Yes - why is a 737 engine quoted - what's the reason for that?
I asked not to be replied to but you did, all of you
All I'm relying on is visuals - the visuals tell the story - the slo-mos that is
The disappearing and appearing features, the butter-slicing nature of the entry - just to put yourself in this world's illusion of solidity and the
WTC attacks becomes as nonsensical as the Pentagon attack
That Naudet film of the flight going into WTC1 surely doesnt show a jetliner, does it? It doesn't in any way ressemble a 757, 767 or even a 737
It's vague like the perceptions of whatever hit the Pentagon are vague, when the official story should have involved cars being blown off the freeway
by the power of the few feet over jet's exhaust
I mean, get the full power of the physical nonsenses of all of this
We know how the world should be in full 3D reality - we don't need some highly-qualified scientist published in peer-reviewed papers to tell us what
our reality is
These are merely the most fully-realised quacks and dissemblers
Yes, the hologram interpretation is the most burgeoningly real
Not that I'd present that to Joe Public in the first instance
It's privy knowledge to us who can interpret the Illuminati game
So let it in - when the general herd have wakened up enough. they might be willing to debate that issue
First you got to advise them to the idea that they've been had - in whatever way you can
Originally posted by Vis Mega
www.rense.com...
Why was a plane engine found on a corner near the WTC then? Or IS IT POSSIBLE then that this engine that was found was an engine for a cruise missile
then? Or was the hologram cloaked projectile packed with plane parts to make the story more believable? Because what I see when that plane hits is an
engine come out the other side of the building.. right where a 737 engine would have been attached to the plane (sort of anyways).
I agree that topics like this... while being 'interesting' distract from the real problems like.. why the hell it was allowed to be hijacked and
crashed in to the tower in the first place without someone stopping it (shooting it down).
Also.. the fact that it wasn't a 757 or 767 but a 737 that hit the tower... or a cruise missile with a 737 hologram over it.. actually.. if there WAS
a hologram over the real projectile then why didn't they use the right plane image?
I do agree though.. there are many anomallies in the videos that do raise questions... but I think... the questions themselves raise so many questions
like.. "Well why the hell wouldn't they just use REAL planes instead of going through the trouble of using holograms?" .. that its best to stick to
the most obvious stuff if you are trying to proove an inside job.
Just my two cents on this and other far out 9-11 theories.
-VMX
Talk about some serious Bu#. 
