Elvis, on the grassy knoll, using a high intensity stobe light?
Chat Forum
[closed]
obama decepion,farenheit 9/11,loose change..?
-
Posted 2 years ago #
-
The world IS round because all the evidence makes it a fact.
A plane hit the pentagon because you were told it did despite the distinct lack of evidence to support it.
BiggDummy y' say?
Posted 2 years ago # -
the early pictures show basically no damage - no plane, no hole.
The early pictures show a plane-fuselage-shaped hole, with bits of plane debris scattered over the lawn. The wings folded back on inpact - not surprising for light aluminium structures hitting a reinforced concrete building.
See this video for a demonstration of what happens when an (admittedly smaller) aircraft hits an (admittedly even more solid) concrete wall. Keep a close eye on the wingtips
Posted 2 years ago # -
Indeed. A large number of things "don't add up" if your preconceptions about how addition works are wrong.
Posted 2 years ago # -
No plane hit the Pentagon though did it? I mean, really?!.. the early pictures show basically no damage - no plane, no hole. Where did it go?
You don't have to believe the whole conspiracy to notice that it doesn't quite add up. And then you have to think 'if there's some fibs, what else?'
What doesn't add up is why, as a conspirator, you'd arrange for planes to fly into the towers but then for the Pentagon think "let's just use a missile and say it was a plane- who'll notice?"
I think it's more likely that the effect of a plane being flown into a building at ground level is not what you might think.
Posted 2 years ago # -
BigEaredBiker - Member
The heat of the fires probably had little to do with office paper and more to do with burning jet fuel!I was referring to the World Trade Centre 7 building that wasn't hit by an airliner.....
Posted 2 years ago # -
i have to agree that alot doesn't add up.
The pentagon - the plane would have to hit 10's of lampposts to get to the building, no wingmarks at all in the building with plenty of windows in it ( which is not a nuclear wall and the jet is alot heavier than a fighter plane). Also, how poor are cctv cameras that the ONLY footage is timed framed and never actually shows a plane. The marriott across the road caught it on tape but FBI took away the footage. very dodgy indeed.WTC 7 that fell. Years earlier the madrid hotel fire burned for 24 hours and still the building never fell down. Are we to believe that small fires caused this building to fall (demolition style) when all camera footage showed NO major fires in the building ( certainly no where near WTC 1 and 2 fire ferocity).
All jet fuel also burned on impact, it was only office fires (major at that) that causd the building to collapse ( at freefall speed) after only 1 hour. It's not really rocket science to believe that other major factors were involved
Posted 2 years ago # -
I think the collapse of WTC 7 was something to do with the massive building above it falling on it!!!
Posted 2 years ago #
Topic Closed
This topic has been closed to new replies.
