View Active Topics          View Your Posts          Latest 100 Topics          Switch to Mobile

Why do many cling to a theory from a pathological liar?

Discuss Conspiracies and Cover Ups - e.g. 9/11 Truth, JFK Assassination, New World Order, Roswell, Moon Hoax, Secret Societies, etc. whatever conspiracy floats your boat.

Why do many cling to a theory from a pathological liar?

Postby Scepcop » 20 Mar 2010, 09:48

For some reason, when presented with the overwhelming evidence against the official 9/11 conspiracy theory, many react with ridicule and denial rather than objectivity and rationality. People seem to have some weird psychological block that prevents them from applying reason to the subject.

Oddly, they religiously cling to George Bush's conspiracy theory of 9/11 with unquestioning faith despite the fact that Bush is a proven pathological liar who has pretty much lied even about everything, even the smallest things (e.g. claiming to see the first plane hit the first tower on TV on 9/11 when that footage wasn't aired til 9/12). People seem to have some deep psychological need to believe the official story. It's very odd and irrational. They religiously cling to the words of a known pathological liar in the face of overwhelming evidence, data, testimonials, and scientific facts.

I'm glad to be free of such madness. Are you?

Anyhow, since the 9/11 subject is huge and contains too many details to individually share with everyone, I suggest sharing these two films below. (For convenience sake, you can also print out this post and hand it to people in person)

With the conspiracy movements growing like wildfire, there are now hundreds of films about 9/11 and the New World Order. I've seen almost all of them and there are two that I would recommend the most. They are guaranteed to change your mind about 9/11, IF you view them with an objective and unbiased mind. After viewing them, you will never think that the 9/11 Truth Movement are a group of "crackpots" ever again. I promise you that.

The first is an incredible film by the European Parliament called "Zero: An Investigation into 9/11". This film is a masterpiece of historical reconstruction. It features Nobel Prize Winners and experts from various fields who explain with many compelling arguments why the official story of 9/11 is impossible and makes no sense. Everyone who has seen it with a thinking mind has been convinced that we were not told the truth about 9/11 by the US government.

The film has an ebb and flow that makes you feel every point. Many valid arguments and logical points are presented that make so much sense, some of which are irrefutable. It's a MUST SEE for any truth seeker. Many comments on YouTube and Google Video have said that the film has left them "without a doubt" that we were been lied to about 9/11.

Here is the link to watch it on Google Video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 8603788739

Or on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3kBn1usddI

The second one is "9/11 Blueprint for Truth" by Richard Gage, founder of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth - AE911Truth.org. It is the most professional, organized, and utterly convincing presentation about the WTC collapse on 9/11 out there. In it Mr. Gage uses the SCIENTIFIC METHOD and easy to follow flowcharts to explain step by step why ALL ten key features of the World Trade Center collapse and Building 7 fit that of a controlled demolition and NONE of them fit the fire induced collapse explanation of the official 9/11 story.

With the official fire/jet impact theory being ZERO for ten in explaining the ten characteristics of the collapse of the three towers, the official theory is conclusively debunked. And with all ten features fitting the controlled demolition hypothesis, it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Thus the scientific method points to controlled demolition of the WTC and Building 7 as the ONLY possible hypothesis that fits ALL the data, whereas the government's explanation of fire on the top floors of the WTC pulverizing 80,000 tons of steel and concrete below it to dust at near free fall speed does not even have a one in a million chance of occuring, rendering it an absolute zero probability.

It's "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" as Mr. Gage put it. The presentation is a rock solid case, and has already convinced over a thousand professional Architects and Engineers, who have now endorsed it by signing the petition at AE911Truth.org, putting their full names behind it. It has also been endorsed by various media around the world.

Here is the link to watch the film on Google Video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 6903609314

Or on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b74naeawdCs

If you agree with these films that a new independent investigation of 9/11 must be launched, then sign the petition on this page: http://www.ae911truth.org/signpetition.php

If you agree, then spread the word by forwarding these links to everyone you know as well, to help do your part.

