9/11: What really happened on that day?

[Faun]

According to you, CIT believes the shadow proves the plane flew north of the Citgo station. You're certainly welcome to believe that but I gotta tell ya.... you're crazy for believing that.

Not you too Faun -.-? I'll let you off this time, you've posted a lot of good posts, and if I put -you- on ignore, the discussion will probably grind to a halt, as I've consistently found that you had the most in depth points- we could actually go on for long stretches without you insulting me or truthers in general. As to this shadow- put simply, I'm not interested in trying to figure out what some grainy pixels mean. CIT looked at it, determined it meant that plane was on the North side, I'll trust their judgement. But there are -tons- of other pieces of evidence that I have looked at in depth. I believe there's a lot of posts of yours in the Pentaplane thread that I haven't yet addressed that have nothing to do with this shadow you seem so fond of. I may be getting back to those points soon.

You're certainly welcome to ignore me or the points which utterly break the back of your conspiracy, but you do so at your own peril as others here are not as eager to turn a blind's eye to the facts.

In the photo below, I've place a red circle representing the general vicinity for where that shadow appeared in the video. I've place a green arrow indicating the general direction of sunlight. These "estimates" are not exact but the shadow did appear south of the Citgo station and though I don't know the exact azimuth angle of the sun at that hour on that day, the sun was still east of the gas station. The plane was about 100' to 150' off the ground.

So if you believe that shadow determines the plane was on the north side of the Citgo, explain how the laws of physics, which dictate the plane would have to be in a direct path between its shadow and the sun, could be north of the Citgo but cast a shadow to the south of it.

And I've engaged pretty much every angle of your conspiracy claims you've posted. I'd appreciate the same in return.

Sigh -.-. You put up a video that alleges to show a shadow. What exact minute/second is the shadow at? Can't believe you've actually got me looking -.-

At 4:41....



Camera #4 shows something fall over as the plane flies by...

At the same time, a shadow appears for a single frame...

I looked at 4:41, as well as before and after. I saw what looked like a flash at 4:45, but no shadow. Not sure which one is camera 4, that might be part of me not seeing this thing...

Camera 4 is the middle video on the left column. The still photos I included indicate what I'm talking about.

 

[phoenyx]

Not you too Faun -.-? I'll let you off this time, you've posted a lot of good posts, and if I put -you- on ignore, the discussion will probably grind to a halt, as I've consistently found that you had the most in depth points- we could actually go on for long stretches without you insulting me or truthers in general. As to this shadow- put simply, I'm not interested in trying to figure out what some grainy pixels mean. CIT looked at it, determined it meant that plane was on the North side, I'll trust their judgement. But there are -tons- of other pieces of evidence that I have looked at in depth. I believe there's a lot of posts of yours in the Pentaplane thread that I haven't yet addressed that have nothing to do with this shadow you seem so fond of. I may be getting back to those points soon.

You're certainly welcome to ignore me or the points which utterly break the back of your conspiracy, but you do so at your own peril as others here are not as eager to turn a blind's eye to the facts.

In the photo below, I've place a red circle representing the general vicinity for where that shadow appeared in the video. I've place a green arrow indicating the general direction of sunlight. These "estimates" are not exact but the shadow did appear south of the Citgo station and though I don't know the exact azimuth angle of the sun at that hour on that day, the sun was still east of the gas station. The plane was about 100' to 150' off the ground.

So if you believe that shadow determines the plane was on the north side of the Citgo, explain how the laws of physics, which dictate the plane would have to be in a direct path between its shadow and the sun, could be north of the Citgo but cast a shadow to the south of it.

And I've engaged pretty much every angle of your conspiracy claims you've posted. I'd appreciate the same in return.

Sigh -.-. You put up a video that alleges to show a shadow. What exact minute/second is the shadow at? Can't believe you've actually got me looking -.-

At 4:41....



Camera #4 shows something fall over as the plane flies by...

At the same time, a shadow appears for a single frame...

I looked at 4:41, as well as before and after. I saw what looked like a flash at 4:45, but no shadow. Not sure which one is camera 4, that might be part of me not seeing this thing...

Camera 4 is the middle video on the left column. The still photos I included indicate what I'm talking about.

Alright, I saw it. I'm skeptical as to that being a shadow of a plane. But perhaps it was. According to witnesses, the plane -did- veer southwards after passing the Citgo gas station. What Lagasse and Brooks were adamant on is that the plane passed -north- of the Citgo gas station, though, not south.

