140 1 min 4 yrs

#notallcrackers

White man, seems to have blown himself up. Got good CCTV of him already.

Austin is quicker than Las Vegas. The Mandalay Bay shooting was five months ago, and we haven’t seen one still, not one single image, from the hotel.

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

140 thoughts on “SO THEY GOT THE AUSTIN BOMBER

  1. One less right-wing nutter, and as usual he was as dumb as a swan.

    “..newspaper reports that he was homeschooled by his mother during his high school years.

    “I officially graduated Mark from High School,” his mother wrote on Facebook in a 2013 post showing her son.

    “He’s thinking of taking some time to figure out what he wants to do…maybe a [religious] mission trip,” his mother wrote.”

    But instead of a mission trip he went on a bombing trip. You could say he became a bomb-again Christian.

    And what’s this “I officially graduated Mark from High School” crap?

  2. We haven’t seen one still, not one single image, from the hotel.

    Eh?

    A ‘mentally ill man with no inerest in politics’ no doubt.

    And what’s this “I officially graduated Mark from High School” crap?

    Please tell me that the American education system is better than that.

  3. Home schooling is where the parents teach the kids at home.

    Its a common enough thing here

  4. Not the first mad bomber in America. This city’s most famous one was a disgruntled electric utility worker

  5. Yeah, I’ve heard of it Phantom but please tell me that there are minimum legal requirements to follow like uniformity of curriculem, minimum hours of study etc.

  6. //Home schooling is where the parents teach the kids at home.
    Its a common enough thing here//

    So is its corollary: uneducated and uninformed youth.

  7. Laws vary by state like so many other things. Some states are pretty loose in the regulation

    Idaho Homeschool State Laws

    daho homeschool regulations do not require registration, reporting or compulsory testing for homeschool students. There are no guidelines or requirements for curriculum or specific subjects to be taught in an Idaho homeschool. Idaho statutes do not indicate how many days per year or hours per day a homeschool student must be learning in a home classroom. There are no teacher qualification requirements for Idaho homeschool parents. Parents are fully responsible for the design of their child’s educational program. Idaho homeschool students are not required to take standardized tests, but the Idaho Coalition of Home Educators (ICHE) does recommend that parents test their children periodically in order to determine whether the student is making academic progress.

    https://education.uslegal.com/homeschooling/homeschooling-laws-by-state/

  8. Holy fuck.

    How is someone with no formal educational experience or quaifications supposed to compete in the labour market?

  9. One less right-wing nutter ..

    And they’re off. Conditt wrote that he’s “not politically inclined”, but we can all be CNN and make up any old line.

  10. According to the BBC, he defines himself in a blog called Defining my Stance as “a conservative”.
    And that he believes that “gay marriage should be illegal”, that he opposes abortion and has the strange – even for a right-winger – belief that the sex offender registry should be abolished.

    “But I don’t think I have enough information to defend my stance as well as it should be defended, he says.

    i.e. I’m right wing and I’m dumb, so I go out and start murdering innocent people.

  11. “I am not that politically inclined. I view myself as a conservative, but I don’t think I have enough information to defend my stance as well as it should be defended.

    “The reasons I am taking this class is because I want to understand the US government, and I hope that it will help me clarify my stance, and then defend it .”

    His postings show him to be of moderate conservative leanings – against gay marriage and abortion, and in favour of the death penalty

    Pretty political positions for someone not politically inclined.

  12. This happened in Alex Jones’ backyard, and AFAIK he hasn’t called it a false flag yet.

    Allan, don’t disappoint us.

  13. Since he called himself a conservative, the fake news guys can’t call him a leftist.

  14. According to the BBC ..

    The state broadcaster which goes to extraordinary lengths to avoid reporting that muslim terrorists are muslims, or that paki rapists are pakis, is suddenly overcome with a desire for candour.

    Who could have possibly have foreseen that? And still his own words were that he’s “not politically minded”. It’s pretty clear that he had no opinions of his own.

