Was there ever a man on the moon?

[Mr.Vicchio]

What you suggest is what?

Oh yeah, you don't suggest anything you just slam the obvious and make shady insinuations about some "other shceme"

Thats called trolling. I feed you because its fun to watch you twist and wapr reality to fit your ever more unbelievable and silly scenarios which, by your own admission have no end.

I don't see what your line about WTC steel has to do with anything.

I guess I see your problem, you want a huge investigation to disprove the more wild, speculative theories out there, and because the rest of the world wen t"Damn terrorist" and saw no need for mass investigations of the obvious, you scream cover up.

Its an intersting idea you have...

Take an obvious situation (19 high jackers, 4 airplanes) look for areas to exploit, and run with those... must be a great stress valve for you. I get it now! They dumped the WTC Steel because.. it was now junk, wihtout doing in depth investigations... cry foul and claim cover up...

Wait it gets better...

The pentagon... no aircraft sitcking out, some frnech guy creates a stir about no air craft... read his stuff (claim you don't but parrot his position anyway) then because there isn't in your face evidence, like a tail sticking out of the wreckage... dismiss any suggestion of the obvious, make inane screams for "WHERES THE PUT TOGETHER WRECKAGE??!!?!?!" Becuase the obvious reason for one, an accident ment they wouldn't even bother trying, that and there isn't much left...

And viola you have a never ending supply of CT cannon fodder!

I applaud you on your ingeneous approach to un-ending spewing of twisted facts so you can feel good abotu firing up the rest of the sane world that knows you are full of it. Oh and beguile a few simple people on the way..

Bravo Roxdog, Bravo.. But you have been had, now I know how to deal with you.

[dotcoma]

1. "The French Guy" wasn't the first person to suggest it. In fact Col. Don de Gran of the US military and Gen Ben Partin (ex head of Air Force weapons development) have asked the same things among other questions.

2. Screw the "put together" wreckage (of which even family members of the victims are demanding to see without success), where is the wreckage together or not together. Oh yeah, your pictures that only bring up MORE questions. Let's drop it because Jeff Rense got an email.

3. You say "an obvious situation" (laughable way of putting it) and 19 hijackers and blah, blah. But what about the links proving (the FEDS admit it) that AT LEAST 8 of the "alleged hijackers" were in fact, never on those planes and had anything to do with it. So how is anything obvious when the FBI admits it really can't confirm the identities of the 19. Can you comment on this?

[PatrickHenry]

rox and V, you two are the most shameless threadjackers. You oughta both be shot for violating the sanctity, or at least hit with the Steel Hankie of PolitenessMan. This is not thread evolution, it's plunder. As your Grampaw, I order you to apologize to the volconvo community and start your own dang thread that doesn't say anything about "Man on the moon!"

[Mr.Vicchio]

Where is your link to this "admiision?" Hmm

And I don't couch for the rense site, but the photos are legit.

Why do we need the wreckage?

[dotcoma]

I posted it before and you ignored it.

"Mr Al-Shehri said he has now been interviews by the American authorities, who apologised for the misunderstanding."

"Mueller acknowledged on Thursday that the identity of several of the suicide hijackers is in doubt"...

[dotcoma]

That's just one reason why we need the wreckage. Thanks.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Whats the source, I can make quotes too...

"Muhhamad Atta was just checked into a rehab faucility someowhere in Saudi Arabia after failing to deal with being known as a masss murderer"

[dotcoma]

There is a link to the BBC ARTICLE. I've got an MSNBC article if you want that one too.

[dotcoma]

...

[dotcoma]

You're new signature is very Giancarlo-esque, I must say...

[Mr.Vicchio]

Its just to get you to look at the remains of the aircraft in the pentagon, teh ones you say don't exisist.

So, 4 of the 19 are in "doubt" that leaves 15, and several big glaring facts agaisnt your theory.

1. The WTC were in fact, hit by 2, heavily videotapped btw, airliners reported high jacked, cell phone calls from said aircraft went out.

2. A third airliner, also reported highjacked, cell phone calls recorded from, crashed into a field in Pennyvania.

3. A fourth airliner, eye witnessed, crashed into pentagon. The wreckage, or whats left of it was strewn throughout the pentagon.

4. Atta and several other, internationally known terrorist WERE aboard those aircarft, 3 of the 4 hit signifivant targets, and a 4th was forced into the ground by the passengers.



If the accepted scenario is not what happened, what happened Roxdog?
At least, tell us what YOU think actually happened and why.

