The Lie of 9-11 and it's after effects

Now you are REALLY shooting yourself in the foot that there was proof of highjackers :auiqs.jpg:

so when losing an argument you resort to name calling? the government BS version that cell phone calls has been proven BS the fact that it was IMPOSSIBLE to make cell phone calls back then at levels that high in the air the airliners were at truthseeker documented that earlier.

I suggest you go back and reread all his posts ,oh thats right,you never read what does not go along with your version of events as proven you BLATANTLY ignore that the best pilots in the world at pilots for 9/11 truth have said it is IMPOSSIBLE for an airliner to do those kind of manevers they said was done,that the people at the towers they all thought it was a JET FIGHTER.:auiqs.jpg:until your willing to GROW UP and stop ignoring what the best pilots in the world have said and stop believing ametuers who could barely fly a cessna,you are not worthy of trying to educate anymore.

what witnesses? show me LIVE WITNESSES that day right on the spot saying they saw passengers and an airliner hitting the pentagon as i and that other person did of that reporter saying there was NO EVIDENCE AN AIRLINER hit the pentagon and why do you continue to IGNORE how pentagon employee april gallop said about seeing a missile and how she was harrassed and badgered by government officials?

oh and answer the damn question WHY the FBI "that has a HISTORY of being evil being involved in lies and coverups going back to the evil demonic j edgar hoover" WHY they ILLEGALLY confiscated the camera at the gas station across from the pentagon and WHY with HUNDREDS of cameras in the pentagon they somehow dont even have film footage of the airliner other than that very flimsy 8 second video Einstein? answer me that damn question instead of your dodgeball game game of passengers.

you ignore the BEST PILOTS IN THE WORLD WHO HAVE SAID THEY COULD NOT HAVE PULLED OFF THOSE FEATS AND TRUST THE MEDIA OVER THEM? and you call ME a dumbass? :auiqs.jpg: :auiqs.jpg: :auiqs.jpg: :auiqs.jpg: :auiqs.jpg: :auiqs.jpg: :auiqs.jpg: :auiqs.jpg: :auiqs.jpg: :auiqs.jpg: :auiqs.jpg:


see unlike you,i dont run off with my tail between my legs and change the subject when proven wrong,i admit when i am proven wrong,you might try that. i also unlike you,give EVIDENCE AND FACTS to back up what i say,here are the videos of the expert pilots who have said that its IMPOSSIBLE for an airliner to do all those things and the evidence there was NO AIRLINER but a missile instead,dont take defeat too hard,it happens to the best of us.LOL

this video says you are clueless that witnesses say they saw passengers,see, it says MILITARY WITNESSES SAY THERE WAS "NO AIRLINER." forgive me,but i will trust MILITARY WITNESSES over YOUR babble anyday of the year. :auiqs.jpg:





Piloys for 911 truth do NOT have the best pilots in the world.

They barely have any pilots

Your entire claim is a vast pile of shit
 
VMO for the 2 planes that are supposed to have hit the towers was 402 mph and 414 mph respectively.

How could they survive 586 mph at sea level??

This should bring you to a FULL STOP in championing the official version, but you refuse to look at the actual physics that make the official version impossible.

Why do you cling to the official version when it is scientifically impossible??

Yes, this is obvious.
VMO is not a hard limit.

It is a recommended speed limit under normal operations.

It in no way indicates it would be fatal to go faster.
 
As I've explained and laid out, the physics involved in flying those planes at those speeds, disqualifies that theory.

Watch the documentary I posted, it covers this topic between 1:27 to 1:40.

It's not just 1 documentary from out of the ether - the Pilotsfor9/11truth, and Architectsfor9/11truth cite the physics of tge observed events as the foundation for their objections to what you have just stated above.

As the old saying goes, "it's just math".
Pilots for 911 truth and AE for 011 truth are not reliable sources.

They have no expertise
 
As I've explained and laid out, the physics involved in flying those planes at those speeds, disqualifies that theory.

Watch the documentary I posted, it covers this topic between 1:27 to 1:40.

It's not just 1 documentary from out of the ether - the Pilotsfor9/11truth, and Architectsfor9/11truth cite the physics of tge observed events as the foundation for their objections to what you have just stated above.