    Look commies. You are right. I’ve read your playbook and I’m convinced by your solutions. So –

    – Conservatism is the ideology of peace

    – Not all white men

    – The greatest danger now is a backlash against white men

  15. Stop that Fews. It’s a dastardly conspiracy doncha know? I read that on the internets.

  16. Very good FO, but I think we’ve seen those.

    Now if you could bring us the CCTV before and during the shooting that would be splendid.

  17. White man, seems to have blown himself up. Got good CCTV of him already.

    So yet another black ops job then. What MI5 can do in Salisbury, the Feds can do in Texas. I just can’t wait for Alex Jones to spout his bilge expose the truth on this one.

  18. Any CCTV from Salisbury yet? It’s been a few days and the Russians still haven’t received the samples of the alleged toxin as required under treaty

  19. Surely not another right wing, religious nut-job, white-skinned mass-murderer? Just sayin:

    “When Fox News’s Geraldo Rivera speculated Tuesday that the Austin bomber may have chosen the Texas capitol because of its status as a deep-blue enclave in the middle of red-state Texas, he might’ve been on to something. In a profile of suspected Austin Bomber Mark Anthony Conditt, the Austin American-Statesman spoke with several of the suspected bombers friends, who revealed that Conditt was deeply religious and had railed against homosexuality and abortion in a series of blog posts published when he was 17.”

    https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-03-21/austin-bomber-was-homeschooled-conservative-who-was-rough-around-edges

  20. It’s been a few days and the Russians still haven’t received the samples of the alleged toxin as required under treaty

    And of course the Russians never ever break treaties (Litvenenko polonium murder in London, Crimea, Ukraine, biological weapons, Syrian gas attacks). And if they received the samples they would allow their independent scientists to give a totally independent report, even to the extent of saying “Hands up gov, we dunnit, you’ve got us bang to rights!” Seeing as how Russia is a totally democratic state which totally respects the rule of law and all that. And the scientists wouldn’t be intimidated or anything, assuming they are scientists and not NVD staff wearing white coats.

    Because they wouldn’t need to fear being murdered or anything, like it’s not as if they are journalists exposing Putinista corruption or oligarchs who have turned against Putin and fled to Britain, or former spies who have been pardoned but are then denounced as traitors on Putin TV. Because we know that accidental death or suicide seems to occur very frequently to those people. It amost seems like an occupational hazard.

  21. “we haven’t seen one still, not one single image, from the hotel.”

    “Very good FO, but I think we’ve seen those.”

    Pete, do you even read what you write?

  22. The people who constantly rage against government incompetence here tend to be the ones who claim to believe in the government’s perfect competence in perpetrating various conspiracies.

  23. Pete Moore

    Austin is quicker than Las Vegas. The Mandalay Bay shooting was five months ago, and we haven’t seen one still, not one single image, from the hotel.

    What does this even mean? Why should you see images of the Mandalay Bay shooting, even if any images exist?

  24. Maybe they would like to see a video of Paddock walking into the room for the last time.

    This must be an item of interest in the back of beyond crackpot sites

    As if

  25. Even if such a video existed, conspiracy theorists would just claim it was fake. You can’t reason with them, they just move the goalposts if you point out they’re wrong.

  26. They have a self image of being really savvy, but they’re actually the most naive people in the universe.

    They represent an interesting phenomenon. Conspiracy maniacs are not all that new. Maybe they’ve been around forever. But modern communications allows the nuts to communicate better, so that they can knowingly tell us what the illuminati don’t want you to know.

  27. That video or something like it ( Paddock going through the lobby or whatever ) would almost certainly exist. But what point would there be to showing it?

    They’re hinting that someone else did it or that there were other shooters, or some other whatever but are too shy to come out and say it.

  28. Phantom,

    They have a self image of being really savvy, but they’re actually the most naive people in the universe.

    Agreed Phantom. Conspiracy theories claim to be open minded, but actually they’re the most closed minded people you can come across. Even if you prove them wrong, they don’t ever admit it, they just move the Goalposts or change the subject.