 

[Faun]

You're certainly welcome to ignore me or the points which utterly break the back of your conspiracy, but you do so at your own peril as others here are not as eager to turn a blind's eye to the facts.

In the photo below, I've place a red circle representing the general vicinity for where that shadow appeared in the video. I've place a green arrow indicating the general direction of sunlight. These "estimates" are not exact but the shadow did appear south of the Citgo station and though I don't know the exact azimuth angle of the sun at that hour on that day, the sun was still east of the gas station. The plane was about 100' to 150' off the ground.

So if you believe that shadow determines the plane was on the north side of the Citgo, explain how the laws of physics, which dictate the plane would have to be in a direct path between its shadow and the sun, could be north of the Citgo but cast a shadow to the south of it.

And I've engaged pretty much every angle of your conspiracy claims you've posted. I'd appreciate the same in return.

Sigh -.-. You put up a video that alleges to show a shadow. What exact minute/second is the shadow at? Can't believe you've actually got me looking -.-

At 4:41....



Camera #4 shows something fall over as the plane flies by...

At the same time, a shadow appears for a single frame...

I looked at 4:41, as well as before and after. I saw what looked like a flash at 4:45, but no shadow. Not sure which one is camera 4, that might be part of me not seeing this thing...

Camera 4 is the middle video on the left column. The still photos I included indicate what I'm talking about.

Alright, I saw it. I'm skeptical as to that being a shadow of a plane. But perhaps it was. According to witnesses, the plane -did- veer southwards after passing the Citgo gas station. What Lagasse and Brooks were adamant on is that the plane passed -north- of the Citgo gas station, though, not south.

No witness said the plane veered "southward." The CIT witnesses said it went from NE to E.

But again.... the shadow appears to the south of the Citgo. How does the plane fly to the north of the Citgo but cast a shadow to the south when the sun is in the east?

 

[phoenyx]

Sigh -.-. You put up a video that alleges to show a shadow. What exact minute/second is the shadow at? Can't believe you've actually got me looking -.-

At 4:41....



Camera #4 shows something fall over as the plane flies by...

At the same time, a shadow appears for a single frame...

I looked at 4:41, as well as before and after. I saw what looked like a flash at 4:45, but no shadow. Not sure which one is camera 4, that might be part of me not seeing this thing...

Camera 4 is the middle video on the left column. The still photos I included indicate what I'm talking about.

Alright, I saw it. I'm skeptical as to that being a shadow of a plane. But perhaps it was. According to witnesses, the plane -did- veer southwards after passing the Citgo gas station. What Lagasse and Brooks were adamant on is that the plane passed -north- of the Citgo gas station, though, not south.

No witness said the plane veered "southward." The CIT witnesses said it went from NE to E.

But again.... the shadow appears to the south of the Citgo. How does the plane fly to the north of the Citgo but cast a shadow to the south when the sun is in the east?

Good point- see, I only have a vague idea of where this alleged shadow is supposed to be. Based on what you've said, and based on what witnesses like Lagasse, Brooks and Turcios have said, all of whom were at the Citgo gas station, my conclusion is that the blip that you think was a shadow of the plane was actually something else.

 

[Faun]

At 4:41....



Camera #4 shows something fall over as the plane flies by...

At the same time, a shadow appears for a single frame...

I looked at 4:41, as well as before and after. I saw what looked like a flash at 4:45, but no shadow. Not sure which one is camera 4, that might be part of me not seeing this thing...

Camera 4 is the middle video on the left column. The still photos I included indicate what I'm talking about.

Alright, I saw it. I'm skeptical as to that being a shadow of a plane. But perhaps it was. According to witnesses, the plane -did- veer southwards after passing the Citgo gas station. What Lagasse and Brooks were adamant on is that the plane passed -north- of the Citgo gas station, though, not south.

No witness said the plane veered "southward." The CIT witnesses said it went from NE to E.

But again.... the shadow appears to the south of the Citgo. How does the plane fly to the north of the Citgo but cast a shadow to the south when the sun is in the east?

Good point- see, I only have a vague idea of where this alleged shadow is supposed to be. Based on what you've said, and based on what witnesses like Lagasse, Brooks and Turcios have said, all of whom were at the Citgo gas station, my conclusion is that the blip that you think was a shadow of the plane was actually something else.

So when it's convenient for you, you don't believe CIT? Because you did acknowledge they agreed it was the plane's shadow; but that lent proof to the plane flying north of the Citgo.