As the old saying goes, "it's just math".
And your math is erroneous. They can indeed reach those speeds and still be maneuverable. Obviously.

One plane was traveling at cruising speed. A speed that was dangerous below 10,000 feet. But, I don't think the pilots were too concerned about aviation regulations. Hitting one tower straight ahead wasn't too hard. The second one turned late and had to hit top speed and nearly missed the target. 100 mph faster than the first plane. He was losing altitude at that speed.

Both the gov. and private investigations into the speed and maneuverability came to the same conclusion. They could and did go that fast and hit their targets. The plane debris found at the site was from a plane, according to Boeing.

From the NYT:
Whether you really want to know - or put it to rest, the following is from today's New York Times, gives some answers to questions already raised in the topic:-
__________________________________________
First Tower to Fall Was Hit at Higher Speed, Study Finds
February 23, 2002

By ERIC LIPTON and JAMES GLANZ

"Researchers trying to explain why the World Trade Center's south tower fell first, though struck second, are focusing on new calculations showing that the passenger jet that hit the south tower had been flying as fast as 586 miles an hour, about 100 miles an hour faster than the other hijacked plane.

"The speed of the two planes at impact has been
painstakingly estimated using a mix of video, radar and even the recorded sounds of the planes passing overhead.

"Two sets of estimates, by government and private
scientists, have surfaced, but both show that the plane that hit the south tower at 9:02 a.m., United Airlines Flight 175, approached the trade center at extremely high speed, much faster than American Airlines Flight 11, which hit the north tower at 8:46 a.m.

"In fact, the United plane was moving so fast that it was at risk of breaking up in midair as it made a final turn toward the south tower, traveling at a speed far exceeding the 767-200 design limit for that altitude, a Boeing official said.

""These guys exceeded even the emergency dive speed," said Liz Verdier, a Boeing spokeswoman. "It's off the chart."

"The speed of the planes is far from the only factor that will be important in explaining why the south tower, which was struck between the 78th and 84th floors, fell within 56 minutes and the north tower, which was hit between the 94th and 99th floors, stood for 102 minutes.

"Ultimately, it was the combination of structural damage and the fires, fueled by thousands of gallons of jet fuel, that brought the buildings down. The south tower was also hit at a lower point, meaning there was more weight bearing down on the damaged floors.

"But the difference in the towers' survival times, which translated into a difference in the amount of time tenants and rescue personnel had to get out, could be related in part to the planes' speeds, researchers said.

"Clearly one plane came in faster and had more energy," Dr. Jerome Connor, a professor of civil engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who is studying the collapses, said of the new calculations, in which he was not directly involved.

""If one building had more damage, it would take less for the heat to build up enough for it to come down," Dr. Connor said. "That would help explain why the building that was hit second, fell first."

"The high speed of United Flight 175 may also have
complicated the hijackers' mission, because it would have been more difficult to make accurate adjustments in the plane's direction, several pilots said. Loud and repeated alarms would also have been sounding in the cockpit.

""The faster you go, the less time and room you have for error," said Tim O'Toole, a former 767 pilot and staff engineer in safety department of the Air Line Pilots Association.

"The flight data recorders from the two planes have not been found; Boeing officials said these so-called black boxes are not designed to survive the forces they encountered in the collapse.

"But a researcher at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, by closely studying videos of the attack, has estimated the planes' speeds. The Federal Aviation Administration, in consultation with the National Transportation Safety Board, has come up with its own estimates, based on radar and video.

"The M.I.T. analysis, by Eduardo Kausel, a professor of civil and environmental engineering, found that the United plane was traveling an estimated 537 m.p.h., while the American plane, the first to hit, was traveling 429 m.p.h.

"The Federal Bureau of Investigation said the government's analysis put the speeds at 586 m.p.h. for the United flight and 494 m.p.h. for the American one.

"In both cases, the planes were flying much faster than they should have been at that altitude: the aviation agency's limit below 10,000 feet is 287 m.p.h.

"Investigators could not say for sure why one plane was traveling faster than the other; it may have been accidental choices of novice pilots, or perhaps the second group of hijackers feared being shot down. But what is clear is that at impact, this difference was important.