    You’re correct of course conspiracy theorist have always been around. It’s just that the internet is allowing the more to link up with ease these days.
    I found the Resurgence of flat Earth Theory, especially in America, absolutely crazy.

    That video or something like it ( Paddock going through the lobby or whatever ) would almost certainly exist. But what point would there be to showing it?

    Once again I agree. What is the existence or not, of a video prove? I’m surprised it Pete, I didn’t think he brought into this conspiracy theory bull****.

  29. Dozens of surveillance videos of Las Vegas shooter Stephen Paddock wheeling around luggage stocked with weapons and ammunition were released by MGM Resorts Thursday amid lingering questions about the motive of the attack.

    It’s a pity the Pentagon, the most secure building on the face of the earth, doesn’t take a leaf out of MGM resorts, and release their CCTV images.

    But don’t hold your breath.

  30. Phantom, on March 23rd, 2018 at 5:30 PM Said:
    So no more concern about the Las Vegas cameras? Or still just asking questions?

    I wasn’t concerned in the slightest about the Last Vegas cameras, never have been, who cares?.

    But I am seriously concerned about the Pentagon cameras.

  31. It’s a pity the Pentagon, the most secure building on the face of the earth, doesn’t take a leaf out of MGM resorts, and release their CCTV images.

    Harri, what’s this in relation to? What’s the implication here?

  32. Dave, I too am at a loss with mention of Pentagon cameras. Will someone let us in on the joke?

  33. It refers to no video released of the plane hitting the Pentagon on 9/11

    Its a big deal with the conspiracy nuts.

  34. Merely a facetious reply to this…

    Dozens of surveillance videos of Las Vegas shooter Stephen Paddock wheeling around luggage stocked with weapons and ammunition were released by MGM Resorts Thursday amid lingering questions about the motive of the attack.

    Phantom, on March 23rd, 2018 at 5:30 PM Said:
    So no more concern about the Las Vegas cameras? Or still just asking questions?

  35. charlesintexas

    I’m assuming Harri is talking about the events of 9/11 and the plane which crashed into the Pentagon. But I’m not sure what cameras on the Pentagon have to do with this.
    I’m assuming again that Harri thinks that they are withholding CCTV footage.

  36. Phantom, on March 23rd, 2018 at 6:06 PM Said:
    It refers to no video released of the plane hitting the Pentagon on 9/11

    Its a big deal with the conspiracy nuts.

    Why is asking questions about the lack of CCTV images from the pentagon, the most protected building on the planet, in anyway, unreasonable?.

    Or, is anyone that disagrees with the official narrative, a “conspiracy theorist”?.

  37. I’m assuming again that Harri thinks that they are withholding CCTV footage.

    There is no assumption about it.

    And any external CCTV from businesses, or private CCTV, was very quickly confiscated by the Feds.

    Why?.

    Again, not an unreasonable question.

  38. This is all part of the ” controlled demolition ” nonsense

    Hey what about Seven WTC? Looks fishy to me!! 🙂

  39. Hey what about Seven WTC? Looks fishy to me!! 🙂

    Precisely.

    Now, back to the question I asked.

    There is no assumption about it.

    And any external CCTV from businesses, or private CCTV, was very quickly confiscated by the Feds.

    Why?.

    Again, not an unreasonable question.

  40. Phantom, on March 23rd, 2018 at 6:15 PM Said:
    This is all part of the ” controlled demolition ” nonsense

    Hey what about Seven WTC? Looks fishy to me!! 🙂

    Oh look..a squirrel!.

  41. Or, is anyone that disagrees with the official narrative, a “conspiracy theorist”?.

    I don’t think that that’s necessarily the case Harri as it’s healthy to question but I would consider someone who repeatedly sees a hidden hand in such things a conspiracy theorist.

    Of course black op / false flags etc exist but life isn’t a pattern, it’s a sequence of random actions and because some anomalies happen it doesn’t automatically equate to shady subterfuge.

