Hey dumbfuck, damn you're gullible.
What's funny and dilusional is you wanting to believe the "Official Story of 9/11" is true, accurate and factual that you will defend it if someone challenges it, by attacking someone else with more and more of your lies and disinformation, while trying to convince others it's the truth.
The Official Story is a lie.
just as I expected A whole lotta nothin'
Hey dumbfuck, damn you're gullible.
What's funny and dilusional is you wanting to believe the "Official Story of 9/11" is true, accurate and factual that you will defend it if someone challenges it, by attacking someone else with more and more of your lies and disinformation, while trying to convince others it's the truth.
The Official Story is a lie.
Yes, these Official Conspiracy Wackos never touch the inconsistencies already pointed out -- they just fall back of insults and red herrings.two more farts in a row from the agent trolls.
Yes, these Official Conspiracy Wackos never touch the inconsistencies already pointed out -- they just fall back of insults and red herrings.two more farts in a row from the agent trolls.
It would be amusing, if it were not so pathetic and transparent.
.
two more farts in a row from the agent trolls.
Yes, these Official Conspiracy Wackos never touch the inconsistencies already pointed out -- they just fall back of insults and red herrings.two more farts in a row from the agent trolls.
It would be amusing, if it were not so pathetic and transparent.
.
they cant seem to remember that i do that because they are on my ignore list and have been for years because they never have anything constructive to say and have to lie when they are cornered and cant refute facts which is what their bosses instruct them to do.
I think you need to learn to read I made it clear there was no missile and the bits you yammer about were caused by the plane colliding with the pentagon.You are claiming that the cement and stone wall was not blasted to fragments when the missile hit the building? The rubble can be clearly seen in photos.
But you do seem to have made a small step toward rational scepticism. You appear to recognize that the government can tamper with evidence, since in denying a blast, you are rejecting the miserable ploy made by the government when it released these scraps of video:
Of course, what you should have seen was something like this:
So, Mr. Wacky-Official-Conspiracy-Theory-Devotee, it is you who is in the cleft stick. Either there was a blast, which you have denied, OR the official government video has been doctored. And when you have admitted that much govt. falsification, who knows how far it extended?
.
the clip you claim to be fake or evidence of a missile is the best proof you're talking out your ass. if a missile was used where the fuck is the high speed blast wave.
"were caused by the plane colliding with the pentagon"
I don't know what makes you so stupid, but it really works.
! What REAL proof do you have? Nothing? Great!
Yes, these Official Conspiracy Wackos never touch the inconsistencies already pointed out -- they just fall back of insults and red herrings.two more farts in a row from the agent trolls.
It would be amusing, if it were not so pathetic and transparent.
.
'
As well as being unobservant, either you supporters of the Official Wacko Conspiracy Theory are illiterate, or you are just spreading misinformation.
The clip which I posted showing what an airliner hitting the Pentagon would look like was this one! :
The size and speed of the plane is not entirely accurate (the official claim is that it was moving at about the distance of two football fields per second), but it clearly indicates that the scene would have been very different from the video frames released by the government -- for, example, parts of the background would have been obscured which are not obscured in the government photos.
Two unobservant illiterates on this thread have claimed that I was referring to the officially released frames, which look nothing like an airliner hitting the Pentagon -- despite talking-heads on television trumpeting that they "clearly show the jumbo jet". I leave it to the dispassionate observer whether he or she sees anything like that in the frames below:
I would not be surprised if the government released doctored frames, but even in the frames which they did release, it looks much more like a missile coming in than the image of a jumbo jet arriving.
.
I already covered this and you're soo0 wrong.'
As well as being unobservant, either you supporters of the Official Wacko Conspiracy Theory are illiterate, or you are just spreading misinformation.
The clip which I posted showing what an airliner hitting the Pentagon would look like was this one! :
The size and speed of the plane is not entirely accurate (the official claim is that it was moving at about the distance of two football fields per second), but it clearly indicates that the scene would have been very different from the video frames released by the government -- for, example, parts of the background would have been obscured which are not obscured in the government photos.
Two unobservant illiterates on this thread have claimed that I was referring to the officially released frames, which look nothing like an airliner hitting the Pentagon -- despite talking-heads on television trumpeting that they "clearly show the jumbo jet". I leave it to the dispassionate observer whether he or she sees anything like that in the frames below:
I would not be surprised if the government released doctored frames, but even in the frames which they did release, it looks much more like a missile coming in than the image of a jumbo jet arriving.
.
'
As well as being unobservant, either you supporters of the Official Wacko Conspiracy Theory are illiterate, or you are just spreading misinformation.
The clip which I posted showing what an airliner hitting the Pentagon would look like was this one! :
The size and speed of the plane is not entirely accurate (the official claim is that it was moving at about the distance of two football fields per second), but it clearly indicates that the scene would have been very different from the video frames released by the government -- for, example, parts of the background would have been obscured which are not obscured in the government photos.
Two unobservant illiterates on this thread have claimed that I was referring to the officially released frames, which look nothing like an airliner hitting the Pentagon -- despite talking-heads on television trumpeting that they "clearly show the jumbo jet". I leave it to the dispassionate observer whether he or she sees anything like that in the frames below:
I would not be surprised if the government released doctored frames, but even in the frames which they did release, it looks much more like a missile coming in than the image of a jumbo jet arriving.
.
there is none. if a missile had been used it would never been targeted that low on the pentagon.'
As well as being unobservant, either you supporters of the Official Wacko Conspiracy Theory are illiterate, or you are just spreading misinformation.
The clip which I posted showing what an airliner hitting the Pentagon would look like was this one! :
The size and speed of the plane is not entirely accurate (the official claim is that it was moving at about the distance of two football fields per second), but it clearly indicates that the scene would have been very different from the video frames released by the government -- for, example, parts of the background would have been obscured which are not obscured in the government photos.
Two unobservant illiterates on this thread have claimed that I was referring to the officially released frames, which look nothing like an airliner hitting the Pentagon -- despite talking-heads on television trumpeting that they "clearly show the jumbo jet". I leave it to the dispassionate observer whether he or she sees anything like that in the frames below:
I would not be surprised if the government released doctored frames, but even in the frames which they did release, it looks much more like a missile coming in than the image of a jumbo jet arriving.
.
Where is the missile?
there is none. if a missile had been used it would never been targeted that low on the pentagon.'
As well as being unobservant, either you supporters of the Official Wacko Conspiracy Theory are illiterate, or you are just spreading misinformation.
The clip which I posted showing what an airliner hitting the Pentagon would look like was this one! :
The size and speed of the plane is not entirely accurate (the official claim is that it was moving at about the distance of two football fields per second), but it clearly indicates that the scene would have been very different from the video frames released by the government -- for, example, parts of the background would have been obscured which are not obscured in the government photos.
Two unobservant illiterates on this thread have claimed that I was referring to the officially released frames, which look nothing like an airliner hitting the Pentagon -- despite talking-heads on television trumpeting that they "clearly show the jumbo jet". I leave it to the dispassionate observer whether he or she sees anything like that in the frames below:
I would not be surprised if the government released doctored frames, but even in the frames which they did release, it looks much more like a missile coming in than the image of a jumbo jet arriving.
.
Where is the missile?
also if the imaginary launchers wanted maximum damage They would have armed it with a proximity sensor that would have been set it off before it hit the pentagon.
they want believe to was used like a cannon ball.
