High Ranking US Major General Exposes September 11 High

[Indofred]

A very high ranking US army officer says the pentagon attack was a fake.
This man is a very experienced expert in his field and he says it's a set up.
We're talking about a man who sorted out the whole US defence position against North Korea and he's convinced it's a set up job.
I agree - The American government lied to the world.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0xzsbSbVUE]High Ranking US Major General Exposes September 11 High - YouTube[/ame]

 

[tjvh]

I served with a Commander who died in the Pentagon, want to tell me how they pulled off that trick?

 

[Indofred]

I served with a Commander who died in the Pentagon, want to tell me how they pulled off that trick?

Missile - unless aircraft shrink before they hit buildings.
So, people were murdered, that isn't in dispute - who murdered them is.

 

[tjvh]

I served with a Commander who died in the Pentagon, want to tell me how they pulled off that trick?

Missile - unless aircraft shrink before they hit buildings.
So, people were murdered, that isn't in dispute - who murdered them is.

Not in the minds of rational people it isn't in dispute.

 

[Indofred]

I served with a Commander who died in the Pentagon, want to tell me how they pulled off that trick?

Missile - unless aircraft shrink before they hit buildings.
So, people were murdered, that isn't in dispute - who murdered them is.

Not in the minds of rational people it isn't in dispute.

It is.
If it was an aircraft, explain the total lack of damage to the building where the tail, wings and engines should have hit.

You can't because there is no reasonable explanation other than, it wasn't an aircraft.

 

[tjvh]

Missile - unless aircraft shrink before they hit buildings.
So, people were murdered, that isn't in dispute - who murdered them is.

Not in the minds of rational people it isn't in dispute.

It is.
If it was an aircraft, explain the total lack of damage to the building where the tail, wings and engines should have hit.

You can't because there is no reasonable explanation other than, it wasn't an aircraft.

snopes.com: Pentagon Attack Faked Rumor

 

[Indofred]

Not in the minds of rational people it isn't in dispute.

It is.
If it was an aircraft, explain the total lack of damage to the building where the tail, wings and engines should have hit.

You can't because there is no reasonable explanation other than, it wasn't an aircraft.

snopes.com: Pentagon Attack Faked Rumor

Yep, there's a site that claims it's all true.
So, where is the damage caused by the tail, wings and engines?

Your site claims, the aircraft hit the ground before striking the building.
Tough grass in America.