  42. Harri,

    And any external CCTV from businesses, or private CCTV, was very quickly confiscated by the Feds.

    I’m sure the feds would have taken this footage to examine it.

    Again, not an unreasonable question.

    No not an unreasonable question at all.

  43. I want Allan to get publishing rights so he can resolve this WTC conundrum once and for all

  44. I don’t think that that’s necessarily the case Harri as it’s healthy to question but I would consider someone who repeatedly sees a hidden hand in such things a conspiracy theorist.

    The non-thinking Phantom believes otherwise.

    Anyone who dares to question any aspect of the official narrative, is a “conspiracy nut”.

  45. Phantom, on March 23rd, 2018 at 6:20 PM Said:
    I want Allan to get publishing rights so he can resolve this WTC conundrum once and for all

    Oh look, another squirrel!!.

  46. And any external CCTV from businesses, or private CCTV, was very quickly confiscated by the Feds

    Is that a fact or a supposition Harri? (genuine question)

    For me the infuriating thing about these theories is that people proferring them generally don’t give concrete reasoning for their claims and leave them as opaque inferences.

  47. I’m sure the feds would have taken this footage to examine it.

    Yes Dave.

    I will assume by now, the Feds have pretty much scanned mist, if not all of the footage of the airliner hitting the pentagon.

    Now, all they have to do is release that footage showing this jetliner, and it can be put to bed once and for all.

    But they won’t.

    Why?.

    Again, not so unreasonable, considering the importance.

  48. Paul

    It’s a fact.

    But easily remedied, after all, nothing to hide, nothing to fear.

    Correct?.

  49. ??

    Is the inference regarding the Pentagon CCTV that no plane hit the building?

  50. Paul

    It’s a fact.

    But easily remedied, after all, nothing to hide, nothing to fear.

    Correct?.

    I haven’t heard that claim before now Harri.

    The link above is supposedly from the Pentagon CCTV and was easily found with a cursory search?

  51. Phantom, on March 23rd, 2018 at 6:29 PM Said:
    it can be put to bed once and for all.

    As if

    It can Phantom, there are I believe more than one CCTV in a wooden security hut, covering every single square inch of the Pentagon.

    So why just the one blurry image?.

    Paul.

    The same question.

    Again, not an unreasonable question.

  52. So why just the one blurry image?.

    I can’t answer that question Harri. And no, it’s not an unreasonable question but could making such camera footage public not compromise Pentagon security?

    Again, is the inference that a plane didn’t hit the Pentagon? Do you accept that there was at least an explosion caused by something external?

    As I said above, I was unaware of these claims until now.

  53. Paul.

    That’s the only image from that security hut.

    No-one, as far as I am aware, is denying that there was an impact, and subsequent blast that hit the Pentagon, which by the way was nothing short of a miracle it was the only part of the Pentagon which was being renovated, what are the chances of that?.

    It’s what hit the Pentagon, is the question.

    The one blurry image from one single CCTV camera in a security hut tells us diddly squat.

  54. Is the inference regarding the Pentagon CCTV that no plane hit the building?

    Something hit the Pentagon. Alas, CCTV cannot show what it was. We are supposed to believe that an airliner can fly into the Pentagon, possibly the most surveilled and monitored real estate on the planet, including the roads around it, and not one camera picked it up.

    I don’t believe that.

  55. If there was a controlled demolition at the Pentagon, on the same day as the one at the WTC, there would nothing to be seen by the camera.

    That must be it.

  56. Okay Pete. Is that theory based on unavailable CCTV footage and couldn’t the feds just have put this to bed by saying making such footage public would compromise Pentagon security?

    Harri, Pete, in your opinion what hit the Pentagon and caused the explosion?

    And this isn’t a debate on my part. I genuinely haven’t heard these claims before.

  57. I can’t answer that question Harri. And no, it’s not an unreasonable question but could making such camera footage public not compromise Pentagon security?

    I wouldn’t have thought so Paul, some bloke who couldn’t learn how to fly a Cessna light aircraft, made most Top gun pilots look like rank amateurs, the flight path, and skill it would have took to complete the alleged flight path of the jetliner which apparently hit the pentagon was an incredible feat of piloting.