In addition, look at how many credible people now challenge the official story of 9/11. With this many intelligent credible experts, common sense and logic will tell you that there's gotta be something to it. See this voluminous list of experts and statements here:

http://www.patriotsquestion911.com

PS - If you have the time and interest, go to Google Video at this link http://video.google.com and see these other great 9/11 films by entering them in the Google Video search box:

- 9/11 Revisited: Were explosives used?
- National Security Alert
- 9/11 Mysteries
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3258
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: Why do many cling to a theory from a pathological liar?

Postby Nostradamus » 20 Mar 2010, 09:59

A few people prefer to listen to pathological liars such as Richard Gage.
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Re: Why do many cling to a theory from a pathological liar?

Postby ProfWag » 20 Mar 2010, 19:35

As Ricky Ricardo on "I Love Lucy" used to say: "Ohhhhhh, it's just so ridiculous!"
This thread appears to be started as a plea for support on an idea that is going downhill at a very rapid pace. Nothing new from these conspiracy theorists in years and all of their ideas have all been shown to be poor attempts at getting the public against the American government. Totally distasteful, especially to the front-line victims of this tragedy.
I'm all for the truth from the events of 9/11, and I do feel strongly that the government knows more than we do about that day and would like for them to release as much information as they can. However, to say the buildings were blown up, that a plane didn't crash into the Pentagon, that they knew what day and where they were coming and we let them do it, or that a plane didn't actually crash in Pennsylvania are all theories that are just plain bullcrap of the lowest form.
It appears to me that Gage, Griffin, Jones, Scepcop, etc. are the ones that are not looking at this situation with an open mind. They are convinced that the American Government are a bunch of slime-bags and will tell any story to get anyone they can on their side. I don't disagree totally that there are a bunch of slime-bags running my country, but to think these attacks were anything but jihad terrorists is just wrong.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3846
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Why do many cling to a theory from a pathological liar?

Postby Craig Browning » 20 Mar 2010, 22:19

Sorry Scepcop, I have to go with the majority and it's not because I believe with W said but rather, what the facts have proven as well as what my own experience and knowledge supports.

You might want to consider the fact that one side of this theory of yours actually supports Al Queda and the other terrorist groups that loathe the U.S. and more specifically JEWS... according to them 9/11 was an Israeli-U.S. joint venture because there were no Jews in the buildings on the day of the attack... not according to the incident list and all the victims/missing known, but as the result of supposition and the "need" to point fingers away from their own involvement and towards a much bigger "monster".

Many people hate the U.S. and view us as some kind of massive, evil empire. There is some genuine reason for this fear and disgust, most of which stems from the abuse of these people at home and abroad, by major corporations as well as the attitudes we, the people, project when visiting those other lands or simply in our inner-action with one another right here, at home! But the some of the biggest would-be foes of the U.S. are young adults 15-35 years of age who've never gone without, nor traveled outside the U.S. area of influence... I word it that way on purpose in that we tend to be carefully herded when we travel, preventing us from being exposed to those things "they" don't want us to witness... it's subtle but effective. :twisted:

The point is, members of this element are easily manipulated by individuals offering a "theory" that kicks the giant in the shins. The majority of such manipulators being 35-55 years of age and rather unfulfilled when it comes to their lives (think Unibomber or David Koresh) and thus, they have a "need" to be superior -- an "authority" of some kind. Especially when that sense of authority seemingly degrades the thing they detest or blame (more accurately), in this case, the U.S. Government.

I'm not unfeeling when it comes to your personal attraction to this route of thinking; I'm confident there's much more to it all than we'll ever be told. BUT, I'm more than confident in the fact that it was not the sort of "conspiracy" scenario you have been sold on; as I've stated before, the science does not sustain what this man claims let alone the logistics of pulling such a project off; something would have raised suspicion way before incident, there's absolutely no getting around that truth.

I hope you can bring yourself to actually do some footwork (study) well away from what this clown is encouraging and get some facts for yourself rather than what you're being told to believe. Study the science of demolition if you really want to get a grasp on how HUGE a project it would be and why it would be impossible to pull things off as suggested, without being found out.