Also, there's nothing else that could possibly generate a shadow that large. It appears at precisely the same time the plane flew past the Citgo.

 

[candycorn]

...I'll let you off this time, you've posted a lot of good posts, and if I put -you- on ignore, the discussion will probably grind to a halt...

You're certainly welcome to ignore me or the points which utterly break the back of your conspiracy, but you do so at your own peril as others here are not as eager to turn a blind's eye to the facts.

The real peril, as I believe Phoenyx sees it, is that once he accepts the preponderance of evidence about "what really happened" on 9/11 his entire house of cards will fall and he will be left with nothing but the unbearable truth that his belief system - his religion if you will - was built on false idols. Only by desperately clinging to it can he avoid jumping out the nearest window.

You're certainly welcome to ignore me or the points which utterly break the back of your conspiracy, but you do so at your own peril as others here are not as eager to turn a blind's eye to the facts... And I've engaged pretty much every angle of your conspiracy claims you've posted. I'd appreciate the same in return.

Dude, you're trying to reason with an irrational person... The fact remains irrational people are irrational. Reasoning with them doesn't work. Reason only works with rational people.

Most of the "Truthers" are simply lame, 9/11 sheeple but the more ambitious were (most have tossed in the towel) seeking fame, glory and profit while others had (and may still be driven by) some hateful agenda that has nothing to do with facts, truth, or even the events of 9/11.

I agree. I’ve long since held that the average 9/11 truther is here to get attention that he can’t garner in real life.

 

[Faun]

At 4:41....



Camera #4 shows something fall over as the plane flies by...

At the same time, a shadow appears for a single frame...

I looked at 4:41, as well as before and after. I saw what looked like a flash at 4:45, but no shadow. Not sure which one is camera 4, that might be part of me not seeing this thing...

Camera 4 is the middle video on the left column. The still photos I included indicate what I'm talking about.

Alright, I saw it. I'm skeptical as to that being a shadow of a plane. But perhaps it was. According to witnesses, the plane -did- veer southwards after passing the Citgo gas station. What Lagasse and Brooks were adamant on is that the plane passed -north- of the Citgo gas station, though, not south.

No witness said the plane veered "southward." The CIT witnesses said it went from NE to E.

But again.... the shadow appears to the south of the Citgo. How does the plane fly to the north of the Citgo but cast a shadow to the south when the sun is in the east?

Good point- see, I only have a vague idea of where this alleged shadow is supposed to be. Based on what you've said, and based on what witnesses like Lagasse, Brooks and Turcios have said, all of whom were at the Citgo gas station, my conclusion is that the blip that you think was a shadow of the plane was actually something else.

I came across these and thought they do a good job representing [roughly] where the plane would have been based on that shadow...

 

[phoenyx]

I looked at 4:41, as well as before and after. I saw what looked like a flash at 4:45, but no shadow. Not sure which one is camera 4, that might be part of me not seeing this thing...

Camera 4 is the middle video on the left column. The still photos I included indicate what I'm talking about.

Alright, I saw it. I'm skeptical as to that being a shadow of a plane. But perhaps it was. According to witnesses, the plane -did- veer southwards after passing the Citgo gas station. What Lagasse and Brooks were adamant on is that the plane passed -north- of the Citgo gas station, though, not south.

No witness said the plane veered "southward." The CIT witnesses said it went from NE to E.

But again.... the shadow appears to the south of the Citgo. How does the plane fly to the north of the Citgo but cast a shadow to the south when the sun is in the east?

Good point- see, I only have a vague idea of where this alleged shadow is supposed to be. Based on what you've said, and based on what witnesses like Lagasse, Brooks and Turcios have said, all of whom were at the Citgo gas station, my conclusion is that the blip that you think was a shadow of the plane was actually something else.

I came across these and thought they do a good job representing [roughly] where the plane would have been based on that shadow...

If those pixels were the shadow of a plane, that'd be one thing, but right now, all you have is a few pixels that darken- that's hardly a lot of evidence that it was a plane's shadow. Meanwhile, we have Turcios, Brooks and Lagasse swearing that the plane passed -North- of the Citgo gas station, and Lagasse makes it clear that had it passed south of the Citgo gas station, he wouldn't have even seen it. Just listen to Lagasse's interview- he's not only saying that it came from the North side of the Citgo gas station, he's describing -specific landmarks- that it passed, all on the North side of the Citgo gas station...

