It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


G Force calculations prove official Pentagon attack flight path impossible

page: 7
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 06:51 AM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 07:19 AM
Yeah, i know you like to bring that up in every thread Throat Yogurt/Captain Obvious/Mr Herbert when you are unable to debate facts in a poor attempt to derail and discredit...

So, i'll just copy/paste the content of the link i posted earlier when your cohorts showed the same desperation/frustration, and report your post for off topic...

Im glad you asked this question Clue, because now i'll have a link to send those who still cry about the above mentioned...

Mark Roberts (and many of his cohorts) continue to cry about a heated exchange from several years ago, cherry pick and spin it up in a poor attempt to discredit when unable to debate the facts.

The fact is, Mark and i have had several heated exchanges. The difference is, i dont cry about it for years. I did apologize to Mark the first time around, but Mark continued to cry about it neglecting to mention the apology each and every time. So, one night during a Super Bowl party (some debunkers claimed i was a 'drunk' because i was drinking at the party, oh the, we all had a laugh at Marks expense...

Here is the original post... 246

Notice Mark omitted alot of the disclaimers (eg. "in a verbal way") and spun it up as usual. Mark still cries about it to this day.

When attempting to get a debate going live on Air America radio more than a year later, the Host Richard Greene was adamant about getting "opposition" (do a forum search for the Air American Radio thread). I tried to contact Popular Mechanics and the NTSB. They both declined (Popular Mechanics specifically stating they will not be debating 9/11 anymore). So, i decided to scrape the bottom of the barrel in the form of "internet debunkers". All of whom are anonymous, self-proclaimed "experts" (only a handful of about 3 or 4 claim to have experience in aviation). Ron "pomeroo" Weick was the liaison to organize the "debunkers" for the debate. Every single one of Ron's "expert" debunkers declined to debate on air. The most common excuse? "There is nothing to debate". However, that is exactly what they do, day after day, night after night from behind their screens comforted by extremely biased mods who ban any "troofer" while letting their "own" break forums rules constantly by attacking the person instead of the argument. Some of these so-called "experts" are so intimidated to debate, that when they sign up here, they "double up" on the anonymity (creating a different userID than the one they are known for on the web). We had one of our obsessive "detractors" try to claim he was a female college student. lol.. Do a forum search for "ReTreat" and you'll see.

They use the excuse for remaining anonymous because they think "troofers" will come and kill them. And they call us paranoid.. :rolleyes:

Ron "pomeroo" Weick and i had several recorded exchanges on the phone. This is what he had to say (of many) about my demeanor.

I just received another call from Rob Balsamo. He was quite civil and impressed me with his sincerity in wanting a substantive debate on the FDR and related matters. I agreed to apologize for lumping him in with Ranke and Marquis and promised I would continue my effort to find opponents for tomorrow's CLOUT.

What can I say? The people here who are qualified to discuss the subject should step up to the plate. There is no satisfactory reason for missing this opportunity to address a fairly large audience.

(as a side note, Ron used to call P4T frauds as he does CIT. I asked him if he knows the name of ANY of his "aviation experts" and/or if they can be verified in the FAA database at He doesnt. So he realized why he could no longer call us frauds and agreed to apologize. Of course Ron spun it up a bit by getting in a jab at Craig and Aldo).

Since none of the "aviation experts" (albeit anonymous) would step up to the plate for debate, i asked Ron to contact NYC Tour Guide and "Debunker Extraordinaire" Mark Roberts (who is now "retired" from the debunking business, been exposed too many times is my guess). Instead of Mark having a civil discussion and letting by-gones be by-gones, Mark elected to send multiple convoluted emails to Richard Greene, once again crying about our heated exchange, trying to get the show canceled (Mark is supposedly from NYC, but appears to cry for years whenever he has a heated exchange on the net and unable to debate facts, go figure). You can find his emails on the site you linked above im sure. He doesnt hide the fact he tried to get the show canceled instead of stepping up to the plate. Ron was highly disappointed in Mark Robert for his poor attempt in trying to get the show canceled instead of stepping up.

I assure you, i have never killed anyone and dont have any intentions of doing so unless its self defense. Matter of fact, i have saved many lives of those who actually tried to kill me and themselves...(im talking about students as im sure the 'debunkers' will try to spin this up, Flight Instructors will appreciate this..