Sorry. ;)
User avatar
Craig Browning
 
Posts: 1526
Joined: 13 Feb 2010, 05:20
Location: Northampton, MA

Re: Why do many cling to a theory from a pathological liar?

Postby infinite1 » 28 Jun 2010, 03:44

I would like to call attention to one more video about 9/11 that is a must see. It is not as scientific or professional as Blueprint for Truth and the host is a little strange and does interject some of his own theories. However, it is the only video I've come across to date that shows what really happened at the Pentagon and that is the main reason why I recommend seeing it. It's called "9/11 In Plane Site - The Director's Cut." After my friends ridiculed me for what I had to say about 9/11 - that the official story was a lie, they watched the DVD of this movie that I gave to them, not believing it would convince them of anything. And while they still refuse to believe that the official story is a lie, all 4 of them said they had no explanation in opposition to the evidence the video presented regarding the Pentagon. You must see this video to understand what I am saying, but in short it shows it is impossible for a plane as large as a 757 or 767 to have hit the Pentagon, if in fact it was a plane in the first place. And they show the live news video that was taken after the hit but *before* the outer wall collapsed. The news media has never replayed this footage and you will be hard pressed to find it anywhere else. But in this video you will see only a tiny hole in the wall after the hit - way too small for a plane of the size that was claimed, and then you will watch after a significant period of time goes by, the outer wall collapse. You will also see there was no wreckage of a plane that size found anywhere at the site.
infinite1
 
Posts: 13
Joined: 28 Jun 2010, 02:56

Re: Why do many cling to a theory from a pathological liar?

Postby ProfWag » 30 Jun 2010, 02:13

infinite1 wrote:I would like to call attention to one more video about 9/11 that is a must see. It is not as scientific or professional as Blueprint for Truth and the host is a little strange and does interject some of his own theories. However, it is the only video I've come across to date that shows what really happened at the Pentagon and that is the main reason why I recommend seeing it. It's called "9/11 In Plane Site - The Director's Cut." After my friends ridiculed me for what I had to say about 9/11 - that the official story was a lie, they watched the DVD of this movie that I gave to them, not believing it would convince them of anything. And while they still refuse to believe that the official story is a lie, all 4 of them said they had no explanation in opposition to the evidence the video presented regarding the Pentagon. You must see this video to understand what I am saying, but in short it shows it is impossible for a plane as large as a 757 or 767 to have hit the Pentagon, if in fact it was a plane in the first place. And they show the live news video that was taken after the hit but *before* the outer wall collapsed. The news media has never replayed this footage and you will be hard pressed to find it anywhere else. But in this video you will see only a tiny hole in the wall after the hit - way too small for a plane of the size that was claimed, and then you will watch after a significant period of time goes by, the outer wall collapse. You will also see there was no wreckage of a plane that size found anywhere at the site.

"I guess it is painfully clear that I am a film director, not a private investigator."
-- William Lewis, director, "In Plane Sight," July 17, 2004, admitting one of the many mistakes after threatening to sue oilempire.us for pointing out some flaws
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3846
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Why do many cling to a theory from a pathological liar?

Postby Edx » 06 Jul 2010, 08:10

As you have been told many times before Wu, I for one dont believe the "official story" because George Bush said it was true and I don't know anyone else that does either.

I believe it because that is what the evidence shows and, ironically when considering this topic, because I find truthers to be pathological liars, incompetent and ignorant. But you still trust these people that can be proven to have lied over and over again or be shown to be so incompetent that its impossible to tell the difference. I find it really interesting that truthers say they are interested in "truth" and fling accusations of "lies" around all the time and yet don't seem to have any accountability for when their own "experts" do it or when they themselves can be proven to have been promoting lies. It seems to me that the "Truth Movement" use these words the same way fundamentalist Christians do such as when they will call evolution a "lie" and their beliefs the "truth".
Edx
 
Posts: 128
Joined: 03 Jul 2010, 03:21

Re: Why do many cling to a theory from a pathological liar?

