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

"Stephen McGraw was quoted this way by Eric Bart:
“The plane clipped the top of a light pole just before it got
to us, injuring a taxi driver, whose taxi was just a few feet
away.”

But when questioned by Aldo Marquis of Citizen
Investigation Team, he said: “I didn't actually see the light
pole go over or anything, no. I believe I later saw you
know the evidence of the pole having been knocked over
umm and I think that was just after the fact."


 
"Stephen McGraw was quoted this way by Eric Bart:
“The plane clipped the top of a light pole just before it got
to us, injuring a taxi driver, whose taxi was just a few feet
away.”

But when questioned by Aldo Marquis of Citizen
Investigation Team, he said: “I didn't actually see the light
pole go over or anything, no. I believe I later saw you
know the evidence of the pole having been knocked over
umm and I think that was just after the fact."


1774565323416.webp


Nope...happened a second or so before AA77 hit the Pentagon as the picture shows.
 
Because the drivers and others were paid to promote a certain narrative.
Ahh...

So according to you the plotters decided, for some reason I’ll ask you about later, to have light poles involved that were rigged to fall and a car involved that was to be hit by a falling light pole, and payments made to “the drivers and others” as you put it.

Why would the alleged plotters add all of that to their to-do list? Because when you have a plane crash, you don’t always have poles that are taken down, cars that are hit by the pole, and of course drivers who are in their cars when the superfluous poles and cars are included in the scheme.

Can you tell us why the plotters would do this?

Again...nobody forces you dumbfux to assume these ridiculous postures. You could just say AA77 hit the pentagon because, well, it did. What is the downside of that to your “it was an inside job” nonsense?

Anyway, tell us why they included all of this extra crap you have said they did if you would, please.



Were you born yesterday?
No but it seems you may have been.
 
Ahh...

So according to you the plotters decided, for some reason I’ll ask you about later, to have light poles involved that were rigged to fall and a car involved that was to be hit by a falling light pole, and payments made to “the drivers and others” as you put it.

Why would the alleged plotters add all of that to their to-do list? Because when you have a plane crash, you don’t always have poles that are taken down, cars that are hit by the pole, and of course drivers who are in their cars when the superfluous poles and cars are included in the scheme.

Can you tell us why the plotters would do this?

Again...nobody forces you dumbfux to assume these ridiculous postures. You could just say AA77 hit the pentagon because, well, it did. What is the downside of that to your “it was an inside job” nonsense?

Anyway, tell us why they included all of this extra crap you have said they did if you would, please.




No but it seems you may have been.

And none of those losers can show a cruise missile knocking down light poles with its "vortex".
 
And none of those losers can show a cruise missile knocking down light poles with its "vortex".
The "vortex" is the hilarious thing>

In St. Marteen they used to have this runway right up against the water.

1774569463182.webp


4 massive 747 engines burning at galactic temperatures didn't knock down a fence, a car, or even people..... Yet somehow this missile took out 5 light poles, a generator, and part of an office building?


 
15th post
plane landing 150 mph

cruise missile 600 mph

minor difference...
No major difference...there are 4 engines on that bird that dwarf anything put out by a cruise missile but I’ll play along with your latest brain fart...

So now you’re saying it was a cruise missile that hit the Pentagon?

Alright...who has a cruise missile that they can fire...and where was it fired from?
 

New Topics

Back
Top Bottom