    I have heard figures ranging from 1500 CCTV cameras to the more likely official figure if 86 CCTV cameras surrounding the pentagon.

    Leaving out the possible hundreds of private business development which was confiscated by the Feds, are we led to actually believe that due to”security reasons” and the historical importance of the pentagon attack, all the authorities can release to the plebs, is one lousy blurry, but well placed low grade image from a security hut?.

    Do they really believe we are all Phantoms?.

  58. Harri, Pete, in your opinion what hit the Pentagon and caused the explosion?

    Cruise missile.

    What we can be pretty certain about, it was not a jetliner.

  59. Phantom, on March 23rd, 2018 at 6:49 PM Said:
    If there was a controlled demolition at the Pentagon, on the same day as the one at the WTC, there would nothing to be seen by the camera.

    That must be it.

    Oh look, there’s only another squirrel!!.

  60. Harri, on March 23rd, 2018 at 6:46 PM Said:
    can’t answer that question Harri

    Maybe Phantom can?..

    Phantom?.

    I was wrong.

  61. Harri, couldn’t the Feds have put any doubt to bed by just claiming they weren’t releasing footage for fear of compromising Pentagon security?, i.e. making positions of security apparatus etc public?

    In your opinion what hit the Pentagon and caused the explosion?

  62. Paul –

    I’m sure the official line is that CCTV failed to pick up whatever hit the Pentagon. The film you saw has a frame of something at ground level. Look closely. There’s a streak literally at grass level. The next frame is of the explosion. There’s no intervening frame which would clearly show the object.

    And that is all the film there is of a vast airliner hitting the Pentagon.

  63. Sorry, you replied to that last question while I was typing.

    Do you have any theories as to the origin of the cruise missile stated above?

  64. I don’t know what the official explanation is Pete as I haven’t heard these claims until now but wouldn’t the compromise security apparatus scenario easily be absolutely plausible?

  65. They used cruise missiles to hit the Pentagon and aircraft to hit the WTC

    Now that is some plan

  66. Paul McMahon, on March 23rd, 2018 at 7:01 PM Said:
    Sorry, you replied to that last question while I was typing.

    Do you have any theories as to the origin of the cruise missile stated above?

    Only the state are capable of launching those.

    The Iraq war required an excuse.

    And they got one, one way or another.

    The state and governments have used the same false flag incidents since time immemorial.

    Anyway, no need to get into any heavy debate about 9/11, all I asked was a perfectly reasonable question.

  67. Phantom.

    Whatever.

    But can you answer the question?.

    Just say no if you can’t.

    It’s quite simple.

  68. Planes hit the WTC and the Pentagon.

    And Shanksville PA.

    Sometimes a terrorist attack is a terrorist attack.

    Not a controlled demolition, not a missile attack.

    Some conspiracy nuts again have said that WTC and Shanksville were cruise missiles

  69. Some conspiracy nuts again have said that WTC and Shanksville were cruise missiles

    Didn’t the “jetliner” at Shanksville Vapourise?.

    Conspiracy nuts eh!.

    Oh look, there’s only another squirrel!!!!.

  70. But Phantom.

    You still haven’t answered the question?.

    Why only the one blurry low grade image, from just the one CCTV luckily pointed the right way, at possibly the most protected building on planet earth?

  71. And Phantom.

    Just how unlucky was that highly skilled terrorist pilot that struggled to learn the control!sir a light aircraft Cessna, to go through all those flight path turns which took almost godlike skill, to only end up hitting a building with five sides, the side which was being renovated.?

    It takes miracles, and being unlucky to whole new heights.

  72. Phantom, on March 23rd, 2018 at 7:20 PM Said:
    Take the next flight to Dulles and start the investigation, Mr. Cluseau

    Whatever.

    But you still haven’t answered the question.

    Just say no,if you don’t know.

    It’s quite simp!e.

