Flignht 587 Crash of Plane in 2001 over Long Island really Al-Qeada

page: 2
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 10:46 AM
link   
look, my problem is that official sources are treating us like mentally deficient toddlers, if it was sabotage (and ffs it WAS) then why not tell? there are MANY cases i could talk about for hours, three blatantly staged 'accidents' with civilian deaths ranging above 1100 total.

initial camera footage (where available) instantly refuted all claims made by media, the other two stories were riddled with outright BS and half truths, please explain to me how a towed (no engines no energy except a car battery) vehicle made out of fireproof material can burn for hours at above 2000 degrees C without some kind of fuel (thermite tbh) ? again sabotage, plain as daylight, a scientist they interviewed was quickly cut off as soon as he proclaimed that some kind of liquid or gaseous fuel must have been present (provided the fire broke out in one spot only - my comment) i wonder why they showed the tape at all.


PS: for the record, this has been going on on an intermittent but regular basis since 1995, probably earlier than that, i was probably just too young & dumb to notice.




posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
this is the plane that went down shortly after 9/11 correct ? I just thought it interesting that;

9/11. official story = AQ did it. ergo, around here, the CIA did it
flight 587. official story = accident. ergo, around here, it was AQ


so is AQ legit or not ?


AQ is a universal scapegoat and blanket excuse for government to do whatever the hell it wants.
i don't think it was AQ that brought this plane down. i think it was the shadow government. the same as it was the shadow government that pulled off 911, using/blaming AQ.
the reason they SAID this second one is an accident is speculation built on speculation.
here's a potential scenario.
they needed to take out a person or group of people who were on that plane. perhaps some whistleblower or group was threatening to squeal.
they couldn't blame AQ, because of the attention that would be focused on the plane and the mechanics of the crash, which would in turn, point to foul play.
maybe it was a real terrorist shoe bomber, and the sheer EMBARASSMENT factor caused them to cover-up the truth(they never expected a real, bonafide, terrorist).
i think whatever happened, it was no natural accident.
there is a pattern in plane crashes. they seem to happen in uncommonly high occurence on certain dates. this says, "illuminati" to me.



[edit on 12-10-2005 by billybob]



posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 01:01 PM
link   
so did AQ pull off 9/11 and 587, or just 587 ?

It seems like arond here, the POV taken on them is whatever is kewl or contrary to the establisment.

I'm just looking for a little consistency, thats all



posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
so did AQ pull off 9/11 and 587, or just 587 ?

It seems like arond here, the POV taken on them is whatever is kewl or contrary to the establisment.

I'm just looking for a little consistency, thats all


if you want something good to start with, go to www.spitfirelist.com.
particularly enlightening are #522 and #525.



posted on Oct, 13 2005 @ 12:01 PM
link   


...
here's a potential scenario.
they needed to take out a person or group of people who were on that plane. perhaps some whistleblower or group was threatening to squeal.
they couldn't blame AQ, because of the attention that would be focused on the plane and the mechanics of the crash, which would in turn, point to foul play.
maybe it was a real terrorist shoe bomber, and the sheer EMBARASSMENT factor caused them to cover-up the truth(they never expected a real, bonafide, terrorist).
i think whatever happened, it was no natural accident.
there is a pattern in plane crashes. they seem to happen in uncommonly high occurence on certain dates. this says, "illuminati" to me.



[edit on 12-10-2005 by billybob]



you bet!

i used the one step at a given time approach here, considering how long it's been, basically to let you warm up
anyway, i used the arson analogy - fires in three different spots...

sorry to break it to you, but this kind of damage can't be inflicted by a shoe bomber unless he's part of a team of at least 3 (tail + both engines) with 2 of them hugging the engines. these devices were most likely planted during maintainance works, an aspect of aviation security constantly overlooked, along with airport perimeter security.

passenges have to endure groping, waiting and many other kinds of silliness while the backdoors are still wide open, which can, imho, safely be considered as indicative of the establishment's true feelings wrt terror, namely that it's a fine excuse to do all sort of cool feudal-era-style stuff with the 'peons' (=us).

PS: look for cutting charges, if you see them used it's the NWO 'at work'

[edit on 13-10-2005 by Long Lance]



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 08:15 PM
link   
9/11 & 11/12

This IS the biggest plane crash in USA since 1980!

Amazing over a decade later, total media blackout of this Nov 12, 2001 (2 mos after 9/11) explosion/crash with NO survivors, placing of blame on 'pilot error' and blocking any further investigation as to alternate/real cause.

No justice, no peace!



Twas TPTB's *plan* to immediately announce this worst plane crash in USA since 1980 on IRAN but Israel & Al-CIAda were already being exposed as the israeli mossads masquerading as muslims:

blockyourid.com...



  exclusive video


new topics
top topics
 
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join