| |
 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Science Skeptics Forum » Muhammad Columbo's Paper Wins Prestigious Award. Congratulat |
|
Page 5 of 6 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Guest |
 Posted: Sun Oct 16, 2005 8:05 am |
|
|
|
|
On 16 Oct 2005 06:38:28 -0700, "Sky King" <skyking@scientist.com>
wrote:
[quote:cc03077a44]
MuhammadColumbo wrote:
That's a LIE. Even in your commission report :
UA175 : Possibly takeover 8:42-8:46
AA11 : Crash 8:46:40
So, do you believe in the 9/11 Commission report now, Muhammad?
[/quote:cc03077a44]
Like all conspiracy wackos, he believes it when it is convenient,
denies it when it's not. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Sun Oct 16, 2005 8:07 am |
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 11:10:14 +0200, "MuhammadColumbo"
<muhammad.columbo@swing.be> wrote:
[quote:19c38b9d77]²"george" <gblack@hnpl.net> a écrit dans le message de news:
1129416968.114860.110360@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
My work proofs that 4 different teams can not make that strikes as they
happened. And when we consider how USA administration can do that? All
facts
correspond to that. So we can conlude USA administration did 9/11 strikes.
See. He's so far into denial he's an Egyptian
I am not egyptian.
[/quote:19c38b9d77]
Whoosh... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| george |
| Posted: Sun Oct 16, 2005 1:18 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
agent86@justicespammail.com wrote:
[quote:7619f72ab6]On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 11:10:14 +0200, "MuhammadColumbo"
muhammad.columbo@swing.be> wrote:
²"george" <gblack@hnpl.net> a écrit dans le message de news:
1129416968.114860.110360@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
My work proofs that 4 different teams can not make that strikes as they
happened. And when we consider how USA administration can do that? All
facts
correspond to that. So we can conlude USA administration did 9/11 strikes.
See. He's so far into denial he's an Egyptian
I am not egyptian.
Whoosh...
[/quote:7619f72ab6]
Like shooting fish in a barrel  |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| MuhammadColumbo |
| Posted: Sun Oct 16, 2005 3:18 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
<agent86@justicespammail.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
0hn4l1dsa3u6st70qnveccorrl6lg6a09t@4ax.com...
[quote:eee6685d33]On 16 Oct 2005 06:38:28 -0700, "Sky King" <skyking@scientist.com
wrote:
MuhammadColumbo wrote:
That's a LIE. Even in your commission report :
UA175 : Possibly takeover 8:42-8:46
AA11 : Crash 8:46:40
So, do you believe in the 9/11 Commission report now, Muhammad?
Like all conspiracy wackos, he believes it when it is convenient,
denies it when it's not.
[/quote:eee6685d33]
Not at all. I believe UA175 has deviated from it's flight route at 8:42. But
as you only believe on the commission report, andas teh diference is not to
much, I considered also their version. Even with their times, we see that
the crash of AA11 was made on the same period of time of the hijack of
UA175.
The conlusion that I gave in my web site is TRUE : When a plane was about to
crash, the following one deviated from its route. That's only possible with
a central hijack of the planes. One team hijacking all planes by using
automatic guidance systems. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Sun Oct 16, 2005 4:02 pm |
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 23:18:11 +0200, "MuhammadColumbo"
<muhammad.columbo@swing.be> wrote:
[quote:68645a69da]
agent86@justicespammail.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
0hn4l1dsa3u6st70qnveccorrl6lg6a09t@4ax.com...
On 16 Oct 2005 06:38:28 -0700, "Sky King" <skyking@scientist.com
wrote:
MuhammadColumbo wrote:
That's a LIE. Even in your commission report :
UA175 : Possibly takeover 8:42-8:46
AA11 : Crash 8:46:40
So, do you believe in the 9/11 Commission report now, Muhammad?
Like all conspiracy wackos, he believes it when it is convenient,
denies it when it's not.
Not at all. I believe UA175 has deviated from it's flight route at 8:42.
[/quote:68645a69da]
But you have no evidence of it, do you?
[quote:68645a69da]But
as you only believe on the commission report, andas teh diference is not to
much, I considered also their version. Even with their times, we see that
the crash of AA11 was made on the same period of time of the hijack of
UA175.
[/quote:68645a69da]
"The same period of time" is different than what you have been
claiming.