"The energy of motion carried by any object, called the kinetic energy, varies as the square of its velocity, so even modest differences in speed can translate into large variations in what the building had to absorb.

"That means that while the United jet was traveling only about a quarter faster than the American jet, it would have released about 50 percent more energy on impact.

""The difference is enormous," Dr. Kausel said of the energy created by the impact of the planes.

"Even at a speed of only about 500 m.p.h., a partly loaded Boeing 767 weighing 132 tons would have created about three billion joules of energy at impact, the equivalent of three- quarters of a ton of T.N.T., according to another team of researchers at M.I.T.

"Only about 6 percent of that energy would be used up in cutting more than 30 exterior steel columns, said Dr. Tomasz Wierzbicki, a professor of applied mechanics at M.I.T., who did his research with a student, Liang Xue. But some 25 percent would go into ripping up floor structures and 56 percent in damaging structural columns in the core.

"The energy poured into the core at this speed would probably be enough to damage or break about 23 of the 47 columns in the core. At a higher speed, more may have been damaged.

"Aviation experts have disagreed over just how difficult the mission was for the hijackers, who had limited flying experience and had probably never operated a real commercial jet. The high speeds added to the complexity of their task.

"The typical cruise speed of a Boeing 767-200 at 35,000 feet is 530 m.p.h. The lower the plane goes, however, the thicker the air becomes, so the slower the plane must travel to avoid excessive stress.

"Flying a Boeing 767 straight ahead at 1,000 to 1,500 feet would not be too difficult, even at more than 580 m.p.h., and it would most likely not threaten the structural integrity of the plane, a half a dozen pilots and a Boeing
spokeswoman said.

"But accurately turning the plane at that speed and maintaining the proper pitch, or up and down movement, is difficult, the pilots said, particularly for a novice pilot, and turning at that speed would have put excessive stress on the plane.

"An automatic pilot device could have directed the hijacked planes to Manhattan, if the hijackers knew how to enter certain coordinates into the computerized flight management system. But as they approached the city, the hijackers almost certainly had to take manual control of the aircraft, because the automatic pilot in navigation mode is not accurate enough to target the center of building, pilots said.

"Video of the approach of United Flight 175 to the south tower shows that it banked westward in the final moments, its right wing going up, its left wing down. That maneuver may have been intended to maximize damage to the building.
But it has been interpreted by some pilots as a sign that the hijacker nearly missed the tower.

""It was unfortunate luck," said Richard Fariello, a retired T.W.A. captain who works as a consultant to NASA. "The way he was headed, he could have just clipped it perhaps with one wing. There is a good chance that would have been the case."

"Structural engineers cannot yet say how important a role the planes' speed played in how quickly the towers collapsed. Aside from the fact that the second plane hit a lower floor, it also struck more to one side of the tower's face, presumably causing asymmetric damage that could have made it more difficult for the tower to reapportion its loads among surviving structural columns.

"But determining the force and energy of impact is the starting point for any effort to understand what failures within the buildings eventually caused collapse, said Dr. Shyam Sunder, chief of the structures division at the
building and fire research lab of the National Institute of Standards and Technology.

""It's important to have the speed of the plane and the direction that it hit for any analysis that we do relating to aircraft impact on the structure," Dr. Sunder said.

"If the plane that hit the south tower had been traveling slower, and the tower perhaps had stood longer, it is still unclear how many more people would have survived. Even though the south tower fell in only 56 minutes, fewer tenants died in it than in the north tower. In large part, that is because many of the people who worked in the upper floors had evacuated during the 16 minutes between the two attacks. But extra time might have meant that those trapped above the impact zone at the south tower would have found the one emergency exit stairwell that was still passable."

No one has raised the question of, why? What did the government get out of it?
 
Last edited:
And your math is erroneous. They can indeed reach those speeds and still be maneuverable. Obviously.

One plane was traveling at cruising speed. A speed that was dangerous below 10,000 feet. But, I don't think the pilots were too concerned about aviation regulations. Hitting one tower straight ahead wasn't too hard. The second one turned late and had to hit top speed and nearly missed the target. 100 mph faster than the first plane. He was losing altitude at that speed.

