Actually if you look at what I said, it's easy to see why MHz 's muddled mind mistook what I meant. I didn't put it very well. lol
Human Check (external - login to view)
At least I found your post, Eagle doesn't even know it was a reply to a quote from you, lol. "Did the hijackers need cells?" brought this responce "EVERY SINGLE 911 topic agrees that it was not the hi-jackers that were doing the out-calls." It could be considered blunt or even a bit rude but just what muddled about the response?
Having you two agree back and forth is not something I am going to take as being proof of anything, let alone something like 911. You could give me something that would be acceptable to a jury of 12, that I would have to accept as being the 'way it was'.
The rest of the post was an example of the dribble you two put our, empty endless words. Oh well, I'm seeing some new vids and articles on a subject that I have read about over the last few years, that's my reason for being on the thread, yours seems to be the endless parroting on it's true because the Gov said so. The same ones who have spent unlimited amounts of taxpayer money, all the while not being accountable to the taxpayers because things they do can be classified as being a secret. lol And a lot of people cheer that sort of action. Would everybody suddenly die if all government doors were opened to the taxpayer, (no more closed meetings) and the 'elected people' could be closely monitored by those same tax-payers? That is the alternative, the ones in power now will never let something like that happen.
So? Most of what you've offered has been nothing but supposition and conjecture. You haven't put together a reasonable tale of what actually happened yet. So the gov't version has one up on you, so far. You just seem to see a piece of the jigsaw, grab it and throw it on the table expecting the pieces to miraculously fit themselves together. Sorry, but all you have posted so far is a jumble of unaligned facts (some) and guesses. It doesn't look like a picture, it looks like a heap of jigsaw pieces.
Quit being a mental runt. I saw at least 2 posts where Anna succinctly said she doesn't swallow the gov't version. But she's not swallowing your tinfoil hat version either and neither are other people.
Have another toke, or bottle, or snort, or whatever it is that you use.
In the link to 'Secrecy', all that happened. I don't have to put anything together for you or anybody else. The links I reference tell a story that is either fact or fiction. If they can be shown to be factual then you have to fit in in with what you see as being the big picture. So that 'heap' has to be put in place by you not me, of course you have to see the point as being valid first and to do that you have to consider it be true and what changes would that mean in the big picture.................
Human Check (external - login to view)
At least I found your post, Eagle doesn't even know it was a reply to a quote from you, lol.
Yawn....so what parts about that do you disagree with since both those points are part of the 'official version'.
So those planes didn't take those routes? What was their flightpath then, a link would be more helpful rather than a 'because I say so' type of reply.
If already wanted why didn't the CIA arest him when they saw him in July '01?
That is how you poke holes in my version, saying I'm silly is skating around the issue of why he was allowed to remain free. Do you even consider little points like that? I'm beginning to think things like that just bounce off you.
Oh...poor Mhz... can't put together a logical story of his version of events so now he has to resort to idiocy.
Tell me... was that really worth an "lol"?
You have failed and another truther has been outed because he cannot put down what really happen. He can only babble on...
"Fire can't melt steel"
"It was explosives"
"Hijackers are still alive"
Blah, blah, blah.
What happened oh Bright One?
I have no idea what you are babbling about here. I never said anything about plane routes, the CIA, arresting someone, etc. And you say I'm addled? roflmao
Scroll back you lazy lout. You said steel won't bend under that low of heat and I showed that was a wrong assumption. You said there shouldn't have been lots of smoke if it was a hot fire and I showed where plastics smoke like crazy even if the fire is hot. And so on & so forth.
I'll back just because it's you. Someday you should, those are events that surround 911, the more you know the better chance you have it right. You also never said anything about Iraq that was in post #428.
Just where did you show me a structure built just as the core was (both steel and concrete) would buckle and crumple with low temp fires.
Are you saying the jet fuel had burned up and the black smoke from later on was from (melted) plastics. No doubt other articles in the offices initially hit also held flammable materials, many of which gave off large volumes of smoke.