 

[Faun]

Camera 4 is the middle video on the left column. The still photos I included indicate what I'm talking about.

Alright, I saw it. I'm skeptical as to that being a shadow of a plane. But perhaps it was. According to witnesses, the plane -did- veer southwards after passing the Citgo gas station. What Lagasse and Brooks were adamant on is that the plane passed -north- of the Citgo gas station, though, not south.

No witness said the plane veered "southward." The CIT witnesses said it went from NE to E.

But again.... the shadow appears to the south of the Citgo. How does the plane fly to the north of the Citgo but cast a shadow to the south when the sun is in the east?

Good point- see, I only have a vague idea of where this alleged shadow is supposed to be. Based on what you've said, and based on what witnesses like Lagasse, Brooks and Turcios have said, all of whom were at the Citgo gas station, my conclusion is that the blip that you think was a shadow of the plane was actually something else.

I came across these and thought they do a good job representing [roughly] where the plane would have been based on that shadow...

If those pixels were the shadow of a plane, that'd be one thing, but right now, all you have is a few pixels that darken- that's hardly a lot of evidence that it was a plane's shadow. Meanwhile, we have Turcios, Brooks and Lagasse swearing that the plane passed -North- of the Citgo gas station, and Lagasse makes it clear that had it passed south of the Citgo gas station, he wouldn't have even seen it. Just listen to Lagasse's interview- he's not only saying that it came from the North side of the Citgo gas station, he's describing -specific landmarks- that it passed, all on the North side of the Citgo gas station...

You're funny. When you thought the shadow proved the plane flew north of the Citgo, you agreed it was the plane's shadow because that's what CIT said. But when you're shown evidence that the shadow proves the plane flew south of the Citgo, then it's just "pixels."



Except that it is the plane's shadow. It appears on the video at the precise moment the plane flew past the Citgo. We know this because that same camera captures something falling over without being touched and then seconds later, everyone in the store runs to see what caused the loud noise that felt like an "earthquake," according to Jose Velasquez...

Three months ago, on September 11 at 9:38 a.m., a Tuesday, Jose Velasquez heard the rumble of imminent death overhead. "I knew something was wrong. The planes come more from the north and west [to land at Reagan National Airport] not from the south. And not so low."

He was talking on the telephone that morning to a friend who was feeding him gauzy reports about airplane crashes at the World Trade Center in New York. But Velasquez slammed down the receiver and raced outside when he felt the gas station he supervises suddenly begin to tremble from a too-close airplane.

"It was like an earthquake," the Costa Rican native said last week. What Velasquez felt above him almost within touching distance was American Airlines Flight 77 just seconds before impact.

more... ​

And where did Jose, and the others in the store, run to to see what cause the "rumble of imminent death?"

To the southeast entrance of the store.

It all adds up.

That puts the plane on the south side of the Citgo, where many witnesses claimed they saw it...

Where it lines up perfectly with the downed lamp posts...

Where it lines up perfectly with damage done to the Pentagon...

Where it shows the pilot flew straight into the Pentagon, and not making some last second unexplainable turn to the north, away from the Pentagon.

Game, set, match.

 

[MisterBeale]

Alright, I saw it. I'm skeptical as to that being a shadow of a plane. But perhaps it was. According to witnesses, the plane -did- veer southwards after passing the Citgo gas station. What Lagasse and Brooks were adamant on is that the plane passed -north- of the Citgo gas station, though, not south.

No witness said the plane veered "southward." The CIT witnesses said it went from NE to E.

But again.... the shadow appears to the south of the Citgo. How does the plane fly to the north of the Citgo but cast a shadow to the south when the sun is in the east?

Good point- see, I only have a vague idea of where this alleged shadow is supposed to be. Based on what you've said, and based on what witnesses like Lagasse, Brooks and Turcios have said, all of whom were at the Citgo gas station, my conclusion is that the blip that you think was a shadow of the plane was actually something else.

I came across these and thought they do a good job representing [roughly] where the plane would have been based on that shadow...

If those pixels were the shadow of a plane, that'd be one thing, but right now, all you have is a few pixels that darken- that's hardly a lot of evidence that it was a plane's shadow. Meanwhile, we have Turcios, Brooks and Lagasse swearing that the plane passed -North- of the Citgo gas station, and Lagasse makes it clear that had it passed south of the Citgo gas station, he wouldn't have even seen it. Just listen to Lagasse's interview- he's not only saying that it came from the North side of the Citgo gas station, he's describing -specific landmarks- that it passed, all on the North side of the Citgo gas station...

