>>Hello there, lunatic.<<
I agree. This is kinda fun though. It is like arguing with the liberal whack jobs over on Harmony-central. I like a good argument. Sometimes FR can get boring when everyone agrees. This one is fun.
But it is also getting old. I’m embarrassed for Rush Limbaugh if he really did say that there is compelling evidence it is a missile. I thought he had better investigators than that.
Do you consider the folks at Jane’s to be conspiracy nuts?
But Doug Richardson, the editor of Jane’s Missiles and Rockets, examined the video for the Times of London and said he was left with little doubt.
“It’s a solid propellant missile,” he told the Times. “You can tell from the efflux [smoke].”
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/11/10/earlyshow/main7040379.shtml
Hey, FAA said there were no aircraft (that means airplanes) in that area. What does that tell you?
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/nov2010/miss-n10.shtml
I’m embarrassed for you.
Robroy, the great expert on all things that fly.
How’s that WH job these days?
Clogging up the internet with propaganda.
Problem is we can see the exhaust from the engine or rocket motor. Which BTW is not possible for an aircraft heading towards the camera.
I add the names to a .XLS spreadsheet I've been adding to for years.