re: Man Demonstrates A Big Flaw In 911's Jet Fuel Argument

quote:

---

Chief Nigro

---

quote:

---

Real legit witness there.

---

Yeah, the Pentagon just hires anyone off the street.

So she's sues American Airlines but says it wasn't a plane

She sues Riggs which is apparently a bank out of Saudi Arabia which she says funded the terrorists... but how could there be terrorists if there was no plane.

And she's suing the government.

I think we can go ahead and get rid of her as a credible source.

quote:

---

Like many others, she was blackballed for speaking out against the official story and cannot get a job. She has a little boy to support.

---

They gave the Pentagon victims $600,000 each. So for her and her son that should be AT LEAST $1.2 million.

You want to try a different spin?

quote:

---

Apparently those people on the plane that hit the pentagon weren't real either. They all just disappeared since the plane never existed.

---

Mrs. Gallup covered that in her lawsuit against Dick Cheney. The plane did a flyover, the bomb went off, and then the plane crashed somewhere else.

quote:

---

III. The Attack on the Pentagon.

33. At the Pentagon, the plaintiff was at her desk, with her baby, in her office on the first floor, when large explosions occurred, walls crumbled and the ceiling fell in. Although her desk is just some forty feet from the supposed impact point, and she went out through the blown-open front of the building afterwards, she never saw any sign that an airliner crashed through. If Flight 77, or a substitute, did swoop low over the building, to create the false impression of a suicide attack, it was then flown away by its pilot, or remote control, and apparently crashed someplace else. At the building, inside or outside of the wall the plane supposedly hit, there was no wreckage, no airplane fragments, no engines, no seats, no luggage, no fuselage sections with rows of windows, and especially, no blazing quantities of burning jet fuel. The interior walls and ceilings and contents in that area were destroyed, but there was no sign of a crashed airplane. A number of those present inside the building and out have attested to this fact in published reports.

---

quote:

---

I think we can go ahead and get rid of her as a credible source.

---

Absolutely. She doesn't fit the official story, she's no good to us here.

quote:

---

Like many others, she was blackballed for speaking out against the official story and cannot get a job. She has a little boy to support.



They gave the Pentagon victims $600,000 each.

---

Why would they give victims of a terrorist attack any money?

Hush money. Your tax dollars at work.

quote:

---

She doesn't fit the official story, she's no good to us here.

---

I've pointed out to you in MULTIPLE posts how her credibility is shite but you're ignoring the facts laid out in front of you. It has nothing to do with which side she's on and everything to do with the fact that she's changed her story to reflect the different lawsuits.

If it wasn't a plane then why did she sue American Airlines?

If it wasn't terrorists then why did she sue a Saudi bank that funded the terrorist's flight lessons?

If she already sued AA and the Saudi bank then why did she turn around and sue the government for blowing up the Pentagon with a bomb??

quote:

---

we have been fed a pack of lies



Like changing your story depending on which lawsuit you're going after next?

---

Your desperation is entertaining.