You're funny. When you thought the shadow proved the plane flew north of the Citgo, you agreed it was the plane's shadow because that's what CIT said. But when you're shown evidence that the shadow proves the plane flew south of the Citgo, then it's just "pixels."



Except that it is the plane's shadow. It appears on the video at the precise moment the plane flew past the Citgo. We know this because that same camera captures something falling over without being touched and then seconds later, everyone in the store runs to see what caused the loud noise that felt like an "earthquake," according to Jose Velasquez...

Three months ago, on September 11 at 9:38 a.m., a Tuesday, Jose Velasquez heard the rumble of imminent death overhead. "I knew something was wrong. The planes come more from the north and west [to land at Reagan National Airport] not from the south. And not so low."

He was talking on the telephone that morning to a friend who was feeding him gauzy reports about airplane crashes at the World Trade Center in New York. But Velasquez slammed down the receiver and raced outside when he felt the gas station he supervises suddenly begin to tremble from a too-close airplane.

"It was like an earthquake," the Costa Rican native said last week. What Velasquez felt above him almost within touching distance was American Airlines Flight 77 just seconds before impact.

more... ​

And where did Jose, and the others in the store, run to to see what cause the "rumble of imminent death?"

To the southeast entrance of the store.

It all adds up.

That puts the plane on the south side of the Citgo, where many witnesses claimed they saw it...

Where it lines up perfectly with the downed lamp posts...

Where it lines up perfectly with damage done to the Pentagon...

Where it shows the pilot flew straight into the Pentagon, and not making some last second unexplainable turn to the north, away from the Pentagon.

Game, set, match.

Let’s Talk About the American Deep State
Let’s Talk About the American Deep State | Foreign Policy Journal

 

[SAYIT]

That puts the plane on the south side of the Citgo, where many witnesses claimed they saw it... Where it lines up perfectly with the downed lamp posts... Where it lines up perfectly with damage done to the Pentagon... Where it shows the pilot flew straight into the Pentagon, and not making some last second unexplainable turn to the north, away from the Pentagon. Game, set, match.

Let’s Talk About the American Deep State
Let’s Talk About the American Deep State | Foreign Policy Journal

Foreign Policy Journal - not to be confused with ForeignPolicy.com or the Foreign Policy Institute - is an obscure alt-news website founded in 2008 by the equally obscure Jeremy R Hammond.

The fact that one can find Hammond on Iran's PressTV and links to wackos like Paul Craig Roberts ("Are You a Mind-Controlled CIA Stooge?)" at FPJ would tell a rational poster to apply some skepticism.

Only the truly desperate would seek validation for his belief system at Foreign Policy Journal.

 

[MisterBeale]

That puts the plane on the south side of the Citgo, where many witnesses claimed they saw it... Where it lines up perfectly with the downed lamp posts... Where it lines up perfectly with damage done to the Pentagon... Where it shows the pilot flew straight into the Pentagon, and not making some last second unexplainable turn to the north, away from the Pentagon. Game, set, match.

Let’s Talk About the American Deep State
Let’s Talk About the American Deep State | Foreign Policy Journal

Foreign Policy Journal - not to be confused with ForeignPolicy.com or the Foreign Policy Institute - is an obscure alt-news website founded in 2008 by the equally obscure Jeremy R Hammond.

The fact that one can find Hammond on Iran's PressTV and links to wackos like Paul Craig Roberts ("Are You a Mind-Controlled CIA Stooge?)" at FPJ would tell a rational poster to apply some skepticism.

Only the truly desperate would seek validation for his belief system at Foreign Policy Journal.

Nice, I love how you always attack the source, rather than the facts and the content of the source when ever pressed. Weak.

Sorry it's not CFR media. Most would rather not be tools of the establishment. You would do better with facts than with your silly conspiracy theory to support your POV.

Paul Craig Roberts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Paulie]

Building 7. No plane hit it. Still collapsed at almost free fall speed into its footprint. A steel reinforced building, no less. The explanation of collateral damage from the towers collapsing makes absolutely zero physical, engineering, structural, logical, etc. sense. It just doesn't. That's the only aspect of 9/11 that I feel is even worth discussing. If 9/11 really was staged, building 7 was where their mistake was made.