Both the gov. and private investigations into the speed and maneuverability came to the same conclusion. They could and did go that fast and hit their targets. The plane debris found at the site was from a plane, according to Boeing.

From the NYT:
Whether you really want to know - or put it to rest, the following is from today's New York Times, gives some answers to questions already raised

The article you linked didn't address the problems of traveling that far above VMO.

It only referenced the speeds in relation to the kinetic energy transferred to the towers upon impact.

So in terms of addressing the question of the speeds being plausible for unmodified aircraft, the article is of no use.

------‐-‐----------------

As for your comments...

The planes were at cruising speed for 35,000 ft, not sea level. Decending from 35,000 at that speed, an unmodified plane would simply come apart - and one of the planes was traveling at an estimated 586 mph at sea level. Sorry, but that is simply impossible for an unmodified plane. It is entirely possible for a modified plane, but not an ordinary airliner.

The planes would necessarily have to be modified to withstand those forces, not to mention having modified engines to produce the thrust necessary to propel the plane to those speeds.

Of course the government is going to round up some 'yes men' with Phd's to say it's all good.

But there are many more Phd's who have nothing to gain who are calling B.S. on that.

Watch the video, they show the damage to a plane that survived a dive at speeds slightly above VMO, not even as fast as the 9/11 planes, and the stabilizer, wings, and fuselage sustained significant damage.

Not sure why you won't watch a well produced video that interviews pilots, some of whom flew those actual planes, and engineers from Boeing itself??

Instead you reference something as obviously corrupt as the New York Times??

The New York Times is as-one with the Deep State, the Military Industrial Complex, the Government and intelligence communities, and the Monied Establishment. They are completely unreliable.

Again, I encourage you to watch the video from 1:27 to 1:40. Can lead a horse to water ;)

 
Well, we've been beating this dead horse here for way too long. And we aren't going to change each other's opinions, so we'll just have to agree to disagree. Maybe 100 years from now, the government will release the classified documents.:disbelief:
 
Well, we've been beating this dead horse here for way too long. And we aren't going to change each other's opinions, so we'll just have to agree to disagree. Maybe 100 years from now, the government will release the classified documents.:disbelief:
Your view is irrational and uninformed... but, you certainly have every right to be wrong.

The government will never come clean about 9/11.
 
As I've explained and laid out, the physics involved in flying those planes at those speeds, disqualifies that theory.

Watch the documentary I posted, it covers this topic between 1:27 to 1:40.

It's not just 1 documentary from out of the ether - the Pilotsfor9/11truth, and Architectsfor9/11truth cite the physics of tge observed events as the foundation for their objections to what you have just stated above.

As the old saying goes, "it's just math".
:yes_text12:thats what i keep saying,somehow though,according to her,the best pilots in the world who have said its IMPOSSIBLE for airliners to do those manuvers,that THEY could never have done those incredible feats but somehow these ameuture pilots did:auiqs.jpg:somehow the best pilots in the world saying that over at that site i have mentioned till i was blue in the face,somehow what EXPERT PILOTS say and even PENTAGON WITNESSES what THEY said,THATS not good enough for her,only what the MEDIA says is the gods honest truth to her,comedy gold.:auiqs.jpg:she cant stand toe to toe in a debate.


she is not a paid shill from langley like candyass so that is the ONLY reason i bothered with her but facts that dont go along with her narrative are something she has no interest in obviously.

oh and sense it has been established by the op earlier in one of his excellent posts at the beginning Irish Ram that it was impossible for cell phones to operate at those high altitudes back then,you are going to say im sure-then how come we heard voice calls made to familys? . dont know how to break this to you but its called VOICE MORPHING,it is easy as pie these days and was back then to fake someones voice through the technology our military has today that you would never know it wasnt that person. that they could place call to my place and have the machine be my brother and i would not know the difference.

