velocity. The antenna repeaters are likely set to restrict the angle they aim their single.

Think of a light house.. it's does not illuminate upward and all the radiation of light is focused at the horizon where ships can see it.

Radio towers need to not waste energy... or maximize what they have so I suspect they transmit in narrow beam like a lighthouse fairly "close" to the ground. Since it radiates from a "point" there is spread and perhaps signal loss as the beam spreads out.

If the cell connection requires a hand shake in the both send and receive have to meet a minimum threshold the fixed stations may receive a signal but the cell phone cannot as it above the focused beam of the tower.

I am almost certain this has to do with beam width in the vertical axis and little to do with velocity. I'd guess that sat phones DO NOT have a velocity problem.

There may be other signal interference issues from the aluminum enclosure of the plane as well. But again this is not a velocity issue.

Since electronics and cell phone switching is not mechanical it takes place at almost the speed of light and so the velocity of the phone should have little bearing as long as it remain in range of a tower.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
paranoia
post Feb 14 2011, 02:59 AM
Post #173


dig deeper
Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 1,033
Joined: 16-October 06
From: dc
Member No.: 96



http://www.aldeilis.net/english/index2.php...df=1&id=375

QUOTE
Written by Brad Mayeux
05 May 2005 01:37

I am a senior design RF cell phone engineer (cellular/CDMA engineer) and have designed systems for Sprint, Verizon and Alltel. I have 2 FCC licenses and have worked in the industry for 13 yrs. That out of the way...

OK all of the new handsets are .6 to 1 watt max.

From what i read several calls were made on flight 93 some were reported to last as long as 20 minuits. NO WAY ! We design these systems to work on the ground, ususally providing "downtilt" to the antenna, so the signal gets pointed downward.

There are calculations to do this. The range for a call site is 5 to 20 miles max, but that is on the ground. The handshaking is now refered to in digital as soft handoff, or hard handoff if you are going between systems, or in an analog mode. most phones today are now digital, though some can do both. for a handoff to occur (going from one cell to another) the system needs to have a neighbor list setup, telling the phone which cell is next on the list( i have made around 100 of these). at 500mph, the phone would have passed several sites and it would try to handoff to a site already passed. The phone can be in handoff with up to 3 sites at one time, but generally this can make things worse as it will degrade the signal.

Also inside of a metal plane, the signal degrades (it does in a car, or building by 3 to 6 db or more). I have done in building testing for years. each 3 db means 1/2 power. inside a metal plane i would guess it would be about the same, if you stick the antenna next to a window, MAYBE only 1 to 2 bd loss, but still a loss. i havent tested it, but i have a lot of experience in this area. Note there is a lot of messaging between the phone and the site, and at that height the signal would be quite low and the phone would get confused as to which site it is on.

I dont know the height the plane was at at that time, but the higher it is, the more signals come in, which degrades the quality and confuses the phone more, not to mention lowering the signal level.

One more thing, in remote areas, where these calls were made i believe, these companies do not build many sites. The sites cost 1/2 million a peice or so.

Just try driving from 1 city to another through a very rural area and see if your phone works, we point the antennas down the highways to get the most out of each site. Planes do not fly along highways
.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Feb 14 2011, 07:27 AM
Post #174





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



Thanks for the article about cell phones. If it is true it explains the factors which would make cell phone calls quite impossible. But his speed explanation as a factor doesn't wash. At 500 mph it takes a plane 1 minute to travel about 10 mpiles. It seems that one minute is ample time for the system to "set up" hand offs. But perhaps this is not true.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Feb 14 2011, 12:12 PM
Post #175





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,017
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



SanderO

In order to understand the cell phone issue, one must understand the design and details of the cell system. I am an inactive though licensed Ham Operator, and I have studied those systems.

As a matter of practical experience in flying both airplanes and helicopters, I'm here to tell you that altitude and airspeed of any aircraft in which a cell phone is used is very important, and of course it all depends upon the design of a cell system in any given geographical area.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
animaldoctor
post Feb 14 2011, 09:22 PM
Post #176





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 24
Joined: 6-October 10
From: melbourne australia
Member No.: 5,338



Hi Craig and Aldo,


Your evidence is essentially flawless. Stop casting pearls before swine; you don't need the approval of Richard Gage or anyone else. F them. Get out there on your own and publish your findings before it is too late..... what are you waiting for? You have enough... go for it! Make a tight, concise, masses and academia-friendly presentation loaded with irrefutable facts - how could you possibly lose?

I may be naive, but have you approached SBS in Australia?

If you need funds, I'm more than happy to contribute to a specific end.

AD
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
animaldoctor
post Feb 15 2011, 12:13 AM
Post #177





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 24
Joined: 6-October 10
From: melbourne australia
Member No.: 5,338



....and there MUST be other news outlets that see this as a coup. The world is changing (momentarily) and your time starts NOW...... PLEASE GET YOUR INFORMATION AND EVIDENCE OUT THERE -- WHY ARE YOU WAITING? FOR WHAT ARE YOU WAITING? WHAT IS STOPPING YOU FROM GOING MAINSTREAM RIGHT NOW?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
consequential
post Feb 15 2011, 12:20 AM
Post #178





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 15
Joined: 29-August 06
From: New York
Member No.: 27



QUOTE (animaldoctor @ Feb 14 2011, 11:13 PM) *
....and there MUST be other news outlets that see this as a coup. The world is changing (momentarily) and your time starts NOW...... PLEASE GET YOUR INFORMATION AND EVIDENCE OUT THERE -- WHY ARE YOU WAITING? FOR WHAT ARE YOU WAITING? WHAT IS STOPPING YOU FROM GOING MAINSTREAM RIGHT NOW?


A possible answer to your last question: CIT's many loud, vocal detractors, i.e. Chandler, Cole, Legge, Bursill, Hoffman, Ashley, Larson, Keogh, etc. etc. While they continue to occupy the mainstream of the "Truth Movement", it has/is/will be hard for this evidence to penetrate into mass media, and you could argue, that's just the point.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Feb 15 2011, 12:23 AM
Post #179



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (animaldoctor @ Feb 14 2011, 11:13 PM) *
....and there MUST be other news outlets that see this as a coup. The world is changing (momentarily) and your time starts NOW...... PLEASE GET YOUR INFORMATION AND EVIDENCE OUT THERE -- WHY ARE YOU WAITING? FOR WHAT ARE YOU WAITING? WHAT IS STOPPING YOU FROM GOING MAINSTREAM RIGHT NOW?



animaldoctor,

How many media outlets have you walked into handing them a DVD of "National Security Alert"?

CIT has published their work. Unfortunately, they are human and cannot be omnipresent.

That is where people like you come in...

Get their DVD, make lots of copies.. hand them out.

It's just that simple.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
animaldoctor
post Feb 15 2011, 01:07 AM
Post #180





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 24
Joined: 6-October 10
From: melbourne australia
Member No.: 5,338



Hi Rob,


I have been spouting facts about 9/11 since I saw video of WTC7 and have been marginalised by many friends- One of my best friends' father is (if I understand her correctly) ex-Canadian CIA equivalent (Surname=KEUHN)/KUEHN), a highly intelligent woman; ridicules me every time I raise the subject. I have pointed out to her that OF COURSE her father would tow the OCT line, to no avail. Next i'll tackle the disconnect with her in regard to how she thinks I rock at my job, and yet a pyschopathic conspiracy nut

I have just ordered the DVD 5 pack. Can't wait. Best wishes to Craig and Aldo - you guys seriously have it in the bag. Let it out. x
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

10 Pages V  « < 7 8 9 10 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 23rd October 2019 - 10:26 PM