Bottom line, those who cannot debate the facts, cherry pick quotes, spin them up, and attempt character assassination.

Hope this helps..

Mod Edit: New External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 9/19/2008 by Hal9000]

posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 08:04 AM

Originally posted by acura_el2000

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Ok, so that's the flight path, why would the plane need to "pull out" of the dive? It never needed to, nor did it.

The math might be correct that it would need 34G's to pull out, but there is no need for the plane to do so, as it would just deflect off the ground, and ram into the Pentagon anyway.

Your post has alot of logical information, however you need to look at all view points on the issue before becoming convinced on a certain one.

Are you kidding me? Since when EVER has a plane going 500 mph at that kind of angle simply 'deflected' off a lawn? That is the most ridiculous statement I have seen in quite some time.

Also, IF, the plane didn't pull out of this dive then there would have been more objects on the ground hit. If I recall, there was a tractor trailer on the ground next to the impact zone that the wings would have hit if it had simply 'deflected' off the ground.

I love how people keep rewriting the laws of nature. Yes, that accusation can be thrown at both sides but this statement is plain ludicrous.

posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 08:18 AM

Originally posted by apex

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
Again, why engage in this kind of internet debate? To what end? For what purpose? To accomplish what? It’s a legitimate question: are you more interested in DVD sales, or actually brining the perps to justice?

I always wonder that, since if the focus is getting the 'truth' out, then what's with the charging money for it? If it's just to cover operating costs then fine, but otherwise shouldn't such important information be free?

The problem is the government and the courts. Many attempts have been made to bring this type of information about 911 to court. No one wants to touch it. No prosecutor wants to touch it. You see, people have had their lives destroyed over this and people have even died by mysterious 'suicide'.

It's a bit easier said than done. Why? Because the government has to be behind it. Without that, there is no access to the real evidence that they have deemed 'national security'. Which is the biggest joke of all. NOTHING about that day should be hidden under the national security blanket.

posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 08:58 AM
I still don't understand why this grand conspiracy theory that involves so much calculation and detail can't answer the simple question of how it was folks SAW a jet crash into the Pentagon if there was no jet?

Perhaps a better way to look at it is....

CHENEY: And the Pentagon crash -- we'll have to do it in broad daylight and say it was a plane, even though it'll really be a cruise missile.
BUSH: Wait, why do we have to use a missile?
CHENEY: Because it's much easier to shoot a missile and say it was a plane. It's not easy to steer a real passenger plane into the Pentagon. Planes are hard to come by.
BUSH: But aren't we using two planes for the Twin Towers?
CHENEY: Mr. President, you're missing the point. With the Pentagon, we use a missile, and say it was a plane.
BUSH: Right, but I'm saying, why don't we just use a plane and say it was a plane? We'll be doing that with the Twin Towers, right?
CHENEY: Right, but in this case, we use a missile. (Throws hands up in frustration) Don, can you help me out here?
RUMSFELD: Mr. President, in Washington, we use a missile because it's sneakier that way. Using an actual plane would be too obvious, even though we'll be doing just that in New York.
RUMSFELD: The other good thing about saying that it was a passenger jet is that that way, we have to invent a few hundred fictional victims and account for a nonexistent missing crew and plane. It's always better when you leave more cover story to invent, more legwork to do and more possible holes to investigate. Doubt, legwork and possible exposure -- you can't pull off any good conspiracy without them.

posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 09:22 AM
I wish the people who wasted their time at CIT on this would use their brains for something important. you know...cancer, better fuels, things that are actually good for us.
What are they proving here? nothing. they're just saying "hey look see! there is a conspiracy!!! look look!!!" but really..there isnt one. all i see is a time lapse video of a building on fire, and drawings of planes on a map with arrows and such.
Muslim extremists, cut the throats of pilots and stewardesses, hijacked 4 planes, and crashed them into 3 buildings. it isnt going to make the planes uncrash into the towers and pentagon. why waste all this valuable time?
And who is paying for all this independent research? i hope it isnt my tax money.
There is no conspiracy here people. I know it may feel like you need a better explanation of why this happened to us in the U.S., and that if Israel or this government was involved a lot more stuff happening in the world would be explainable, but there isnt one. We were open for a highly planned terrorist attack, and they accomplished it. No more than less.
I hold no one accountable for the attacks other than the terrorists and the people who support them. And I was in charge I'd be in prison for genocide because i would have nuked every person in the middle east. Especially all the women, children(future terrorists), and men cheering and laughing on camera when they found out about the towers and pentagon. remember them giving candy to the kids and having parties in the streets? i do. They'd all be dead.

posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 09:26 AM
reply to post by mahajohn

I like your style!