one of the calls was sooooo obviously faked the fact that lets say the name was john doe to their son 'CANT REMEMBER THE REAL NAME RIGHT NOW." there was call made that said-SON THIS IS YOUR FATHER JOHN DOE, you seriously going to sit there and tell me with a straight face that a father is going to call his son and say this is your father and say his FULL NAME?:auiqs.jpg: if so, you are incredibly gullible and i got some land in russia i want to sell you.:auiqs.jpg:

truthseeker has done extensive work on the cell phones being impossible to operate at high altititudes so maybe him or wist has the patiece to explain that to you,i know i dont anymore and am done with you the fact you blatantly disregard what pentagon witnesses said that day along with the best pilots in the world.the best RELIABLE people on the planet.:uhoh3:

she keeps asking questions expecting us to know all the answers when we were not the one that pulled it off, no matter how many times i say this-ask the bush administration,the cia and the mossad,they are the one that pulled it off not me and would know the answers you are seeking,just goes through one ear and out the other though. :uhoh3:
 
Last edited:
You're fixated on a few Specific Points, where if You do not get an answer that fits Your Narrative, then You reject everything else,..... Pretty much like Your Belief in another Topic, about The "Rapture"

amen could not have said it better myself. you put it better than i EVER could have.:2up: :yes_text12::clap2::clap2::clap2::clap2::clap2::clap2::clap2::clap2::clap2::clap2::clap2::clap2::clap2::clap2::clap2:
 
This is what may have hit the Pentagon. It is plausible.

View attachment 1213916

Aimed almost parallel to the ground. The trajectory made sense. And if it exploded inside the building, it would have bent the fence outward. Having no knowledge of the weapon, I don't know about the damage it would have made to the building. Would there be more or less damage, and is there a missile that would fit the damage done?
But then I am hit with the same problem. Where is the plane that supposedly hit the Pentagon, and where are the passengers? 64 people. They all could have been killed with carbon monoxide without ever leaving the plane. Where would a plane with 64 dead people on it hide?
congrats NOW were getting somewhere with you. :yes_text12: :2up:

there is 100 times more evidence that it was something much closer to this picture you posted that hit the pentagon than it was an airliner. at least there is evidence

Many, many FACTS have been pointed out herein this Topic, which You either "Willfully Ignore", or obviously, have Monumental Issues over Comprehending the Written Word .

the UNDERSTATEMENT of the year. :clap2: :clap2: :clap2:
 
Last edited:
These folks:
View attachment 1213998
Tell them what they really saw...

Gov. plan A
1. Get a few Muslims to fly 2 planes into the WTC, and 1 into the ground.
2. Set off explosions and bring towers down.

LA RAM's Plan A.
1. Manufacture 3 drones to look exactly like the planes.
2. Talk 4 United pilots and crews into a secret suicide mission.
3. Have the pilots hijack their own planes and fly them all to an airstrip somewhere at the same time with no radar detection in any control towers.
4. Have the airliner/drones take off from somewhere and hit the two towers.
5. set off explosions and bring them down
6. Kill all of the passengers and crews on the actual planes.
7. Do something with the bodies.
8. Deconstruct the planes.
9. Convince all the eyewitnesses in Pa. that they didn't see a plane come down either.

LOL LA, you are no Gen Patton..

As for the Pentagon # 483 and # 489 have already addressed that...
at least i dont ignore facts that dont go along with the governments version of events and you are no Gen Patton either so your point is? :auiqs.jpg:

you said THESE folks. we are discussing the airliner at the PENTAGON 'NOT" the people at the twin towers good god.:auiqs.jpg:I NEVER said an airliner did not hit the towers,i just said it did not hit the pentagon,do try and keep up.:uhoh3:

oh and those airliners that DID hit the towers,were remote controlled,there is ZERO evidence highjackers highjacked the planes. you ask all these irrelevent questions which for the 100th time you need to ask the BUSH ADMINISTRATION AND THE CIA AND MOSSAD sense THEY are the ******* ones that pulled it off not me and others jesus christ.:uhoh3:

