Major 9/11 Truth Breatkthrough!!!

[Scepcop]

[NinjaPuppy]

Man, that Monica Lewinsky dress stain spending keeps on going up and up in price. Now it's $100 million. In the video on the other thread I believe it was $40 million.

SCEPCOP - Do you have a date of origin for this video?

[Scepcop]

No but I think it aired last month. You can check KBDI's website or one of the 9/11 Truth sites which mention it. It was fairly recent.

[NinjaPuppy]

I'm glad to see that those who have an honest interest in this are being heard. That man's son was killed, or murdered as he put it. He deserves answers and deserves to be heard. If he spends the rest of his life looking for those answers, that is his perogative and right as an American citizen. I wish him luck in his journey to find out whatever it is that he needs to know.

[Nostradamus]

Major break through??? Please explain.

This is not new Scepcop. It appears to be a Feb 2007 video talking about a July 2006 movie.

The $100M figure mentioned in the video is false. The figure Gage stated is also false. It is $4.4M at most.

[NinjaPuppy]

[Nostradamus]

I wonder if Scepcop fell for the finger wag and the "I never touched that girl" line?

[brett]

[Scepcop]

As usual, the skeptics here lose focus on the main point of this video, and instead nitpick irrelevant little things.

Yes that's right, asking questions is a right that these people have. It's too bad these cold hearted skeptics do not respect and honor that, but instead try to suppress all important questions about 9/11, which is ironic too, since true skeptics ask vital questions like these, and like the ones that Jesse Ventura asks. Yet the skeptics here and elsewhere never ask such questions, like "true skeptics" do, cause in their book, you NEVER question the establishment. Is never questioning the establishment what true skeptics do? HELL NO!

[Nostradamus]

[NinjaPuppy]

[WhiteTiger]

[Nostradamus]

[Nostradamus]

[WhiteTiger]

Ummm, have you tried reading the title of the video scepcop posted the link to? The thread is titled exactly as the video, so the origin of the phraseology would appear obvious as labeling to announce content. Not all that complex, is it?

Btw, since 9-11 is of primary interest and concern to the US public, when and if it has aired abroad is pretty irrelevant to the breakthrough nature of broadcast exposure within national borders, isn't it? If you know of a previous broadcast airing of the video within the US I'd be quite interested to see a link to something stating so.



Tiger