Although this is a a fantastic thread, there is just to much growling and snarling for my liking.

Star and flag to the OP the more people wake up to the fact that there is somethign not quite right about 911 the better IMO.

posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 09:35 AM

Originally posted by dariousg
The problem is the government and the courts. Many attempts have been made to bring this type of information about 911 to court. No one wants to touch it. No prosecutor wants to touch it. You see, people have had their lives destroyed over this and people have even died by mysterious 'suicide'.

Gotcha. So, the courts - all of them - are "in on it" too? Everyone you show the information to in the government is also "in on it" as well?

And the CT continues to inflate.

A rough sketch of all those "in on it":

  1. The VA State Police
  2. The local fire departments that responded
  3. The local police departments that responded
  4. The Pentagon employees who were among the first responders
  5. Everyone of CIT's witnesses - save one who all claim the plane hit the building
  6. All of the eyewitnesses who have been quoted as seeing the plane hit the building
  7. The FBI in it's entirety
  8. The "Military Industrial Complex"
  9. The entire C-130 crew on the scene roughly two minutes after the strike
  10. Every FAA radar operator for 100's of miles
  11. The G-Men who have covered up the FAA radar tapes
  12. The fraudulent "black box" from the plane itself
  13. Those responsible for faking the "black box"
  14. Those who have faked the FAA radar tapes
  15. Those who faked - and fooled loves on into thinking they were talking, live, to their own loved ones - cell phone calls
  16. Those who have altered/doctored/fakes the cell phone recordings/data/records of calls
  17. Those who killed the passengers and crew
  18. those who presumably transported the dead bodies to the site of the "attack"
  19. Those who placed the bodies
  20. Every single witness who would have seen cadavers being brought into the building and placed after the fact (before?) and have said......nothing
  21. The office workers physically in the building who did not notice their desks being wired with explosives before the event
  22. The G-men who placed aircraft parts in the building and on the lawn
  23. Every employee at the airport where the "attack plane" landed after the fact
  24. All support personnel for the missile or Global Hawk hat was actually flown into the building
  25. The pilots of the Global Hawk -or- the programmers that programmed the cruise missile’s flight path
  26. Those that placed thousands of gallons of Jet A before hand, in the building
  27. All those employees who noticed a couple of thousand-gallon tanks of jet fuel sitting around and said nothing -, before or after
  28. Every FBI agent who was on the scene and has never reported a single thing to back up a grand conspiracy
  29. Every USA Today employee that witnessed the plane impact the building
  30. Every court in America
  31. Every member of government
  32. The Vice President
  33. The President
  34. The VP's entire support staff
  35. The President's entire support staff
  36. the Secretary of State
  37. The Secretary of Defense
  38. The entire SOS's staff
  39. The Entire SOD's support staff
  40. The Joint Chiefs of Staff
  41. The entire JCoS's staff officers
  42. The Secret Service
  43. The Secret Service's uniformed corps
  44. Every reporter who reported on the incident
  45. The Entire Staff of Popular Mechanics
  46. The ticketing agents who checked the entire passenger list into the flight
  47. The gate agents who checked each passenger a the gate, physically boarding the plane
  48. The baggage handlers
  49. Those that presumably moved the (now executed) passengers personal effects and "staged" those effects at the Pentagon
  50. Those who took pictures of what is clearly aircraft parts from the correct airline and aircraft are either "in on it" or were fooled while actually there, while the superior skills of internet sleuths years later have uncovered yet more 'smoking gun evidence'

This doesn’t even scratch the surface of all those who would have to be ‘in on it’. This is plausible to you?

[edit on 19-9-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]

posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 09:36 AM
reply to post by johndoex

I see you spent most of an entire long post attacking me and not addressing the topic of the thread and the FACT that you just produced a cartoon video full of deception and manipulative math.