[gr8fuldaniel]

I grabbed this from The Last Trumpet Newsletter http://www.lasttrumpetministries.org/2004/...April2004a.html {About half way down}

Our “war president” knew full well that he would start this war as he entered the presidency. He also knew that there would have to be an event so terrible and devastating that an enraged American people would be welded behind his illuministic vendetta. Why has our “war president” continually fought against the investigation into the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on 9/11/01? Here let it be noted that Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta gave the following testimony during the hearings: “During the time that the airplane was coming in to the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President, The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles out. And when it got down to “The plane is 10 miles out,” the young man also said to the Vice President, “Do the orders still stand?” And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said, “Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?” (16)
---Norman Mineta, 9/11 Commission Testimony, May 23, 2003

[gr8fuldaniel]

Anybody notice there was no luggage scattered at any of the crash sites except the only one that had passengers aboard. The one that crashed in the Pennsylvania field.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Anyone notice that the only one not to crash into a large concrete structure and blow up spewing jet fuel everywhere was the one that hit the ground, which tends to be softer then steel and concrete and allow things like suitcases to not burn?

I am hoping I am not the only one.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Why was there zero damage to the pentagon from the wings. Not even a scratch. That was a missile not a plane...let alone a jumbo-jet

[Mr.Vicchio]

No gr8, there was wing damage, and its documented. Try reading the link, well the pics atleast if you dislike the source, in my signature.

It was in fact Flight 77.

Otherwise, the US government went to GREAT lengths to fake a 757 crash. Engine, nose gear and other parts strewn through the building... large holes on the outside of the pentagon on the lower half (where the wings hit before by nature of inertia were sucked into the building) of the first story where the engines went through... through the third ring at that..

Also, if it was a missile, where did Flight 77, its passengers and crew go? Why fake that attack, the debris needed? Why risk having someone catch the missile on film? In this day and age thats a real risk, and a cruise missile is distinct, thus had one been caught on film that would have had Bush, Cheney and most of the military on death row... Too risky, WAY too risky.

Vic,

Booga Booga!

rox doesn't even believe the crap he's pushing sideways in here. He knows that if he came right out and said what he believes happened, he'd have to defend it. Far better to 'nudge, nudge, wink, wink' the issue along. If what you believe is true (especially if you think it is proven outright, like the Penta-hoax), what do you have to fear from reading a short, well-written webpage exposing it as false?

He'll post a link expecting you to read it, but won't read some simple, short links in return. It is a psychosis. Having integrated other conspiracy theories into his life on shaky grounds, he's forced to accept all other CT's that meet the same shaky level of 'proof'. Otherwise, he'll have to admit to himself that the time spent on these things was wasted and that he's staked his reputation on hoaxes.

Truly, these Pentagon buffoons have no idea of the huge number of eyewitnesses or the physical evidence. Verily I say unto you, they know almost nothing other than what they read on a crappy website or two promoting the theory. They will try to use logic (twisted) to attack anything contradictory, but will not apply it to what they believe.

P.S. try doing a google search for the damage caused by the jet as it came in. Something about lampposts/lightposts/lightpoles. The results are illuminating.

Booga Booga!

...........................

For the few honest people taken in by this hokey crap, here is a relevant link:

Hunt the Boeing!

Don't reply to this if you are:

1. a liar claiming to have read the link

2. someone that will read the first paragraph or two and try to find (invent) a reason to ignore the rest

3. someone that will pick a portion in the middle (or the end), spin (lie) about it, and ignore everything that came before and after.

[shunyadragon]

Sounds like we need a 9/11 true, false, real, myth, fantasy, fabrication, and hoax thread.

Next! Twin towers of New York never existed. It was all done with smoke and mirrors.

[Mr.Vicchio]

On another now defunct due to overload of CT people running the rest of the posters off, one guy pushed that the WTC were really felled by controlled demolition charges.

[Scribbler1]

Originally posted by roxdog, First off, the Pentagon claims that the plane hit the ground first AND THEN it hit the Pentagon. And tends to do what? Disintegrate? Are you fucking kidding? And enough of the "full of fuel" bullshit. Most planes are full of fuel. That's how planes work. Funny, why don't they just come out and say, "um the plane...um..disintagrated". Why don't they just say that. They haven't. Where is the plane?

Actually, most planes are not entirely full of fuel, but are filled with an appropriate amount of fuel (plus a little more to make sure) for the trip as since fuel is heavy, topping off the tanks for every flight regardless of distance means added weight and more cost. In other words, if you fuel an airliner with 10,000 lbs of unneeded fuel then the plane has to burn an extra amount of fuel just to cart the unused stuff from point A to point B. Eliminating the extra weight translates into more cargo (a lot of which is carried on passenger flights) and more revenue for the airline.