  73. Why only the one blurry low grade image, from just the one CCTV luckily pointed the right way, at possibly the most protected building on planet earth?

    Phantom.

    Have you an explanation for this?

  74. Harri,

    Yes Dave.

    I will assume by now, the Feds have pretty much scanned mist, if not all of the footage of the airliner hitting the pentagon.

    Now, all they have to do is release that footage showing this jetliner, and it can be put to bed once and for all.

    ‘Put it to bed’, don’t make me laugh Harri. You’ll never be satisfied whatever evidence is presented.
    Let me get this straight, you’ll believe CCTV images of a plane hitting the Pentagon, (even though you don’t believe other CCTV images, such as those collected on 7/7). But you don’t believe the dozens of eye witness accounts, that clearly state an aircraft hit the Pentagon.

  75. There’s sill more public evidence for Iraqi WMD than for an airliner hitting the Pentagon, and no-one believes that WMD crap anymore.

    C’mon Dave. Just one image? Is that too much to ask?

  76. Phantom, on March 23rd, 2018 at 6:06 PM Said:
    It refers to no video released of the plane hitting the Pentagon on 9/11

    Its a big deal with the conspiracy nuts.

    Phantom, on March 23rd, 2018 at 5:29 PM Said:

    One of the reason that America is constantly at war is that there is a war machine that wants to stay busy, and profitable, and that wants to keep the jobs in the defense plants where key legislators are based.

    Allan@Aberdeen, on March 23rd, 2018 at 11:02 PM Said:

    The problem with Phantom is that occasionally he’ll stumble across the truth, then pick himself up and continue on as though nothing had happened

    And there it is……..

    And now, here is the first immediate report from the Pentagon ‘plane crash’. Unfortunately the video footage of the reporter standing on the lawn outside the impact area is no longer available

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BNqgNvUhRQ

  77. Phantom

    Ignore them. No facts or evidence will make the slightest difference, because they need to believe what they believe. Otherwise their worldview would be exposed for the fairy-tale that deep down they know that it is.

    So it was a US cruise missile that hit the first Twin Tower (or was it the second?) – let them prattle on, but don’t engage. It just encourages them.

  78. Peter

    Oh I know, I’m just having fun.

    It’s genuinely interesting how grown men – and isn’t it usually the men – could actually believe in this body of 9/11, 7/7, Boston, Sandy Hook, Pizzagate etc nonsense.

    It’s interesting that none of the Americans here AFAIK have ever expressed support for any of this Trutherism

    Hope life’s treating you well. Happy weekend.

  79. Put it to bed’, don’t make me laugh Harri. You’ll never be satisfied whatever evidence is presented.
    Let me get this straight, you’ll believe CCTV images of a plane hitting the Pentagon, (even though you don’t believe other CCTV images, such as those collected on 7/7). But you don’t believe the dozens of eye witness accounts, that clearly state an aircraft hit the Pentagon.

    Dave.

    It’s a bit early, but I am not interested in 7/7, as for dozens of witness accounts, there are also witnessed who describe not seeing a jetliner, all I pointing out, is just one single CCTV image from any camera, from anywhere showing a jetliner approaching, near, or hitting the pentagon.

    That would be enough for me.

    It’s healthy to question the official narrative.

    In fact, I would go further, and say it’s imperative.

  80. Pete Moore,

    There’s sill more public evidence for Iraqi WMD than for an airliner hitting the Pentagon, and no-one believes that WMD crap anymore.

    C’mon Dave. Just one image? Is that too much to ask?

    I see you’re completely ignoring the point I just made to Harri.
    So I’ll ask you that same question directly. Why are you bothered about video evidence when dozens of unrelated people, reported seeing the plane hit the Pentagon?
    I really can’t tell if you’re being serious or not Pete, I never took you for a conspiracy nut.

  81. If asking questions, or questing the official narrative for any reason makes one a ,”conspiracy nut”.

    Then society is in serious trouble.