Postby infinite1 » 06 Jul 2010, 12:03

ProfWag wrote:
infinite1 wrote:I would like to call attention to one more video about 9/11 that is a must see. It is not as scientific or professional as Blueprint for Truth and the host is a little strange and does interject some of his own theories. However, it is the only video I've come across to date that shows what really happened at the Pentagon and that is the main reason why I recommend seeing it. It's called "9/11 In Plane Site - The Director's Cut." After my friends ridiculed me for what I had to say about 9/11 - that the official story was a lie, they watched the DVD of this movie that I gave to them, not believing it would convince them of anything. And while they still refuse to believe that the official story is a lie, all 4 of them said they had no explanation in opposition to the evidence the video presented regarding the Pentagon. You must see this video to understand what I am saying, but in short it shows it is impossible for a plane as large as a 757 or 767 to have hit the Pentagon, if in fact it was a plane in the first place. And they show the live news video that was taken after the hit but *before* the outer wall collapsed. The news media has never replayed this footage and you will be hard pressed to find it anywhere else. But in this video you will see only a tiny hole in the wall after the hit - way too small for a plane of the size that was claimed, and then you will watch after a significant period of time goes by, the outer wall collapse. You will also see there was no wreckage of a plane that size found anywhere at the site.

"I guess it is painfully clear that I am a film director, not a private investigator."
-- William Lewis, director, "In Plane Sight," July 17, 2004, admitting one of the many mistakes after threatening to sue oilempire.us for pointing out some flaws


Profwag, I don't fully understand your response. Can you please elaborate? I gather you claim to have found a quote from the director of "In Plane Site" admitting some kind of "mistakes" in the film? I was talking specifically about the Pentagon scene. How could that be a mistake from the creators of In Plane Site? It was just a replay of live news footage.
infinite1
 
Posts: 13
Joined: 28 Jun 2010, 02:56

Re: Why do many cling to a theory from a pathological liar?

Postby ProfWag » 06 Jul 2010, 20:09

I usually like to look at the source when it comes to youtube videos (and other situations as well) so I looked up this movie to see if I could find if it was made by people who knew what they were talking about. The director had tried to sue a guy for pointing out all the inaccuracies in the movie. The defendent was able to show in court that the errors in the movie were indeed inaccurate and the director then made the statement that essentially said he didn't research or investiage the material in his film very thoroughly. As such, can the movie be taken seriously? I don't think so.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3846
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Why do many cling to a theory from a pathological liar?

Postby Edx » 06 Jul 2010, 21:20

In Plane Site is so wrong even other major truthers call it not just wrong but "disinfo" and "hoax promoting".


"In Plane Site"

a film pretending to expose 9/11 that is mostly disinformation (mixed with plagiarism)

a Karl Rove style dirty trick that takes a real conclusion (9/11 was an inside job) and uses phony evidence (pods, dust clouds, flashes, no planes, no windows and other hoaxes)

http://911review.com/disinfo/videos.html#ips

In Plane Site, released a few months before the 2004 Presidential Election, is a compilation of most of the hoaxes infesting the 9/11 truth movement. Nearly every piece of "evidence" in it is wrong, even if the conclusion ("inside job") is correct. "Plane Site" includes misinterpreted evidence, logical leaps unsupported by evidence, and some footage that is almost certainly fraudulent.

http://www.oilempire.us/inplanesite.html

The “Plane Pod” theory appeared out of nowhere in 2004 and was widely promoted in the professionally produced “9/11: In Plane Site.” This film covers almost none of the concrete evidence for government complicity and instead makes up new “evidence” out thin air or blurry video footage. The main thesis of the film is that there were “pods” on the undersides of the planes which fired “missiles” at the buildings before impact. This is conceivably possible, but the evidence presented is simply blurry images of “flashes” as the planes enter the buildings, making this a ludicrous, damaging claim—probably a case of deliberate propaganda by someone involved in the production or promotion of this movie.


http://www.truthmove.org/content/disinformation/
Edx
 
Posts: 128
Joined: 03 Jul 2010, 03:21

Re: Why do many cling to a theory from a pathological liar?

