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

[candycorn]

Because a picture proves nothing without context. Because I studied the pictures and facts for years, beginning in 2005. Because I'm familiar with the case of Kurt Sonnefeld who worked for FEMA and took and released many pictures that contradicted the official narrative. Because I know that no Boeing struck the Pentagon. Some flying object did, but it was not a Boeing. That's why the FBI seized quickly and never released surveillance footage from all surrounding buildings. It was an inside job, and the pictures would show something smaller struck the Pentagon.

Because I don't believe known professional liars like federal agencies. Because I know there are people and bots whose job it is to promote official narratives on the internet, official narratives that are contradicted by the laws of physics and facts.

Well then explain the light poles if it wasn’t AA77...and explain why the plotters of this vast conspiracy you keep talking about would even include the light poles in the scenario...the taxi that was hit by the light poles, the generator that was hit by the right side engine of the aircraft, etc....

Also I’m always curious....how do you know the FBI "seized quickly and never released surveillance footage” if you never saw it? That is just one of the looney claims you’ve made.

 

[PeterPilot]

And the nut jobs are also nut jobs.

And the self-declared patriot is the only honest one in the house?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And the self-declared patriot is the only honest one in the house?

Sorry that you've been unable to provide any evidence to support your claims.

That's just more proof that you're right, eh?

DURR