oh, that was no mistake. god works in mysterious ways :-)

In reply to this comment by dbalsdon:
Crap. Upvoted by mistake

Congratulations on reaching new heights on VideoSift. You have earned yourself 18 stars, earning you status of Bronze Star member. You have been awarded 1 Power Point for achieving this level. Thanks for all your contributions.

Dayum! Thanks, they caught me by using lunar 'stead of moon.

In reply to this comment by dbalsdon:
Repost: http://www.videosift.com/video/Lunar-Transit-of-Earth-as-seen-by-EPOXI

Don't forget to downvote it if you think it's nonsense, DB!

In reply to this comment by dbalsdon:
Ok. Just edited my original post and removed the first part of what I said, to help keep this thread civil.

Yep. I have made my mind up, however, i'm willing to change what I believe about 9/11, IF the truth movement anyone ever provides any real evidence that shows there is anything more to 9/11. So far, there's nothing.

Thanks for your comment post. Your opinion is welcomed here.

In reply to this comment by dbalsdon:
SDGundamX:
You should try debating with headless chickens. It would be a LOT easier then trying to debate with truthers.

"I don't know why people place such great emphasis on what happened on the day rather on how it was allowed to happen given the massive influx of covert intelligence saying that an attack was imminent coming from various sources in Europe."

Exactly what intelligence did they receive? "An attack is going to happen soon", or "4 planes are going to be hijacked and crashed into buildings on 9/11"

"But that's no big deal, because the NIST report is also based mostly on conjecture and witness testimony, with little supporting photographic evidence."

This, coming from someone who claims: "Massive fires raging all day, with nothing to substantiate that." Yep. Except for all the firefighters and people who were actually there, and the photos showing smoke coming from the building.

Hang on. I thought NYC officials already stated publically that WTC7 was intentionally pulled down when it was clear that it couldn't be saved with a reasonable amount of work?

Not WTC7. Some buildings were purposefully demolished/pulled down AFTER 9/11, when "it was clear... blah". Or are you referring to Silverstein's 'pull it' phrase, in which, based on what firefighters on the ground were reporting back to him, he told them to abandon WTC7 because it wasn't safe.

"You are willing to accept the official story where so many are not, simply because they see a 47 story building plummet to the ground at near free-fall speed"

Many? Ha!! Freefall?? Oh, the claim that it collapsed in 9.7(or something like that) seconds. WRONG!! The building took a LOT longer then 9.7 seconds to collapse. First(and the bit that is ALWAYS ignored by truthers) is that the north(east/west) section of wtc7 collapsed about 5 to 10 seconds BEFORE the main collapse started. So, when the main part collapsed, there was already a large part of the building already gone.

Sorry for butting in, but just noticed that the first post here was off me being quoted.

No worries, then.

In reply to this comment by dbalsdon:
Lol. Nah. Not self linking. I just really like that series of vids. Also doing my part to promote skepticism.

I struggle to find things to post here, that haven't been posted before, so finding this series of vids has given me a slight chance to finally get 10 videos submitted.

hey, i just uploaded parts of the omid djalili show, he is amezingly funny. to think that the u.s wanna bomb clever people like this one is a joke. u should check it out, greets, dead.

http://www.videosift.com/video/F1-vs-Fiat-vs-Ferrai-May-the-fastest-one-win

less moronic banter and more discussion, unless denial is an everyday thing for you like it is for most monkeys....
Hello from choggie...if you know what really happend that day, please, enlighten us

In reply to your comment:
“I like how about 3.35, he says that a test plan took off 10 times, and landed 13 times???? something about that doesn't add up.. just like the rest of the b******t in this documentary.”

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, a plane can take take off only once, yet via "touch-and-go" landings I can land it 50 times and it would still be considered that I took off only once yet landed it 50 times. In your pilot log book it would be recorded as 1 takeoff and 50 landings.

Everything is not as black and white as you would believe it is.