Still Waiting
for a rebuttal or critique to this piece.
Anyone?
It's charming that the Conspiracy Smasher posse thinks this thread was so funny, though in the actual Conspiracy Smasher post, I didn't see much in the way of rebuttal or even in the way of laughing (not even in the comments).
So in all honesty, I would love to see a well-reasoned rebuttal to Holmgren's piece. Because if he's right, it basically proves no plane hit the WTC.
And if someone CAN rebut this, I'd also like them to rebut this post on how the wing and tail marks on the WTC towers cannot have been made by a Boeing 767.
Anyone?
It's charming that the Conspiracy Smasher posse thinks this thread was so funny, though in the actual Conspiracy Smasher post, I didn't see much in the way of rebuttal or even in the way of laughing (not even in the comments).
So in all honesty, I would love to see a well-reasoned rebuttal to Holmgren's piece. Because if he's right, it basically proves no plane hit the WTC.
And if someone CAN rebut this, I'd also like them to rebut this post on how the wing and tail marks on the WTC towers cannot have been made by a Boeing 767.
posted by spooked at 10:23 AM
2 Comments:
http://www.911closeup.com/index.shtml?ID=79
how can it possibly be rebutted? i noticed that a 911blogger guy actually said that some saw blades are made of aluminum so therefore a real 767 wing can slice right thru wtc steel - there's only one thing lamer than that:
http://911conspiracysmasher.blogspot.com/2006/09/no-plane-people_12.html
ha ha! way to go smash! you even incorporated our comments into your feature story - but not quite the result you envisioned though i bet. you should ask your new pal skyking@ to explain to you the absurdity of an aluminum wing slicing thru wtc steel.
"saw blades are made of aluminum"
Love it!!!!!!!!!!
:)
Post a Comment
<< Home