RepoArt

Truth666 (Thursday 4th of December 2008 03:35:07 PM)

MCCAIN support was 1% Obama about to leave the stage *** CLINTON WILL BE THE NEXT PRESIDENT "elected " by the Illuminati voting machines *** In the US, the illuminati use the right combination of the famous 2 digits, 0 and 1, (1), together with "black" magic (2), to get crowds on the scene, while "electing" the last antichrist. Google: Obama role Matt Marriott *** End Time Prophet, the first to reveal 9/11 FULL STORY Google: 9/11 for dummies Matt Marriott

coz2112 (Thursday 4th of December 2008 02:08:33 PM)

he thinks the poles to the north of the ones that were hit are the ones that were really hit. therefore due to his mistake, he thinks the poles that were hit are part of the conspiracy he is trying to debunk! therefore, poles he thinks were hit are on a NoC path. This is the explanation of his NoC comments.

coz2112 (Thursday 4th of December 2008 02:04:29 PM)

So, since Lagasse knows it was a 757 that hit, he is trying to debunk the no plane theory. That is why he is doing the interview. Insisting it was a plane the whole time. He doesn't know the NoC is an issu, during the interview. Only that some people say it wasn't a plane. he says "it wasn't a missle, or a global hawk. So hes going in with the intent on proving it was a palne. But his information about the poles is incorrect.

coz2112 (Thursday 4th of December 2008 01:57:35 PM)

If Lagasse were a witness testifying in court, he would be discredited with one question. In his video interview he points out lightpoles in a arieal overhead photo that are north of the poles that were actuly hit. He states the poles that were hit were not. And the ones he is pointing at were. That is enough to discredit him. Since he thinks (wrongly by ALL accounts) that poles north of the actual poles were hit, therefore the plane he sees must have been NoC.

MuckupAgain (Thursday 4th of December 2008 01:36:39 PM)

"Waken ignores that but takes his NOC testimony at face value" Odd also that Lagasse is also quoted as saying: "it struck several light poles next to rt 27", which is in contradiction to the NoC flightpath too. no doubt Wakenbake will deny everything and suggest that Lagasse must have been mistaken about this (but not about the rest of his statement). Hmmmmm.....

remix1on1 (Thursday 4th of December 2008 01:36:38 PM)

IM ONLY 8 but i wanted to know something...? is bones stronger and better than steel bc the plane melted but the we didn't or the people..yeaaaaaah lets build planes out of people!!!

MuckupAgain (Thursday 4th of December 2008 01:24:48 PM)

"shiny pieces of "fuselage" turning up later and placed around the lawn" Oh please, i cannot wait to see your evidence to support both of the above assertations. So, let's see, for you to be correct you will need to produce evidence that conclusively shows aircraft wreckage/components being brought ONTO the grounds of the Pentagon and being placed inside and around the building. Good luck with that one.....

pheil58 (Thursday 4th of December 2008 11:45:55 AM)

t's not our fault you can't discern "information muckup, and can't see a problem with the shiny pieces of "fuselage" turning up later and placed around the lawn, and inexplicable lack of initial aircraft debris."... Krans...that is a classic unsubstatiated assertion.....while ignoring the tons of wreakage inside the pentagon...as well as a little thing called the flight data recorder....and something as insignificant as bodily remains mathced to DNA....returned to the grieving families

kranski7 (Thursday 4th of December 2008 10:52:02 AM)

MuckedupAgain It's not our fault you can't discern information muckup, and can't see a problem with the shiny pieces of "fuselage" turning up later and placed around the lawn, and inexplicable lack of initial aircraft debris. It takes very little to convince the govt believers that a 100 ton airliner crashed into the side of the pentagon. Bush & Co thank you!

jizzmonger (Thursday 4th of December 2008 05:09:45 AM)

LOL Lagasse said that? Waken ignores that but takes his NOC testimony at face value. What a knucklehead.