  82. Dave.

    It’s a bit early, but I am not interested in 7/7, as for dozens of witness accounts, there are also witnessed who describe not seeing a jetliner, all I pointing out, is just one single CCTV image from any camera, from anywhere showing a jetliner approaching, near, or hitting the pentagon.

    That would be enough for me.

    It’s healthy to question the official narrative.

    In fact, I would go further, and say it’s imperative.

  83. Harri

    Many years ago you and I had a long conversation about the 7/7 bombings. You pointed me to sites on the internet that showed the bombers walking on the streets of London captured by CCTV. You claimed that the CCTV images were faked. The point I’m making here is that why would you be satisfied with CCTV images of the aircraft hitting the Pentagon when you weren’t satisfied with CCTV images of the London bombers?

    And my following point is; why are you dismissing dozens and dozens of eyewitness accounts, almost all stating that a jet airliner hit the Pentagon?

  84. And my following point is; why are you dismissing dozens and dozens of eyewitness accounts, almost all stating that a jet airliner hit the Pentagon?

    Putting aside 7/7.

    Because I still find it seriously hard to believe that the most protected place on the planet (next to Junckers free drinks cabinet) did not get at least one other image of the approaching jetliner.

    If an image was ever released, we can debate it’s authenticity at that point.

    If they have nothing hide, they have nothing to fear.

  85. Dave.

    There are also many witnesses who dispute it was a jetliner.

    Why are you dismissing them likewise?.

    This is just one from many.

  86. Off to the village pub for a neighbours birthday celebration.

    I hope they sell green tea!

    😏

  87. I’m also a big fan of green tea, but I do prefer a beer.

    Have a good time Harri, I hope the weather keeps good for you.

  88. There were some who think that it was something other than Boeings that hit the WTC.

    Even though it was on TV for all too see.

    Don’t follow the false prophets from Aberdeen and Austin, lads.

  89. Phantom, on March 24th, 2018 at 4:43 PM Said:
    There were some who think that it was something other than Boeings that hit the WTC.

    Even though it was on TV for all too see.

    Yes Phantom,no doubt.

    But we are talking about the pentagon.

    There was nothing on TV, CCTV, or any other image for people to see.

    The pentagon, possibly the most protected building on earth.

  90. It was hit by a plane. We know which plane. We know who was on the plane.

    Don’t worry your pretty head about it. This isn’t even close to being any mystery.

  91. Phantom.

    No bodies,no seats, no engines.

    You really are gullible.

    And you still haven’t answered the question.

    No-one else can answer it either.

  92. There were engine parts found at the site.

    You do realize that carrying on for years like this so long on such an entirely bogus controversy is devastating to your credibility as a speaker on any other issue. ( And you are right on other things, though you’d never know it here )

    Bringing Closure to the 9/11 Pentagon Debate

  93. You do realize that carrying on for years like this so long on such an entirely bogus controversy is devastating to your credibility as a speaker on any other issue. ( And you are right on other things, though you’d never know it here )

    Oh well.

    Phantom.

    You really are gullible.

  94. Over the course of his retirement, it became widely known that Stubblebine maintained a keen interest in psychic warfare throughout his service. He sought to develop an army of soldiers with special powers, such as the ability to walk through walls.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Stubblebine

    Oh he’s a great ally for you guys.

  95. “you guys”?

    What, habits who question yours, and other government’s.

    How very dare us.

    Questioning the state, will not be tolerated.

  96. What, habits who question yours, and other government’s.

    I hate this mediapad.

    “What those of us who question”.

  97. I don’t know, and I don’t care if you ask if every five minutes, which you are likely to do

    A plane hit the Pentagon, other planes hit the twin towers.

    There is no mystery.

    And this general looks to be a few Chicken McNuggets short of a Happy Meal

  98. Phantom.

    I understand your quandary on the question.

    If you say I know why, (which you don’t have a clue in reality,) you will have to back that up with evidence, also something you don’t have.

    If you say, I don’t know, or a simple no, then you need to ask the exact same I asked in the first place!.

    And we can’t possibly have you thinking outside the box..can we?.

