Why?

[Justin]

Well, Jay Ref, we agree on something at last I'm pleased to say. But it is this mindset that is currently having an extremely unhealthy influence on American policy in the Middle East - and it is this neocon zionist (both Christian and Jewish) mindset that was behind PNAC. When you look at the major players in the American administration both before and after 9/11, they are nearly all active or benign supporters of neocon zionists - doesn't that worry you as an American? The body bags coming back from Iraq to America will be as to nothing compared to a conflict with Iran. What are you doing, as a loyal American, about preventing this hideous warmongering mindset from prevailing? We are doing our bit to wake the British public up about the hundreds of inconsistencies there are with the official 9/11 story and how false flag operations can be used effectively to carry out hidden agendas by powerful minorities. Now you are saying we are wrong in all of this as you believe the official story of 9/11 is true - everyone of the hundreds of inconsistencies and incredible coincidences are easily explained. Am I correct in assuming this? If I am correct and you trust your President, his cabinet, his wealthy backers and his 'spiritual' advisors, this means you, as a patriotic American support what is going on in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere in the War on Terror. Correct? Well, in which case, you are not exactly helping to find a cure to stop humanity being sucked into the Armageddon that these nutters and supporters of your President are so looking forward to.

[Jay Ref]

[Pikey]

Check out and discover some of the reasons why I believe the official version is the conspiracy theory:-

http://www.holisticharmony.net.au/ukprobe/pentagon.swf

[Justin]

Jay Ref wrote:

[Jay Ref]

[Sinclair]

Jay Ref wrote:

[Jay Ref]

A Plane flying in excess of 500 mph meets mother earth at a steep angle and creates hole in ground.

So what's your point? You gonna say it's faked? Where's your evidence?

-z

[Sinclair]

[Johnny Pixels]

[Pikey]

J ref states:-

[Johnny Pixels]

[Jay Ref]

[Eckyboy]

One of the many glaring problems with the 911 commission report Jay Ref is exactly the same as something you have already mentioned. You stated there is only one source that mentions the WTC power down on the weekend before 911 and as there is no corroboration it should not be valid. If we agree with that logic then much of the 911 commission report must also be discounted as in many of their sources they rely on only one testimony without any other corroboration. a single source testimony without any corroboration or any other evidence backing it up is not my idea of a definitive and exhaustive investigative process. Would you not agree Jay Ref or are you a hypocrite?

[Jay Ref]

[ian neal]

Ecky's meaning is clear enough and it's a good point.

If you and other critics dismiss all reports that are single sourced, then by the same logic much of the commission report must be dismissed since its assertions are often based on a single source or testimony.

[chipmunk stew]

[Jay Ref]

[DeFecToR]

Hey Jay Lord. Good to see you back. Have a nice weekend?

Have to say, liitle disappointed at your posts so far today. Lacking in the biting venom you usually exibit. Standards are slipping old boy.

Any chance of a liitle dance? Give me giggle?

[DeFecToR]

I'm really starting to get a nack for stopping this moron dead.


HEY JAY LORD. WAKE UP!!!!

WE NEED OUR FIX!!!

Call me a buffoon. Or better yet a roust'a'bout.

Pleeeease.

[Eckyboy]

My post was valid Jay Ref. Why don't you do yourself a favour and try and answer it rather than nit picking over wording which most people find no problem fault with. I mention their sources as in there is a list of sources not as in they have numerous sources for their sources. You should check some of your own previous posts in regards too poor grammar and mistakes. Never mind working in the Pentagon I would not give you a job in McDonalds you clown.

[aggle-rithm]

[aggle-rithm]

[marky 54]

just want to point out to everyone that a probe was flown into the moon today the size of a washing machine at 5,000 miles an hour. they said they will beable to examine the site and wreckage on the next manned mission. so if they expect wreckage from a 5,000 mile an hour impact where is it from the 500 mile an hour impact from flight 93. im not saying its a conspiracy im just asking a question that dosnt add up. they need to make there minds up on how fast something has to go for it to vapourise.

[DaveyJ]

i doubt the probe was loaded with jet fuel however, not much of a comparsion being totally different.....and in space
________
vapir no2

[Johnny Pixels]

I believe they are planning on investigating the debris thrown up, ie the moon dust and soil, not the remains of the probe.

[chipmunk stew]

[marky 54]

ah ok jet fuel vapourises things, ok. and if you can showme a picture of the wreckage from flight 93 id love to see it as im yet to see anything that resembles a plane. and yes they are examing debris from the moon now, but i heard on a news report a guy saying that they will be examining the wreckage on the next manned mission which was spread over a 30 mile radius, i was just wondering why this man did'nt even comprehend that it may of vapourised seeing as though it was traveling 10x faster than flight 93. and this notion that jet fuel vapourises things is just silly, there have been tons of plane crashes and there has all ways been wreckage, however chipmunk stew obviously has seen something we havent, please i would love to see this as it would definantly put my mind at rest. i've only ever seen a small crater with tiny little bits of something around no engines,luggage chairs ect. but then your gonna tell me that jet feul made it all disappear magically arent you. well it never has before even with the ukraine,kentucky and the british plane in afghanistan there was wreckage and dont they carry jet feul?.

[chipmunk stew]

[marky 54]

woot something that looks credible ill look into this thanks chipmunk, and by the way your right the conspiracy theorists did tell me the plane had vapourised because i distantly remember it being told on the news numerious times, however the wreckage has appeared now so im a little more relieved now as i dont want to think any of this was a cover-up however lots of things were screaming at me theres something there not telling us, so if that wreckage is indeed from flight 93 and not from some other aircraft that landed in a field in a previous crash (which could easily be put together if you wanted people to believe it was flight 93) then you have settled my issues with this subject. and the only reason i was sceptical before is because all the video footage that is availble of the crash site shows no wreckage so ill be looking at the actual footage which was shot not long after the crash to see if that engine part was in the tiny crater however if not then how do i know which source is credible? as reality is what you believe something to be, and what you believe is what you have been told, and seeing as though everyone is capable of lieing, how do you truely know what reality is.

[chipmunk stew]