Now back to the TOPIC of the pentagon,you STILL are going on this idiotic babble as well that somehow these AMEUTUER highjackers that could not even fly a cessna,SOMEHOW pulled off a feat that the BEST PILOTS IN THE WORLD over at 9/11 pilots for truth have said THEY could not pull off and yet you think these ametuer pilots DID pull it off never mind the fact that any expert pilot will tell you it is IMPOSSIBLE for an ailiner to make all these incredible manuvers in the air the commission said it did.:auiqs.jpg::abgg2q.jpg:

even though NO EVIDENCE exists at the pentagon that an airliner hit there, and PENTAGON WITNESSES have said a MISSILE did, you not only disregard those facts,you disregard the PHYSICS told you as well,that it is IMPOSSIBLE for an airliner to do all those incredible manuvers in the air the 9/11 COVERUP commission said they did at the pentagon

yes true I am no Gen Patton but neither are you so WHY you mention that is beyond me,:uhoh3:i am no general patton but unlike you,i DO know something about physics and know enough that its IMPOSSIBLE for an airliner to pull off all those kind of incredible manuvers in the air the commission SAID they did.:auiqs.jpg:

until you can produce the LUGGAGE,the bodies,ect ect that you ALWAYS see at an airliner crash,you got NOTHING ZERO

MEANWHILE I have the testimony of PENTAGON EYEWITNESSES AND EXPERT PILOTS AND KNOW SOMETHING ABOUT PHYSICS.:auiqs.jpg:

oh and sense you have memory problems i will REPEAT this again. The people at the air controller towers,they initally thought it was a AIRCRAFT "JET" doing all those manuvers because unlike YOU,they know it is IMPOSSIBLE for an airliner to do all those incredible manuvers in the air the 9/11 coverup commission said they allegedly did.:auiqs.jpg:

you keep embarrassing yourself with egg on your face asking irrelevent questions instead evading FACTS that prove that an airliner did not hit the pantagon.:uhoh3:
 
oh and for my last post on this thread Irish sense you have egg on your face in embarrassment that an airliner hit the pentagon taken to school by me on that. :auiqs.jpg:

something else i am about to take you to school on as well is sense you want to talk about the witnesses at the towers now instead of the PENTAGON witnesses,again i NEVER said that an airliner did not hit the towers,just did not hit the pentagon,do try and keep up.:uhoh3:we have PENTAGON WITNESSES who say they never saw an airliner like that reporter on the spot myself and other have shown you HUNDREDS of time that you blatantly ignore,but we DO have witnesses that said a MISSILE hit it,

sense you are talking about the TOWERS now, jet fuel fires it is a known fact do not posses the kind of heat NEEDED to weaken steel to make them collapse.:uhoh3: the designers of the towers built it to withstand MULTIPLE airliners hitting it and to remain standing.

we have MANY credible witnesses many INCLUDING being firefiighers EXPERIENCED IN THE SOUND OF EXPLOSIVES,that say prior to the collapse and during the collapse they heard EXPLOSIVES going off in the towers.

there have been even DEMOLITION EXPERTS who said explosives brought down the towers, bld 7 is the crux of the 9/11 coverup commission nobody has ever been able to get around. bld 7 was NOT hit by any plane debris so it made no sense why THAT tower collapsed in the same fashion of the other towers especially sense there were other buildings much closer to the towers with FAR MORE SEVERE DAMAGE AND MUCH MORE SEVERE FIRES yet THEY remained standing.


in BOTH cases,the towers and in bld 7 we have WITNESSES who said they head EXPLOSIVES going off prior to the towers collapse and during it. the most damaging testimonys are from some workers in the lower lobby of the towers,they said they heard EXPLOSIVES IN the BASEMENT of the towers like ten seconds BEFORE the plane hit the tower above. obviously mistimed explosives.
 
Last edited:
VMO for the 2 planes that are supposed to have hit the towers was 402 mph and 414 mph respectively.

How could they survive 586 mph at sea level??

This should bring you to a FULL STOP in championing the official version, but you refuse to look at the actual physics that make the official version impossible.

Why do you cling to the official version when it is scientifically impossible??