  99. Phantom, on March 24th, 2018 at 6:26 PM Said:
    I don’t know, and I don’t care if you ask if every five minutes, which you are likely to do

    Why don’t you know?.

    Is it not important enough for you?.

  100. Phantom, on March 24th, 2018 at 6:26 PM Said:
    I don’t know, and I don’t care if you ask if every five minutes, which you are likely to do

    Well you should care.

    That’s not only being wilfully ignorant, it’s disgraceful.

  101. Phantom.

    From your link.

    You old conspiracy nut you.

    Did you see actually go through the clips from your own link?.

    I think not, wilful ignorance will not stretch quite that far.

  102. At 1.08.52 and at 1.32.15, air traffic controllers stated that the aircraft which hit the Pentagon had to be military as a 757 or any other commercial aircraft could not do the manoeuver at that speed.

    At 1.38.37 the cell phone calls are reviewed. It’s fascinating stuff and indicative of what most people are prepared to believe in order not to shake their comfort zone.

    At 18.35 is provided analysis of the only footage that the DoD released from all sequestrated material – and even that shows anomalies worthy of an inquiry given that there is evidence of manipulation of images.

    The wider anomalies are summarised at 23.40

  103. Harri,

    There are also many witnesses who dispute it was a jetliner.

    Why are you dismissing them likewise?.

    From your own link Harri, this man claims it was a small airplane. Not a missile.
    He also points out he saw the crash ‘from the corner of his eye’, from an office building across the street.
    I’ve not seen any eyewitness claim it was a missile. But even if a couple did, that could easily be down to the speed and confusion of the attack.
    The question you don’t seem to want to answer, is what about the vast majority of witnesses who saw a jet airliner crash. Many of them sitting it cars close by.
    Are you discounting all their testimoies?

  104. Allan@Aberdeen,

    At 1.08.52 and at 1.32.15, air traffic controllers stated that the aircraft which hit the Pentagon had to be military as a 757 or any other commercial aircraft could not do the manoeuver at that speed.

    That claim has been debunked time and time again Allan. The majority of people, (pilots and engineers), who know about these aircraft, have stated that that while not advisable, these aircraft could have performed the manovers they did.

  105. Allan@Aberdeen,

    At 1.08.52 and at 1.32.15, air traffic controllers stated that the aircraft which hit the Pentagon had to be military as a 757 or any other commercial aircraft could not do the manoeuver at that speed.

    That claim has been debunked time and time again Allan. The majority of people, (pilots and engineers), who know about these aircraft, have stated that that while not advisable, these aircraft could have performed the manovers they did.

  106. Phantom,

    A plane hit the Pentagon, other planes hit the twin towers.

    There is no mystery.

    And this general looks to be a few Chicken McNuggets short of a Happy Meal

    Something many people seem to miss, is that these conspiracy theorists almost never present any sort of coherent theory. They just ask questions point out discrepancies, and demand that every bit of uncertainty be answered to their satisfaction, or else the conspiracy MUST BE TRUE. This is of course, perfectly ridiculous. No matter what the subject is, there are always disagreements and questions that remain unanswered.

  107. Dave Alton –

    It’s quite legitimate to “point out discrepancies”. Science advances by ignoring the credulous.

  108. BTW, the Austin bomber was an evangelical conservative who was homeschooled by staunchly conservative religious parents along with his siblings, and attended a variety of religious camps, regular church services and homeschool cooperatives with other like-minded faith based families.

    This has no bearing on his murderous behavior and the christian/homeschool movement should not be tarred with a wide brush because of this evil young man.

  109. Pete Moore

    It’s quite legitimate to “point out discrepancies”. Science advances by ignoring the credulous.

    Science advances by using the scientific method Pete. Which uses observations and rigourous testing to discover facts. Something conspiracy theorists should give a try.
    And the definition of credulous is: ‘having or showing too great a readiness to believe things.’ which seems to fit the conspiracy theorist better than Phantom any myself.

Comments are closed.