[quote:68645a69da]The conlusion that I gave in my web site is TRUE : When a plane was about to
crash, the following one deviated from its route. That's only possible with
a central hijack of the planes.
[/quote:68645a69da]
Except it isn't. You've offered absolutely no evidence that your
fantasy is the only answer. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| MuhammadColumbo |
| Posted: Mon Oct 17, 2005 1:58 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
<agent86@justicespammail.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
8cj5l1hfnul3pb9kcj88suetcds8s43o5c@4ax.com...
[quote:70df710e5f]On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 23:18:11 +0200, "MuhammadColumbo"
muhammad.columbo@swing.be> wrote:
MuhammadColumbo wrote:
That's a LIE. Even in your commission report :
UA175 : Possibly takeover 8:42-8:46
AA11 : Crash 8:46:40
So, do you believe in the 9/11 Commission report now, Muhammad?
Like all conspiracy wackos, he believes it when it is convenient,
denies it when it's not.
Not at all. I believe UA175 has deviated from it's flight route at 8:42.
But you have no evidence of it, do you?
[/quote:70df710e5f]
The commission had to give that deviation time. They had radar traces! Why
they didn't told it? Because they need to leave some clouds over the facts.
They can tell exactly at what time the plane deviated from its route.
And for me, 8:42 or 8:46 is meaningless. For both, my scenario is still
good.
[quote:70df710e5f]But
as you only believe on the commission report, andas teh diference is not
to
much, I considered also their version. Even with their times, we see that
the crash of AA11 was made on the same period of time of the hijack of
UA175.
"The same period of time" is different than what you have been
claiming.
[/quote:70df710e5f]
I claim thesame thing with different words. On my web site, I wrote "from
one site to other, that times may vary some minutes, but that doesn't change
the conclusions".
[quote:70df710e5f]The conlusion that I gave in my web site is TRUE : When a plane was about
to
crash, the following one deviated from its route. That's only possible
with
a central hijack of the planes.
Except it isn't. You've offered absolutely no evidence that your
fantasy is the only answer.
[/quote:70df710e5f]
The hijack, deviation and crash times are very strong evidences. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Sky King |
| Posted: Mon Oct 17, 2005 3:13 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
MuhammadColumbo wrote:
[quote:deb51feff4]agent86@justicespammail.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
8cj5l1hfnul3pb9kcj88suetcds8s43o5c@4ax.com...
On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 23:18:11 +0200, "MuhammadColumbo"
muhammad.columbo@swing.be> wrote:
MuhammadColumbo wrote:
That's a LIE. Even in your commission report :
UA175 : Possibly takeover 8:42-8:46
AA11 : Crash 8:46:40
So, do you believe in the 9/11 Commission report now, Muhammad?
Like all conspiracy wackos, he believes it when it is convenient,
denies it when it's not.
Not at all. I believe UA175 has deviated from it's flight route at 8:42.
But you have no evidence of it, do you?
The commission had to give that deviation time. They had radar traces! Why
they didn't told it? Because they need to leave some clouds over the facts.
They can tell exactly at what time the plane deviated from its route.
And for me, 8:42 or 8:46 is meaningless. For both, my scenario is still
good.
But
as you only believe on the commission report, andas teh diference is not
to
much, I considered also their version. Even with their times, we see that
the crash of AA11 was made on the same period of time of the hijack of
UA175.
"The same period of time" is different than what you have been
claiming.
I claim thesame thing with different words. On my web site, I wrote "from
one site to other, that times may vary some minutes, but that doesn't change
the conclusions".
The conlusion that I gave in my web site is TRUE : When a plane was about
to
crash, the following one deviated from its route. That's only possible
with
a central hijack of the planes.
Except it isn't. You've offered absolutely no evidence that your
fantasy is the only answer.
The hijack, deviation and crash times are very strong evidences.
[/quote:deb51feff4]
The evidence is that which you have been unable to refute, Muhammad:
Four planes were hijacked by 19 Arabs under the direction and blessing
of Muslim Osama bin Laden and crashed into WTC1, WTC2, the Pentagon,
and into the ground in Pennsylvania on 9/11/2001.
This act of terror was not the first by Islamist terrorists. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Mon Oct 17, 2005 8:02 pm |
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 21:58:30 +0200, "MuhammadColumbo"
<muhammad.columbo@swing.be> wrote:
[quote:5ecadaa809]
agent86@justicespammail.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
8cj5l1hfnul3pb9kcj88suetcds8s43o5c@4ax.com...
