Simple request for Flight 93

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by suede

Maybe you should stick with red barns, Gaze.

---

That's odd; reading the thread you link to, it's obvious it wasn't Gaze who first to point out the flaws in that image:
http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/1...ml#post4154523

If anyone made a blunder, it was you:

Quote:

---

Man, they were right. The mushroom cloud in her photo is HUGE!

---

http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t...ndSerenity.jpg

From your BLUNDER , and the thread you linked, NAB re-posted another image...which demonstrates how insane your favorite sources are:

http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t...ityandWTCs.jpg

I don't know where Gaze fits into that. But considering you stalked her on another forum, your other comments in that thread are "interesting":

Quote:

---

I see why you wanted me to contact her, so you can turn around and accuse me of harassing her too. Clever.

---

Like NAB said:

Quote:

---

I'm not sure why you would jump to such an conclusion.

---

It's a strange conclusion to jump to. Considering the subject was Val McClatchey, it begs the question why you'd think contacting McClatchey politely would be stalking her. There's only one person known to stalk and lie about Ms. McClatchey....mimicking him isn't a good idea "suede".

Maybe it's time you leave "Gaze" alone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by suede

Maybe you should stick with red barns, Gaze.

---

Like I said earlier in this thread.....

I easily proved that your analysis was bullsh, YET, you go out of the way to stalk someone over the barn comment? Bury the lead much?

You aren't even trying to hide your true colors anymore are you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NAB

Like I said earlier in this thread.....

I easily proved that your analysis was bullsh, YET, you go out of the way to stalk someone over the barn comment? Bury the lead much?

You aren't even trying to hide your true colors anymore are you?

---

Apparently he's about to weigh in....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I_Gaze_At_The_Blue

Nope ... the ground won ... the aircraft was shattered and broken up by impact PLUS fuel exploding.

---

Supposedly only went it hit the bedrock layer 40-some ft. below. You can say the ground won on the cockpit section which supposedly snapped off the rest of the fuselage when hitting the ground and then shattered into the woods.

(The cockpit section snapped off and shattered into the woods?!! :eyepopping: )

Quote:

---

How so ... debris was BLOWN away, you know, on account of it being LIGHTWEIGHT and easily carried by the wind ... that does NOT equate to proof of what you are trying to infer here.

---

Ahem, you said:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I_Gaze_At_The_Blue

Here is another one ... NO debris was found 8 miles away !!!

---

Sounds like a little back-tracking to me.

Quote:

---

Keep telling yourself that, you might believe it ... no-one else does

---

Except your little buddy, "Patriot911":

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by suede

Hey Gaze, don't see you around here much anymore. Is that because of your colossal blunder?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Patriot911

Everyone makes mistakes. The difference is debunkers recognize their mistakes.

---

Of course looks like "Patriot911" made a blunder himself when he said "The difference is debunkers recognize their mistakes.." :laughing:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by suede

Supposedly only went it hit the bedrock layer 40-some ft. below. You can say the ground won on the cockpit section which supposedly snapped off the rest of the fuselage when hitting the ground and then shattered into the woods.

(The cockpit section snapped off and shattered into the woods?!! :eyepopping: )


Ahem, you said:


Sounds like a little back-tracking to me.


Except your little buddy, "Patriot911":



Of course looks like "Patriot911" made a blunder himself when he said "The difference is debunkers recognize their mistakes.." :laughing:

---

Suede, you are aware everyone can read these comments and links right?

http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/2...post1060913308

http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/2...post1060913344

The only one you're fooling with dishonest finger pointing and hand-waving is yourself...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by l4zarus

Apparently he's about to weigh in....

---

My favorite part of that thread were these two posts from suede (before and after I debunked his bullsh analysis).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by suede

Well then, I look forward to see your detailed analysis that debunks it.

But before you do -- like you even will -- if the original comparison is accurate, would you agree the plume on her photo is too big to be real?

---

*nab mentions he's actually putting it into the computer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by suede

Your guy's desperation is funny ... and noted.

---

*nab posts his debunking

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by suede attacks Gaze

I really, really hope you guys are joking! Even you two can't be that stupid to understand what the guy has the WTC scaled to!!!

---

*nabs reminds suede of his debunking

*suede ducks and weaves for post after post, but never addresses it

/fin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NAB

My favorite part of that thread were these two posts from suede (before and after I debunked his bullsh analysis).



*nab mentions he's actually putting it into the computer



*nab posts his debunking



*nabs reminds suede of his debunking

*suede ducks and weaves for post after post, but never addresses it

/fin

---

The abovetopsecret thread he links to http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread268934/pg1 was started by someone called nick7261. Another "killtown" fan if his photobucket is any indication:

http://s160.photobucket.com/albums/t197/nick7261/

Heard he might know "killtown" irl and be mixed up in some truly weird shenanagins where he lived:

http://www.dreamindemon.com/2009/07/...r-babys-daddy/

Maybe "suede" should reconsider the sources he uses.

Halfway through the thread's life and the skeptics haven't been able to provide the OP's simple request.

:no:

Anything ever been in the OP's way to prevent them from going to Shanksville and speaking directly to those most intimately involved in this, after all NOTHING like direct source ???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by suede

Halfway through the thread's life and the skeptics haven't been able to provide the OP's simple request.

---

This thread was for all purposes over when OP refused to clarify part of his question and, by his replies, confirmed it was a TROLL THREAD

http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/2...post1060904484

Even you agree OP was a flawed premise.

So we don't understand the point of your taunts. All you've 'proved' is OP's question is flawed or dishonest and you have deluded yourself into thinking this is a 'win' for 'truthers'.