 

[Faun]

Building 7. No plane hit it. Still collapsed at almost free fall speed into its footprint. A steel reinforced building, no less. The explanation of collateral damage from the towers collapsing makes absolutely zero physical, engineering, structural, logical, etc. sense. It just doesn't. That's the only aspect of 9/11 that I feel is even worth discussing. If 9/11 really was staged, building 7 was where their mistake was made.

How is it not feasible that a building collapses after burning uncontrollably for 7 hours after sustaining structural damage caused by a 110 story building near it falling, raining tons of debris on it?

 

[Paulie]

Building 7. No plane hit it. Still collapsed at almost free fall speed into its footprint. A steel reinforced building, no less. The explanation of collateral damage from the towers collapsing makes absolutely zero physical, engineering, structural, logical, etc. sense. It just doesn't. That's the only aspect of 9/11 that I feel is even worth discussing. If 9/11 really was staged, building 7 was where their mistake was made.

How is it not feasible that a building collapses after burning uncontrollably for 7 hours after sustaining structural damage caused by a 110 story building near it falling, raining tons of debris on it?

I'm not saying it's not feasible that he building could collapse in SOME manner...but the actual manner in which it did? Sorry.

 

[Paulie]

I'm not gonna get into a debate on this. I just wanted to make my drive by opinion known. Have a good day

 

[Faun]

Building 7. No plane hit it. Still collapsed at almost free fall speed into its footprint. A steel reinforced building, no less. The explanation of collateral damage from the towers collapsing makes absolutely zero physical, engineering, structural, logical, etc. sense. It just doesn't. That's the only aspect of 9/11 that I feel is even worth discussing. If 9/11 really was staged, building 7 was where their mistake was made.

How is it not feasible that a building collapses after burning uncontrollably for 7 hours after sustaining structural damage caused by a 110 story building near it falling, raining tons of debris on it?

I'm not saying it's not feasible that he building could collapse in SOME manner...but the actual manner in which it did? Sorry.

It fell in a manner without explosives used in controlled demolitions. It also fell in two stages in a manner unlike controlled demolitions.

 

[Faun]

I'm not gonna get into a debate on this. I just wanted to make my drive by opinion known. Have a good day

I understand. Can't say that I blame ya.

 

[SAYIT]

That puts the plane on the south side of the Citgo, where many witnesses claimed they saw it... Where it lines up perfectly with the downed lamp posts... Where it lines up perfectly with damage done to the Pentagon... Where it shows the pilot flew straight into the Pentagon, and not making some last second unexplainable turn to the north, away from the Pentagon. Game, set, match.

Let’s Talk About the American Deep State
Let’s Talk About the American Deep State | Foreign Policy Journal

Foreign Policy Journal - not to be confused with ForeignPolicy.com or the Foreign Policy Institute - is an obscure alt-news website founded in 2008 by the equally obscure Jeremy R Hammond.

The fact that one can find Hammond on Iran's PressTV and links to wackos like Paul Craig Roberts ("Are You a Mind-Controlled CIA Stooge?)" at FPJ would tell a rational poster to apply some skepticism.

Only the truly desperate would seek validation for his belief system at Foreign Policy Journal.

Nice, I love how you always attack the source, rather than the facts and the content of the source when ever pressed. Weak.

Sorry it's not CFR media. Most would rather not be tools of the establishment. You would do better with facts than with your silly conspiracy theory to support your POV.

Paul Craig Roberts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Look, you can find "validation" for the Flat Earth, Faked Lunar Landing, Sandy Hook Hoax and all manner of foil-hat CTs by plumbing the depths of the WWW but just because some fellow foil-hater posts something on his website doesn't make it true or factual. Like most rational peeps I understand that getting "clicks" on your site can pay off financially but it isn't really worth anyone's time to take that crap seriously unless you're getting paid or a flaming loon. Are you getting paid? No?

 

[LA RAM FAN]

I'm not gonna get into a debate on this. I just wanted to make my drive by opinion known. Have a good day

very smart NOT to.the two posters that have come on here and posted defending the official version are shills on the governments payroll.they got plants like faun and sayit EVERYWHERE on message boards troillng night and day.they are here to try to goad you into debating them so they can waste your time on them in their hopes of derailing any kind of truth discussion about the case.to argue with them is just plain idiotic because you are just pleasing their bosses who sent them here to troll,taking their bait as they want you to.

Best thing in the world to do with shills like them is put them on ignore.
I cant say that phrase enough times it is so true,sadly many people ignore that advise and like the idiots they are,they feed them. dont be one of them.