Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Crazy Hades
Yeah, because, a building with an over two story debris pile that damages many of the buildings around it is a very precise pile. Yeah, and perhaps you've never heard of what a similie is? Show me where any demolitions expert would claim that. Sources, please.
Yeah, I bet the lawn is in perfect condition. Explain where you got this information from. Oh wait, the smoke-filled picture on Loose Change, right? So you're telling me the government made another obvious error after punching themselves in the nose and running home to their mommy to blame the school bully?
You'll find several different accounts of the story...and you may notice that Loose Change doesn't even claim the voices of those witnesses are actually related to the towers, they could just be rambling. Explain to me why they WOULDN'T use a commercial airplane and say that it was. It'd make more sense to, I don't know, hijack the real plane instead.
There is a lot of wreckage and bodies. Loose Change contradicts itself: at one part, a "witness" claims from their ANGLE they didn't see anything but a hole and broken trees. Then he proceeded to say something along the lines of 'the people said that it looked like metal scraps had been dumped into a hole'. Yeah, it's kinda called...a similie. Also explain to me why the US would make this huge error. You ever realize that, I don't know, Loose Change never actually talks to a structural engineer or anything?
1. What makes you think 5 frames can comprehend a 500 mph plane?
2. Ever heard of...confidential investigations for the official report?
Where did he deny it? Give me a legitimate source that is not a conspiracy theorist newspaper. Because in the lighting his nose looks different it's not him? Even though, if you look in the news, you can see things such as "Osama tells Iraqians to fight against Americans"? And this isn't proof of an actual bombing. I can accept the story of a plane being hijacked by America, and that Osama wasn't actually in on it really and framed, but not when the theory includes the thought of bombs being present.
|
look how the twin towers feel, then watch how controlled buildings fall... pretty much exactly the same, and its funny how the only other building knocked down was related to the government(cnt rememberexactly what it was)
as for the pentagon lawn. i got that info from the fact it was all over the news and in newspapers shit ill find pictures that were used on tv and in news papers to prove my point it was in perfect condition.
http://www.danbielefeld.com/images/...opper-smoke.jpg
http://www.hnn.navy.mil/archives/01...agon_damage.jpg
http://www.blogwashington.com/Pentagon-9-11.jpg
and the best image's to prove the point
http://911review.org/images/pentagon/01749vp_2.jpg
http://www.teamlaw.org/images/Penthitista.jpg
and do you see any debris???? do you see any damage from where the wings and engine should have hit had it been a plane??? no. come on stop being simple.
why would it??? you do know one of the so called hi jacked planes was found landed at another airport and the passengers moved into a nasa building where as the rest from other planes moved some place else. also the witness accounts speak for themselves, and as i say, alot of these were announced on the fucking day that it happened in live tv interviews on the news.... it was only as things went on the media story started to change.... also look at the video closely, slow it down and zoom in under the nose of the planes, just before impact you get a flash that looks very much like a detonation... you can also see for yourself theres no markings nore is there any windows.
dude, in a plane wreckage you get engines, wing sections, tail sections fuelslauge(sp?)... not of that was found, only a few metal sheets were.. the coroner went home after 12 minutes for the lack of bodies.
http://www.knoxstudio.com/SIEGE/pacrash.jpg
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/gra...09/27/ffpit.jpg
http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/15450..._site_150ap.jpg
http://graphics.boston.com/globe/im...13/wreckage.jpg
show me the wreckage?? matter of fact heres some pictures from other plane crashes.
http://www.sfu.ca/~qgrc/people/thomas/crash.jpg
http://media.nasaexplores.com/01-039/crash.jpg
http://www.newsvine.com/_vine/image...11504031301.jpg
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-ima...15/crash372.jpg
http://english.pravda.ru/img/idb/photo/001-351.jpg
http://www.state.gov/cms_images/200...aplanecrash.jpg
http://stevespak.com/fires/queens/lagjetcrash.jpg
want me to continue??? all different kinds of planes yet all leave BIG chunks of wreckage... yet these particular ones didnt???? come on now. and dont say they left peices of metal sheet... theyd leave an awfull lot more than just that.
dude check the 5 frames out.... the closest thing u see to a plane a blur moving into the building thats less than half the size of a commercial air plane.
as for the bin laden thing, the lighting??? dude his fuckin nose is fatter, shorther, and flatter than osama's is, and osama is left handed but he does everything right handed in the video, get a clue.
actually
http://www.spiritofprophecy.org/Osama%20bin%20Laden.jpg (long thin and pointed).
http://tim.2wgroup.com/blog/images/obl/sm/obl2.jpg (shor fat and flat).
also you know for a fact something like this is exactly what osama would get a hard on to admit to.... yet he denied it, and he also said the reason being the new countries leader does not allow it which is why he wouldnt have done it.... and then suddenly this fake video appears.
and if you dont beleive bombs were used, why were explosions video'd on floors below where the plane hit(up to 20+ floors down)... to weaken the structure???? help it fall more organised??? or maybe its the lighting(as you would claim)*rolls eyes*.
nice to see one person failed at a logical explination for things.