On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 23:18:11 +0200, "MuhammadColumbo"
muhammad.columbo@swing.be> wrote:
MuhammadColumbo wrote:
That's a LIE. Even in your commission report :
UA175 : Possibly takeover 8:42-8:46
AA11 : Crash 8:46:40
So, do you believe in the 9/11 Commission report now, Muhammad?
Like all conspiracy wackos, he believes it when it is convenient,
denies it when it's not.
Not at all. I believe UA175 has deviated from it's flight route at 8:42.
But you have no evidence of it, do you?
The commission had to give that deviation time. They had radar traces! Why
they didn't told it? Because they need to leave some clouds over the facts.
They can tell exactly at what time the plane deviated from its route.
[/quote:5ecadaa809]
And why is that important?
[quote:5ecadaa809]And for me, 8:42 or 8:46 is meaningless. For both, my scenario is still
good.
[/quote:5ecadaa809]
Except you've had to modify your "theory" to make it fit. First you
said that one aircraft was not hijacked until the prior one crashed.
When it was pointed out that this did not happen, you modified your
theory to be that it was near the end of the prior aircraft's flight
and the aircraft didn't need further remote guidance. Wonder what the
next change will be?
[quote:5ecadaa809]But
as you only believe on the commission report, andas teh diference is not
to
much, I considered also their version. Even with their times, we see that
the crash of AA11 was made on the same period of time of the hijack of
UA175.
"The same period of time" is different than what you have been
claiming.
I claim thesame thing with different words. On my web site, I wrote "from
one site to other, that times may vary some minutes, but that doesn't change
the conclusions".
[/quote:5ecadaa809]
No, you changed your "theory".
[quote:5ecadaa809]The conlusion that I gave in my web site is TRUE : When a plane was about
to
crash, the following one deviated from its route. That's only possible
with
a central hijack of the planes.
Except it isn't. You've offered absolutely no evidence that your
fantasy is the only answer.
The hijack, deviation and crash times are very strong evidences.
[/quote:5ecadaa809]
Of nothing. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| MuhammadColumbo |
| Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 1:10 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Sky King" <skyking@scientist.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
1129583611.104743.94160@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
[quote:f5bbdf38c8]The hijack, deviation and crash times are very strong evidences.
[/quote:f5bbdf38c8]
*The evidence is that which you have been unable to refute, Muhammad:
*Four planes were hijacked by 19 Arabs under the direction and blessing
*of Muslim Osama bin Laden and crashed into WTC1, WTC2, the Pentagon,
*and into the ground in Pennsylvania on 9/11/2001.
9/11 is an inside job made under US administration orders.
*This act of terror was not the first by Islamist terrorists.
This act is not the first made by US religious conservative republicans. See
Red Skins, see JFK assassination, virtual Moon Landing, ... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| MuhammadColumbo |
| Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 1:18 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
<agent86@justicespammail.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
apl8l1hf8oa6gcflp31spvadnc6gqb1h33@4ax.com...
[quote:e85762e105]On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 21:58:30 +0200, "MuhammadColumbo"
muhammad.columbo@swing.be> wrote:
agent86@justicespammail.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
8cj5l1hfnul3pb9kcj88suetcds8s43o5c@4ax.com...
On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 23:18:11 +0200, "MuhammadColumbo"
muhammad.columbo@swing.be> wrote:
MuhammadColumbo wrote:
That's a LIE. Even in your commission report :
UA175 : Possibly takeover 8:42-8:46
AA11 : Crash 8:46:40
So, do you believe in the 9/11 Commission report now, Muhammad?
Like all conspiracy wackos, he believes it when it is convenient,
denies it when it's not.
Not at all. I believe UA175 has deviated from it's flight route at 8:42.
But you have no evidence of it, do you?
The commission had to give that deviation time. They had radar traces! Why
they didn't told it? Because they need to leave some clouds over the
facts.
They can tell exactly at what time the plane deviated from its route.
And why is that important?
[/quote:e85762e105]
That's practically the lone reliable fact to tell that plane is hijacked, or
that plane is out of normal flight. And that's important, exactly like the
start of any war. For example the last Iraq invasion. The start day is
important.
[quote:e85762e105]And for me, 8:42 or 8:46 is meaningless. For both, my scenario is still
good.
