Re: Pentagon 9/11 Fraud was Re: No Second Engine at the Pentagon was Re: The Ultimate Pentagon 9/11 Question Andy Carol couldn't answer. was Re: Flight 175 WAS a FUEL TANKER, for REAL. This is not a "theory".

From: C-Fresh (master_at_mason.snuh)
Date: 09/04/04 

Date: 4 Sep 2004 16:35:25 GMT

lensman1955@hotmail.com (lensman1955) wrote in
news:633b063b.0409040739.a97752f@posting.google.com:

> "C-Fresh" <master@mason.snuh> wrote in message
> news:<Xns9559C4195B4B4spamspamsnuhspam33@207.14.113.17>...
>> glennab1@aol.com (1aircraftQAguy) wrote in
>> news:a83bb3a1.0409031557.1b837dd1@posting.google.com:
>>
>> > "C-Fresh" <master@mason.snuh> wrote in message
>> > news:<Xns95598E90DBE31spamspamsnuhspam33@207.14.113.17>...
>> >> "Homeland_Insecurity" <insecurity@homeland.net> wrote in
>> >> news:hp_Zc.1547 $lv3.135067@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > "AbsolutelyCertain" <easily@entertained.net> wrote in message
>> >> > news:ch7s3l$dc5$0@pita.alt.net...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "C-Fresh" <master@mason.snuh> wrote in message
>> >> >> news:Xns95589198682B5spamspamsnuhspam33@207.14.113.17...
>> >> >> > Sir Cumference <radiodaze@this.not> wrote in
>> >> >> > news:t7udneE0ovInz6rcRVn- rg@gbronline.com:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > > lensman1955 wrote:
>> >> >> > >>
>> >> >> > >> I tried to say the same thing weeks ago. They hear what they
>> >> >> > >> want
>> to
>> >> >> > >> hear and dismiss anything that contradicts what they want to
>> believe.
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > That's the way it is with the conspiracy nuts, if it dosen't
>> >> >> > > support their idiotic conspiracy claim, then they ignore it.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > That statement applies to you nicely.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > The link that contains your infamous secret text.
>> >>
>> >> Not to mention a picture of a plane with "American Airlines" written
>> >> on it...
>> >>
>> >
>> > Some memory you have, find that quote and post it?
>>
>> If it wasn't you, it was another 757 theorist.
>>
>> You both have a lot of problems telling the truth, typical of 757
>> theorists.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> No 757 Hit The Pentagon
>> http://www.bedoper.com/eastman
>>
>> ASCE Report Proves No 757 Hit The Pentagon
>> http://www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce
>>
>> New Online Video Proves No 757 Hit The Pentagon
>> http://www.freedomunderground.org/memoryhole/pentagon121.swf
>
> Nicely put together. Almost a Michael Moore type thing. I especially
> liked the way you used plane crashes hitting the ground as proof that
> a plane hitting a steel reinforced building should react the same way.

No, of course, a plane hitting a building should just evaporate.

What makes you think I put that together?

> There are some legitimate questions here, but just posting them here
> is like playing with yourself. It might make you feel good, but
> nothing useful's going to come out of it.
 
Perhaps you should stop "playing with yourself", in that case. 

-- 
http://BeDoper.com - BeOS and a hell of a lot more
Virgin Message Board
http://bedoper.com/cgi-bin/plugins/BBS/bedoper_ubb/Ultimate.cgi?
action=intro
Gortician's Not Dead, Punk
http://www.metal-archives.com/release.php?id=15537

Relevant Pages
Quantcast