Most of the trash you've written is designed to build your massive ego. You obviously need it due to the numerous mental issues exhibited in your postings.

Yet, you continue to obsess about why I and others like me wish to remain anonymous. It ought to be pretty obvious to everyone who reads the crap you write.

posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 09:37 AM
Please answer these questions that are directly related to evidence. Once you (the royal you) can provide a plausible narrative to negate these questions, only then is it reasonable to entertain notions of a fly over.

Hint: conspiracies, layered upon yet more conspiracies is not a cohesive narrative. It's unfounded speculation.

(1)What happened to flight 77?
If flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon, then where is it? Where is the plane – physically? Who disposed of the aircraft? Where was it disposed? How? We are talking about 110 tons of aircraft, engines, fuel, seats, trays, avionics, luggage, etc. Where are the eyewitnesses that saw the plane physically fly over the Pentagon? Where did it land after the fly over? Were the FAA radar operators “in on it” too? Where are the airport employees who saw the 110 ton airliner land, at the undisclosed location? Were they “in on it” too, or were they killed? If so, who killed them?

(2)What happened to the passengers and crew?
Where are the passengers? Were they all “in on it”? If not, who disposed of the passengers? Where were the disposed of? How have the disposers been keep quiet? Have the disposers been killed too? How have the disposers of the disposers been kept quiet? Where were the bodies taken/buried? How was this accomplished?

(3)How do you explain the phone calls from loved ones physically on the plane, to other loved ones?
Where the calls faked? From where? How were family members duped into thinking they were talking to their wife (for example) when in you’re claiming they were talking to a computer program? How do you reconcile that some of the phone calls went through cell phone towers very close to the so-called “official” flight path? How do you reconcile that some of the calls originated from the Airphones physically on the plane in question?

(4)How do you explain the wreckage found in the building?
If it was planted, how was it planted? Who planted it? When did they plant it? Where did they get spare aircraft parts? Where were these spare aircraft parts stored? How were they transported to the scene without anyone noticing? Were the parts in question placed beforehand? If so, how? How was this accomplished without anyone noticing?

(5)How do you account for the wreckage found on the lawn?
Were the parts found in the lawn placed beforehand ? If so, where are the witnesses talking about aircraft wreckage laying around on the lawn beforehand? Or, are “they” “in on it” too? Was the wreckage on the lawn placed after the event? If so, how were “they” able to accomplish this without anyone noticing? Or are the potential witnesses, after the event “in on it” too?

(6)How do you reconcile the impact location, as it relates to the evidence?
How were the perpetrators able to judge the exact location of impact, before the event? That is, how do you reconcile that the airplane debris in question is exactly where it should be?

(7)How do you reconcile the bodies of the passengers and crew being positively identified through DNA evidence collected from within the Pentagon?
Is the DNA evidence faked? If so, by whom? Is the lab that conducted the tests and certified it’s authenticity “in on it” too?

(8)How do you reconcile personal effects, positively identified by family members as belonging to their next of kin, found within the Pentagon?
Was this evidence placed beforehand? If so, by whom? If it was placed after the event why did nobody notice? Or, are the first responders (Pentagon employees) “in on it” too? How were personal effects taken from the victims (like a drivers license) without their knowledge beforehand and planted?

(9)How do you reconcile the bodies of passengers found within the Pentagon, some still strapped into their seats?
Were the bodies placed beforehand? If so, how do you explain the bodies in question checking in at the counter at the originating airport? Were the ticketing agents “in on it” too? If the pilots were killed beforehand and then placed in the Pentagon (at some point), who flew the plane? If the bodies were placed after the event, how were the correct passengers and crew killed, then placed in the Pentagon without anyone knowing? Are the first responders, who found the first bodies, “in on it” too? Can you offer a time line that reconciles the correct passengers/crew checking in at the airport, being led off and executed and then their bodies being transported to the crash site?