Yes, this is obvious.
:clap2: :clap2: :clap2: :clap2: :clap2: :clap2: :clap2: :clap2: :clap2: :clap2: :clap2: :clap2: :clap2: :clap2: :clap2: :clap2:


could not have said it better myself word for word.:2up: those 3 videos i posted eariler talk about PENTAGON WITNESSES who said they saw NO AIRLINER but DID see a missile,she wont watch those videos though of course sense the truth hurts and it hurts her to be wrong,:auiqs.jpg: must have never played any sports when she was little because she obviously cant accept defeat.:abgg2q.jpg:

Your hypothesis is idiotic. And I don't really give enough of a shit about your bizarre suppositions to waste any more time on it...
:auiqs.jpg: :auiqs.jpg: :auiqs.jpg: :auiqs.jpg: :auiqs.jpg: :auiqs.jpg: :auiqs.jpg: :auiqs.jpg: :auiqs.jpg: :auiqs.jpg:

so in short what you MEANT to say to him and me as well is- You have provided facts that shoot down the official version that i cannot counter and am too immature to admit i have been proven wrong because the truth scares me.:clap2::clap2::clap2::clap2::clap2::clap2:
 
Last edited:
15th post
:clap2: :clap2: :clap2: :clap2: :clap2: :clap2: :clap2: :clap2: :clap2: :clap2: :clap2: :clap2: :clap2: :clap2: :clap2: :clap2:


could not have said it better myself word for word.:2up: those 3 videos i posted eariler talk about PENTAGON WITNESSES who said they saw NO AIRLINER but DID see a missile,she wont watch those videos though of course sense the truth hurts and it hurts her to be wrong,:auiqs.jpg: must have never played any sports when she was little because she obviously cant accept defeat.:abgg2q.jpg:

Your hypothesis is idiotic. And I don't really give enough of a shit about your bizarre suppositions to waste any more time on it...
:auiqs.jpg: :auiqs.jpg: :auiqs.jpg: :auiqs.jpg: :auiqs.jpg: :auiqs.jpg: :auiqs.jpg: :auiqs.jpg: :auiqs.jpg: :auiqs.jpg:

so in short what you MEANT to say to him and me as well is- You have provided facts that shoot down the official version that i cannot counter and am too immature to admit i have been proven wrong because the truth scares me.:clap2::clap2::clap2::clap2::clap2::clap2:
She's typical... most people are so prideful they can't consider other people's opinions, or in this case actual physics that disproves the official version.

They'll never look at anything they think might challenge their position.

By definition, that makes them intellectually dishonest.
 
She's typical... most people are so prideful they can't consider other people's opinions, or in this case actual physics that disproves the official version.

They'll never look at anything they think might challenge their position.

By definition, that makes them intellectually dishonest.
wist43 did you take a look at at any of those 3 videos i posted? if not please do so,especially the first one,it has things in it i had never heard about before,it is about a pentagon employee that has put together a lawsuit that has SEVERAL pentagon employees giving sworn statements they want to go on record with but are too afraid sense they know they will be murdered if they do,one only has to look at the JFK assassination how people are murdered off if you give testimony that does not go along with the governments version of events. please watch them,as i said yesterday,i started wacthing the first 30 minutes of your video and will eventutlly watch the entire segment so you could return the favor to me that way.:)

she is not an agent like langley agent candyass is who has penetrated this site,and defends EVERY government version of events.

she strikes me as one of those people that they can handle the truth on the JFK assassination that the CIA killed him cause he wanted to pull us out of vietnam and get rid of the fed,she strikes me as one of those people who CAN accept it that the CIA was willing to murder innocent bystanders who gave testimony that did not support the magic bullet theory of the warren commission,someone who can accept it that our government lied to us THEN but when it comes to 9/11,if the facts dont go along with her narrative,wont look at them because JFK is long in the past so she can accept it the CIA pulled THAT off,but 9/11 hits too close to home for her which is typical of half of Americans so unlike JFK,no matter what evidence or facts you lay out out to her that prove the governments version IMPOSSIBLE,she closes her eyes and covers her ears afraid to go down that rabbit hole.

Like i said,thats typical of half of Americans.i am sure you have noticed OVERSEEES,peiople are much more open to it being an inside job than here in America. Hell half of Americans still to this day are so brainwashed by our corrupt school system and the media they still incredibly think Reagan was for the people and stood up to the elite for them same as JFK. :auiqs.jpg:

The government will never come clean about 9/11.

we can take that to the bank they will never come clean on 9/11. Hell Look at the JFK assassination how they are STILL covering that one up over 6 decades later.
 
Last edited:

New Topics

Back
Top Bottom