Except you've had to modify your "theory" to make it fit. First you
said that one aircraft was not hijacked until the prior one crashed.
When it was pointed out that this did not happen, you modified your
theory to be that it was near the end of the prior aircraft's flight
and the aircraft didn't need further remote guidance. Wonder what the
next change will be?
[/quote:e85762e105]
The most important fact is not one before or after other. The most important
is that the crash of a precedent happened approximately when the next one
deviated from its route.
[quote:e85762e105]"The same period of time" is different than what you have been
claiming.
I claim thesame thing with different words. On my web site, I wrote "from
one site to other, that times may vary some minutes, but that doesn't
change
the conclusions".
No, you changed your "theory".
[/quote:e85762e105]
I changed nothing. You can see it is still in my web site. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 7:24 pm |
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 21:18:56 +0200, "MuhammadColumbo"
<muhammad.columbo@swing.be> wrote:
[quote:6a7d7adf37]
agent86@justicespammail.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
apl8l1hf8oa6gcflp31spvadnc6gqb1h33@4ax.com...
On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 21:58:30 +0200, "MuhammadColumbo"
muhammad.columbo@swing.be> wrote:
agent86@justicespammail.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
8cj5l1hfnul3pb9kcj88suetcds8s43o5c@4ax.com...
On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 23:18:11 +0200, "MuhammadColumbo"
muhammad.columbo@swing.be> wrote:
MuhammadColumbo wrote:
That's a LIE. Even in your commission report :
UA175 : Possibly takeover 8:42-8:46
AA11 : Crash 8:46:40
So, do you believe in the 9/11 Commission report now, Muhammad?
Like all conspiracy wackos, he believes it when it is convenient,
denies it when it's not.
Not at all. I believe UA175 has deviated from it's flight route at 8:42.
But you have no evidence of it, do you?
The commission had to give that deviation time. They had radar traces! Why
they didn't told it? Because they need to leave some clouds over the
facts.
They can tell exactly at what time the plane deviated from its route.
And why is that important?
That's practically the lone reliable fact to tell that plane is hijacked, or
that plane is out of normal flight. And that's important, exactly like the
start of any war. For example the last Iraq invasion. The start day is
important.
[/quote:6a7d7adf37]
And why it that important?
[quote:6a7d7adf37]And for me, 8:42 or 8:46 is meaningless. For both, my scenario is still
good.
Except you've had to modify your "theory" to make it fit. First you
said that one aircraft was not hijacked until the prior one crashed.
When it was pointed out that this did not happen, you modified your
theory to be that it was near the end of the prior aircraft's flight
and the aircraft didn't need further remote guidance. Wonder what the
next change will be?
The most important fact is not one before or after other. The most important
is that the crash of a precedent happened approximately when the next one
deviated from its route.
[/quote:6a7d7adf37]
A "theory" that you advanced only after being proven wrong about the
sequence of events on 9/11. And you have yet to demonstrate why such
a sequence is significant. Or why it couldn't have been accomplished
by four separate teams.
[quote:6a7d7adf37]"The same period of time" is different than what you have been
claiming.
I claim thesame thing with different words. On my web site, I wrote "from
one site to other, that times may vary some minutes, but that doesn't
change
the conclusions".
No, you changed your "theory".
I changed nothing. You can see it is still in my web site.
[/quote:6a7d7adf37]
Yes you did. You changed your theory from the flights being
individually taken over only after the previous one crashed to begin
taken over "near the end of the prior aircraft's flight". |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Sky King |
| Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 7:45 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
MuhammadColumbo wrote:
[quote:d3a4ff303c]"Sky King" <skyking@scientist.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
1129583611.104743.94160@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
The hijack, deviation and crash times are very strong evidences.
*The evidence is that which you have been unable to refute, Muhammad:
*Four planes were hijacked by 19 Arabs under the direction and blessing
*of Muslim Osama bin Laden and crashed into WTC1, WTC2, the Pentagon,
*and into the ground in Pennsylvania on 9/11/2001.
9/11 is an inside job made under US administration orders.
*This act of terror was not the first by Islamist terrorists.
This act is not the first made by US religious conservative republicans. See
Red Skins, see JFK assassination, virtual Moon Landing, ...
[/quote:d3a4ff303c]
The only thing you've shown us is a delusional, sick mind proudly
displayed under the name of Muhammad Columbo.