(10)How do you explain the impact zone damage being completely in-line with a fast moving commercial airliner?
Was it a controlled demolition? If so, where are the blasting caps? Wiring? How was the area wired without anyone noticing? How long would this take? How would the employees who were killed at their desks not notice demolition experts wiring their office with demolitions and not complain, notice, or ask questions? Or, were the employees killed at their desk “in on it” too? If there were no employees at their desks, were the bodies planted before the event? If so, how? By whom? How have the planters been kept quiet? Were the planters killed too? By whom? Were the bodies planted after the event? If so, by whom? Where are the eyewitness reports of dead employees being brought in, after the fact? Or, were/are these potential witnesses “in on it” too?

posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 09:37 AM

reply to post by Alienmojo

I'm just your average joe who doesn't believe anything until he see's it. So far neither side has convinced me... and until the government releases the CITGO footage I won't believe anyone.

It was "coincidentally" released in 2006, 10 days after we announced our first contact with CITGO station employee Robert Turcios who saw the plane on the north side of the station PULLING UP proving it did not hit the building.

The problem is that they removed all views of the Pentagon and the plane!

So the evidence has been manipulated and we have proof from the manager of the station direct!

So frankly, no video released by the suspect now is proof of anything. It's too late and they have been busted manipulating evidence already setting a precedent.

But of course the fact that so many videos were confiscated and sequestered for so long most certainly does implicate a cover-up.

I wonder, has anyone spoken to employees of that gas station who might have seen something? Either way, the government lost lots of it trustworthiness when it took that tape and surpressed it. Now we can never fully know what happened or trust our government to explain it to us.

If the government is innocent it was really stupid of them to keep that tape.


We sure have and it broke the case wide open.

Please view The PentaCon Smoking Gun Version where we provide on location interviews with all known witnesses at the station.

They all saw the same thing.

They had never talked to each other before.

The plane was on the north side.

This means it did not and COULD NOT be what caused the physical damage starting with the downed light poles.

Great questions!

However let's try to keep this thread about the impossible final descent in the official flight path.

There are plenty of threads about the CITGO witnesses and the north side approach.

[edit on 19-9-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]

posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 09:42 AM
reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar

You are off topic.

Explain how at 535 mph the plane got from here:

To here:

If you can't you are forced to admit that the NTSB data is fraudulent and the official story is false.

Oh and that Ryan Mackey is a liar.

posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 09:49 AM

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt

Originally posted by johndoex

Reheat, remember when you said others will figure out why you remain anonymous if i keep posting...?

Yeah, we all know why you remain anonymous ReTreat.

Have a great day!


I think Reheat is talking about this Rob:

“Mark Roberts deserves to die a traitors [sic] death for trying to suppress 9/11 families from seeking the Truth.”–"Pilots for Truth" founder, and ex-commercial pilot, Robert Balsamo

...And a few months later:

"Mark Roberts does deserve to die a traitors death....

I will not apologize for it this time. I will be there for his death should America fall into Civil War. That is not a threat. .that is a promise.
If he gets in my way of defending our Constitution.. it will be my pleasure to put a bullet in his head to defend our Constitution from enemies foreign or domestic." –"Pilots for Truth" founder Robert Balsamo, panicking after I challenged him to a debate. (Punctuation left as is.)

Oh, but it was all taken out of context and it was just a joke. The same thing he's said about accusing me of being a sex predator and being alcoholic. He and some of the people around him are the closest one can become to being Internet stalkers. If I get an argument I'll give examples.

Oh, I'm not personally afraid of him or anyone else at all, but I do have some close family/relatives who lead prominent lives and I'll be damned if I will subject them to this kind of nonsense.

posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 10:16 AM
reply to post by jupiter1uk

Very good question and one that bothers me more than the flight path. I'm with you in that the official story that the wings folded back and proceeded into the building was absurd. If anything the wings would have accelerated as the nose hit the building slowing. But Popular mechanics said so, so don't question it. I also wonder how the nose of the 2nd plane made it all the way through the building (WTC). That was very strong carbon fiber/ fiberglass?

That day truly should have changed all the science we have learned. I have been to a plant where they make Titanium and they have all these really expensive furnaces to melt and shape it, this whole time they could have been using jet fuel, it makes it vaporize. Maybe jet fuel has some magical properties that we never knew about, it makes everything vaporize.

I still have a hard time believing .99 cent box cutters beat out 1 trillion dollar a year military budget. We spend double the rest of the entire world on being safe from the boogie man and we get taken out by .99 box cutters. If you thought you were going to die, would a 1/4" deep cut really put you at bay and accept your fate. I now carry a box cutter and not my smith and wesson, it seems people are terrified by the box cutter, even the little digger on your finger nail clipper is pretty deadly.

