|
Post by freedom12 on Sept 8, 2011 21:03:33 GMT -6
My link shows that members of our government had previously planned a "false flag" event to start a war with Cuba. They planned on playing with planes also that time and have it written down for you to view, WHAT they would do with the passengers. That was 40 years prior to 9/11 and thank god JFK shot the plan down. Show me where the big airliner is in this footage? i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/pentanimorig-1.gif
|
|
|
Post by northsider on Sept 8, 2011 21:46:11 GMT -6
It's the big white thing slamming into the building right before you see the big fireball.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2011 4:07:15 GMT -6
It's the big white thing slamming into the building right before you see the big fireball. Like I said...no answer. Are you holding your breath for f12's Big Article?
|
|
|
Post by ironeagle2006 on Sept 9, 2011 6:17:01 GMT -6
Now in the General section he is trying to claim that we did not see Untied 175 slam the South Tower LIVE on TV.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2011 15:54:24 GMT -6
I'm waiting for F12's Pulitzer Prize winning Times essay...I suspect I'll still be waiting this time next year.
|
|
|
Post by freedom12 on Sept 9, 2011 16:36:07 GMT -6
Now in the General section he is trying to claim that we did not see Untied 175 slam the South Tower LIVE on TV. Wrong ironeagle! I am referring to the wilbert's claims that he was watching NBC and saw the 2nd plane hit the building LIVE. I then provided NBC's live shot, which was shown from the opposite side of the building and shows no plane , only the explosion. Were there other networks that showed the 2nd plane crashing live? Yes, but not what he claimed he was watching. Watch the video link I provided as I am 100% correct on this one. Otherwise, stay out of it if you have no clue what you're talking about!
|
|
|
Post by freedom12 on Sept 10, 2011 22:19:34 GMT -6
I'm waiting for F12's Pulitzer Prize winning Times essay...I suspect I'll still be waiting this time next year. The Times has my submission.........only question is, will they print it? Not there as of today's paper yet!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2011 5:43:39 GMT -6
F12 said:
Whatever.
|
|
|
Post by freedom12 on Sept 11, 2011 7:42:47 GMT -6
Accept it, but no promise to publish!
|
|
|
Post by FZ on Sept 12, 2011 11:57:30 GMT -6
Sure there is!
No there isn't.
The hole is too small.
No it's isn't.
First CNN reporter on scene said there was no plane crash or evidence of it.
The number of eyewitnesses mentioning a plane is huge.
The 4 frames of the "blur" released by the government shows no plane.
Hotel footage shows no plane on flight plane governement says it was.
Everything from eyewitnesses to debris, to the limited footage and the results of the impact point to an plane crash.
Somehow, an aluminum nose airplane supposedly caused this hole, but yet birds do tremondous damage to the nose cone.
But we watched as 2 planes punched huge holes in both WTC 1 and 2. This statement as evidence is without merit.
Two huge engines failed to make holes.
I could go on for hours!
So could I, and the result will probably be the same. You admitting you don't look at all the information out there, only the stuff that fits the answer you are looking for.
Part of seeking the truth is not being afraid of the answers
|
|
|
Post by freedom12 on Sept 12, 2011 15:50:10 GMT -6
The "engine" shown in the above picture could be easily IDed by part numbers stamped on it. To this day it has not. The dimensions of the Rolls Royce engine used on 757's, range from 86-74 inches in diameter and 125-118 inches in length. So for that "engine" in your picture to be from a 757, it would be over 6 ft in height. Unless the man in your picture is a giant, that's not from a 757.
The nose cone, made of light-weight aluminum, supposedly penetrated 3 rings of the Pentagon. Several feet of reinforced concrete and yet a bird will smash in the nose cone?
As for the "eye witnesses", over half of them COULD NOT see the impact from where they were, including one often quoted priest. Others have reported the 757 flew over the Pentagon, most likey landing at nearby Reagan National.
Yes, I was on your side at one point FZ. I tried to refute the "truthers" with my original research, but only suceeded in proving to myself that the OS was a lie.
You failed to address the 4 blurry frames we were shown. With the many cameras mounted on that side of the Pentagon, surely there is better footage of the "plane".
CNN Pentagon reporter on scene right after.......here's what he saw-
|
|
|
Post by freedom12 on Sept 12, 2011 16:14:19 GMT -6
If your 757 did hit the Pentagon and the small hole is from the nose, where did the tail hit? As you can see, there is no damge where the tail should of hit the building and the windows are still intact as evidenced by the firefighting foam sprayed on the windows.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2011 18:33:56 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by freedom12 on Sept 12, 2011 18:54:08 GMT -6
I'm well aware of the site as it's where I got some of my photos from Jimmy.
No guess as why the tail of the "plane" didn't even leave a scratch?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2011 19:08:36 GMT -6
Didn't I understand the plane is aluminum....... I would assume when it crashes in a field you have debris,when it hits a building and then burns,not much is left.... As for the initial hole it punched through.Ever see a picture of a piece of straw in a telephone pole after a tornado....
|
|