The facts remain unchanged, Muhammad: Four planes were hijacked by 19
Arabs under the direction and blessing of Muslim Osama bin Laden and
crashed into WTC1, WTC2, the Pentagon, and into the ground in
Pennsylvania on 9/11/2001. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| MuhammadColumbo |
| Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 1:11 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
<agent86@justicespammail.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
rr7bl1h95e4a1qpasu13ehertte8mgi1k2@4ax.com...
[quote:fbdd2119e0]On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 21:18:56 +0200, "MuhammadColumbo"
muhammad.columbo@swing.be> wrote:
But you have no evidence of it, do you?
The commission had to give that deviation time. They had radar traces!
Why
they didn't told it? Because they need to leave some clouds over the
facts.
They can tell exactly at what time the plane deviated from its route.
And why is that important?
That's practically the lone reliable fact to tell that plane is hijacked,
or
that plane is out of normal flight. And that's important, exactly like the
start of any war. For example the last Iraq invasion. The start day is
important.
And why it that important?
[/quote:fbdd2119e0]
Do you imagine any important inquiry about the 2003 Iraq invasion where the
start date will not be given!!! Any professionnal journalist, or a justice
court report, will write something like "And on day dd/mm/yyyy at hh:mm the
fisrt bomb has been lounched from an american F117 plane". That's for the
same reason.
[quote:fbdd2119e0]And for me, 8:42 or 8:46 is meaningless. For both, my scenario is still
good.
Except you've had to modify your "theory" to make it fit. First you
said that one aircraft was not hijacked until the prior one crashed.
When it was pointed out that this did not happen, you modified your
theory to be that it was near the end of the prior aircraft's flight
and the aircraft didn't need further remote guidance. Wonder what the
next change will be?
The most important fact is not one before or after other. The most
important
is that the crash of a precedent happened approximately when the next one
deviated from its route.
A "theory" that you advanced only after being proven wrong about the
sequence of events on 9/11. And you have yet to demonstrate why such
a sequence is significant. Or why it couldn't have been accomplished
by four separate teams.
[/quote:fbdd2119e0]
You are totally closed to the facts. We can imagine two planes distant at
several hundreds of km may accidentally crash and deviate at the same time.
But when you have four planes involved and in all cases it happen in the
same way, we can not more speak about accidental coincidence!!! That was
made in that way and they succeded in their goal.
That kind of hijacks can never be the goal of 4 different teams. That kind
of hijacks can never been done by 4 different teams.
If you are not agree with that, you must show what can be the goal of those
teams and how they succeeded to make the hijacks in that sequential manner.
[quote:fbdd2119e0]"The same period of time" is different than what you have been
claiming.
I claim thesame thing with different words. On my web site, I wrote
"from
one site to other, that times may vary some minutes, but that doesn't
change
the conclusions".
No, you changed your "theory".
I changed nothing. You can see it is still in my web site.
Yes you did. You changed your theory from the flights being
individually taken over only after the previous one crashed to begin
taken over "near the end of the prior aircraft's flight".
[/quote:fbdd2119e0]
That change nothing on the facts. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 3:52 pm |
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 21:11:20 +0200, "MuhammadColumbo"
<muhammad.columbo@swing.be> wrote:
[quote:6b6cd7adc5]
agent86@justicespammail.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
rr7bl1h95e4a1qpasu13ehertte8mgi1k2@4ax.com...
On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 21:18:56 +0200, "MuhammadColumbo"
muhammad.columbo@swing.be> wrote:
But you have no evidence of it, do you?
The commission had to give that deviation time. They had radar traces!
Why
they didn't told it? Because they need to leave some clouds over the
facts.
They can tell exactly at what time the plane deviated from its route.
And why is that important?
That's practically the lone reliable fact to tell that plane is hijacked,
or
that plane is out of normal flight. And that's important, exactly like the
start of any war. For example the last Iraq invasion. The start day is
important.
And why it that important?
Do you imagine any important inquiry about the 2003 Iraq invasion where the
start date will not be given!!! Any professionnal journalist, or a justice
court report, will write something like "And on day dd/mm/yyyy at hh:mm the
fisrt bomb has been lounched from an american F117 plane". That's for the
same reason.
[/quote:6b6cd7adc5]
And the date and time for the hijackings have been shown to you to
have been given in the 9/11 Commission report. So your point is?