That reminds me of a funny story. I'm flying right after 9/11 and everything was crazy, I'm in Denver and a pilot is in front of me in security and he has finger nail clippers. The girl says I have to take these from you. He looks at her like she is retarded and says I'm the pilot, this bounces off her thick skull, and she says I still have to take these. This time, he says I fly the plane and if I wanted to crash it, I could do that weather I have the finger nail clippers or not! This had zero effect on her and she proceeded to break off the little digger and gave them back. I for one am glad HomeLand Defense is there.

posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 10:42 AM

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Put it this way....this is not a 1 dimensional problem that can be solved with an online calculator.

Actually IMHO it barely needs a calculator at all, let alone an online one.

I'm hardly going to sneak off to the nearest internet cafe some 20km from here just for this so all I need to know is the distance from the VDOT tower to the light poles. The altitude of the plane at the tower is somewhat up for grabs but I do have the plane's speed at ~238m/s to work with.

Your 34g figure implies the plane pulled out of the dive in a distance of ~18m (takes

posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 11:22 AM
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT

No, I am not off topic.

Simply put either:

  1. You agree the plane hit the building making the entire NOC issue really a moot point. That is, the plane wound up in the building, what difference does it make if it was SOC or NOC?
  2. Your contention is the plane did not hit the building in which case you need to address, obvious questions around all the evidence that does not support that notion.

The list of ten questions I pose barely scratch the surface of what your narrative would need to establish.

So, in conclusion, you either believe the plane hit the building, or you don't. Based off of a couple of years of posts, you clearly believe the plane did not hit the building. Since this is the case, my personal assertion is there are much larger questions than a NOC approach, or not.

Hence the ten questions:

(1)What happened to flight 77?
(2)What happened to the passengers and crew?
(3)How do you explain the phone calls from loved ones physically on the plane, to other loved ones?
(4)How do you explain the wreckage found in the building?
(5)How do you account for the wreckage found on the lawn?
(6)How do you reconcile the impact location, as it relates to the evidence?
(7)How do you reconcile the bodies of the passengers and crew being positively identified through DNA evidence collected from within the Pentagon?
(8)How do you reconcile personal effects, positively identified by family members as belonging to their next of kin, found within the Pentagon?
(9)How do you reconcile the bodies of passengers found within the Pentagon, some still strapped into their seats?
(10)How do you explain the impact zone damage being completely in-line with a fast moving commercial airliner?

[edit on 19-9-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]

posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 11:24 AM
Well done Craig, a star and flag for you, you have put alot of work into the thread. Its quite obvious that a plane never hit the Pentagon but a missile and fired fom where?

Its very convenient is it not that the part of the Pentagon that was hit was undergoing refurbishment therefore allowing the perps to plant everthing from bodies to explosive devices and parts of a plane.

The difficult part for people in regard to this matter is that they cannot simply believe that their own Goverment or those working behind it killed its own people simply to wage war for profit and power.

That begs the question what is their reply to all the other events in history where such events have occured and continue to do so.

posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 11:27 AM
Hay, Cap'n Bob

One of my friends send me this graphic and requested that I ask you explain the data points shown. Would you be so kind as it accommodate him? Thanks in advance.

Edit: I see the graphic is too wide for the display here, so I've posted a link to it:

[edit on 19-9-2008 by Reheat]

posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 11:32 AM
reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar

You better start demanding an answer to those questions from the government since the information in the OP of this thread proves they lied about 9/11 and obviously you, Reheat, Boone, or any of those anonymous pseudo-skeptics who use airplanes as avatars can't refute it!

It's a great list of questions though!

Let me know if you ever get any answers from them.

posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 11:34 AM

Originally posted by magicmushroom
Well done Craig, a star and flag for you, you have put alot of work into the thread. Its quite obvious that a plane never hit the Pentagon but a missile and fired fom where?

Hey thanks mm but we don't think any sort of missile or other plane was involved.

Everybody only saw one plane on the north side of the station so that one had to have flown over.

We think the damage was covertly implemented with pre-planted explosives similar to what happened at the WTC.

new topics

top topics

<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in