Are Boeing 767's invisible on radar and in the flesh?

[Fred]

More no-plane eyewitnesses. How is it possible that they didn't see a plane if one was there?

http://www.paralegal-concierge.com/LegalCrier/terrorNY.html

Thanks to Spooked at http://covertoperations.blogspot.com for this gem.

[chek]

Fred, you're really nothing more substantial than a multi-posting spambot ain't'cha?

So many threads with such transparent unconsidered BS.
Never mind, not everyone gets to have a double figure IQ.

Here's your answer, in case you ignore it yet again, like all the other threads you ignore that supply the answers you don't wanna know.

"Well gee Fred ...lemmee see.

She's standing to the north east of the North Tower ...so that would mean the South Tower strike from the south wasn't even in her field of view.

Do I get a cookie, huh?
A kindergarten prize for solving a kindergarten mystery seems appropriate."

Who does your script Fred - you should complain; they're only making you look dumb. Probably for their own amusement.

[Fred]

Since you have nothing of value to add, Chek, stop posting on my threads. You're only accomplishment in life is to post garbage which makes it harder for people here to read a thread.

I don't know why Ian Neal is afraid to ban you. A quick read of your last 1000 posts would reveal that you contribute nothing at all.

http://killtown.blogspot.com/2007/03/really-really-really-strong-wings -of.html

[chek]

[telecasterisation]

The subject of witnesses appears to be an ongoing issue. However, it never seems to actually be discussed, after the initial 'challenge' to 'look at this', then 'supply me with crebible witnesses' - it all deteriorates into the usual name calling.

Fred is unquestionably keen to push the fact that many did not see the planes, yet, when each example he produces is examined, and I do mean every example, there has not been one thus far that proves the person was;

1) In a location where they could physically see an aircraft.

2) Actually looking at the area where a plane would be.

This is not a criticism, but to quote anyone as having not seen an aircraft means and proves nothing without being able to fulfill and satisfy the above two criteria.

In other words, a quote of context "I never saw a plane, but there was a big explosion", only means the person saw the fireball. Where were they standing, was their view obstructed, were they engaged in conversation only looking up when there was a big 'bang'?

Fred, try at least to be reasonable, the subject of witnesses is highly convoluted and difficult to 'prove'. Endlessly churning this over gets nobody anywhere without specifics.

[chek]

[telecasterisation]

[John White]

[scubadiver]

I'm so glad you got rid of them both. They were doing my nut no end!

[andyb]

me too. Good riddance and lets get on with dealing wiht the real issues.

[John White]

Fred's happy now he's returned to his own sandpit anyway: spares him from making all the effort to get banned in order to bask in reflected illusionary glory

[andyb]

I'm just honoured to have got a mention

[chek]

We should have a slap-up dinner and a drink every year to celebrate.
Should be cheap enough, seeing there's only the one of us

[scar]

I must admit i have found this whole "John White Marky 54 Chek Fallious Andy B" thing highly amusing. Having been accused of this myself at one stage im counting my blessings my controller managed to tweak my code to slip back undar the rador and stuff.
No doubt we will have other 'free thinkers' to carry on the mirth.

Whilst calling people clones im not sure they realised that in all repeating that same meme they came across as exactly that.

Ho hum.