[quote:6b6cd7adc5]And for me, 8:42 or 8:46 is meaningless. For both, my scenario is still
good.
Except you've had to modify your "theory" to make it fit. First you
said that one aircraft was not hijacked until the prior one crashed.
When it was pointed out that this did not happen, you modified your
theory to be that it was near the end of the prior aircraft's flight
and the aircraft didn't need further remote guidance. Wonder what the
next change will be?
The most important fact is not one before or after other. The most
important
is that the crash of a precedent happened approximately when the next one
deviated from its route.
A "theory" that you advanced only after being proven wrong about the
sequence of events on 9/11. And you have yet to demonstrate why such
a sequence is significant. Or why it couldn't have been accomplished
by four separate teams.
You are totally closed to the facts. We can imagine two planes distant at
several hundreds of km may accidentally crash and deviate at the same time.
But when you have four planes involved and in all cases it happen in the
same way, we can not more speak about accidental coincidence!!! That was
made in that way and they succeded in their goal.
[/quote:6b6cd7adc5]
Very good, Muhammed the idiot, muslim apologist. You are exactly
right. It was no coincidence. It was caused by the concerted effort
of 4 teams of Arabic men who hijacked and crashed the planes.
[quote:6b6cd7adc5]That kind of hijacks can never be the goal of 4 different teams. That kind
of hijacks can never been done by 4 different teams.
[/quote:6b6cd7adc5]
But they were.
[quote:6b6cd7adc5]If you are not agree with that, you must show what can be the goal of those
teams and how they succeeded to make the hijacks in that sequential manner.
[/quote:6b6cd7adc5]
Their goal was to hijack the airliner that they were on and crash it
into a designated building.
[quote:6b6cd7adc5]"The same period of time" is different than what you have been
claiming.
I claim thesame thing with different words. On my web site, I wrote
"from
one site to other, that times may vary some minutes, but that doesn't
change
the conclusions".
No, you changed your "theory".
I changed nothing. You can see it is still in my web site.
Yes you did. You changed your theory from the flights being
individually taken over only after the previous one crashed to begin
taken over "near the end of the prior aircraft's flight".
That change nothing on the facts.
[/quote:6b6cd7adc5]
Like you've ever presented any facts. But thanks for admitting that
you changed your theory. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Sky King |
| Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 6:07 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
MuhammadColumbo wrote:
[quote:4046b61abc]agent86@justicespammail.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
rr7bl1h95e4a1qpasu13ehertte8mgi1k2@4ax.com...
On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 21:18:56 +0200, "MuhammadColumbo"
muhammad.columbo@swing.be> wrote:
But you have no evidence of it, do you?
The commission had to give that deviation time. They had radar traces!
Why
they didn't told it? Because they need to leave some clouds over the
facts.
They can tell exactly at what time the plane deviated from its route.
And why is that important?
That's practically the lone reliable fact to tell that plane is hijacked,
or
that plane is out of normal flight. And that's important, exactly like the
start of any war. For example the last Iraq invasion. The start day is
important.
And why it that important?
Do you imagine any important inquiry about the 2003 Iraq invasion where the
start date will not be given!!! Any professionnal journalist, or a justice
court report, will write something like "And on day dd/mm/yyyy at hh:mm the
fisrt bomb has been lounched from an american F117 plane". That's for the
same reason.
And for me, 8:42 or 8:46 is meaningless. For both, my scenario is still
good.
Except you've had to modify your "theory" to make it fit. First you
said that one aircraft was not hijacked until the prior one crashed.
When it was pointed out that this did not happen, you modified your
theory to be that it was near the end of the prior aircraft's flight
and the aircraft didn't need further remote guidance. Wonder what the
next change will be?
The most important fact is not one before or after other. The most
important
is that the crash of a precedent happened approximately when the next one
deviated from its route.
A "theory" that you advanced only after being proven wrong about the
sequence of events on 9/11. And you have yet to demonstrate why such
a sequence is significant. Or why it couldn't have been accomplished
by four separate teams.
You are totally closed to the facts.
[/quote:4046b61abc]
You haven't presented any "facts", Muhammad, only a "scenario."
And we have shown that your scenario falls apart because you failed to
consider the facts.
Do you understand why you are an idiot, Muhammad, when you can't even
support your scenario when repeatedly asked to? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sun Nov 08, 2009 3:35 am
|
|