Postby infinite1 » 07 Jul 2010, 11:50

ProfWag wrote:I usually like to look at the source when it comes to youtube videos (and other situations as well) so I looked up this movie to see if I could find if it was made by people who knew what they were talking about. The director had tried to sue a guy for pointing out all the inaccuracies in the movie. The defendent was able to show in court that the errors in the movie were indeed inaccurate and the director then made the statement that essentially said he didn't research or investiage the material in his film very thoroughly. As such, can the movie be taken seriously? I don't think so.


ProfWag, so is it your position that the footage of the Pentagon wall collapsing was not actual news footage and was somehow faked? I understand your desire to get the footage straight from the source. The problem is, the news media only aired this once and it's not included on DVD's of news footage from that day such as one that CNN released. So I think the only way we are going to see this footage outside of "In Plane Site" would be if someone happened to have recorded it on the day it aired and made it available for our review. However, I think what you are suggesting is a bit of a leap - that the footage was faked. I will have to pop the video in again to double check but I seem to remember the news logo of the station being visible on screen, a well-known news reporter with his distinctive voice describing it as it happened, etc. Furthermore, I find it extremely suspicious that for building that is equiped with such an incredible amount of video surveillance, that no clear video was ever released showing a plane hitting the building. The footage that was released looks like crappy web cam quality and it cannot be determined what is hitting the Pentagon - it's such poor quality. Why no other angles of the impact? I think the official video is the one that raises far more questions regarding authenticity.

I am in no means trying to provoke an arguement here. If that is what you believe it's ok with me that we disagree. I'm just curious how you can be so convinced that the footage I am speaking of has been faked. I've watched it dozens of times and although I am not a video expert, I have never seen anything suspicious of tampering in the footage. I can't say the same for the "official" impact footage.
infinite1
 
Posts: 13
Joined: 28 Jun 2010, 02:56

Re: Why do many cling to a theory from a pathological liar?

Postby infinite1 » 07 Jul 2010, 11:59

Edx wrote:In Plane Site is so wrong even other major truthers call it not just wrong but "disinfo" and "hoax promoting".


"In Plane Site"

a film pretending to expose 9/11 that is mostly disinformation (mixed with plagiarism)

a Karl Rove style dirty trick that takes a real conclusion (9/11 was an inside job) and uses phony evidence (pods, dust clouds, flashes, no planes, no windows and other hoaxes)

http://911review.com/disinfo/videos.html#ips

In Plane Site, released a few months before the 2004 Presidential Election, is a compilation of most of the hoaxes infesting the 9/11 truth movement. Nearly every piece of "evidence" in it is wrong, even if the conclusion ("inside job") is correct. "Plane Site" includes misinterpreted evidence, logical leaps unsupported by evidence, and some footage that is almost certainly fraudulent.

http://www.oilempire.us/inplanesite.html

The “Plane Pod” theory appeared out of nowhere in 2004 and was widely promoted in the professionally produced “9/11: In Plane Site.” This film covers almost none of the concrete evidence for government complicity and instead makes up new “evidence” out thin air or blurry video footage. The main thesis of the film is that there were “pods” on the undersides of the planes which fired “missiles” at the buildings before impact. This is conceivably possible, but the evidence presented is simply blurry images of “flashes” as the planes enter the buildings, making this a ludicrous, damaging claim—probably a case of deliberate propaganda by someone involved in the production or promotion of this movie.


http://www.truthmove.org/content/disinformation/


Edx,
Nothing you have quoted here addresses the Pentagon footage i am speaking of. I acknowledge that the rest of the video may lean too much towards theory. But the Pentagon footage is what it is and that is the only reason why I recommend the DVD - for that one single part.
infinite1
 
Posts: 13
Joined: 28 Jun 2010, 02:56

Re: Why do many cling to a theory from a pathological liar?

Postby ProfWag » 07 Jul 2010, 17:25

infinite1 wrote:
ProfWag wrote:I usually like to look at the source when it comes to youtube videos (and other situations as well) so I looked up this movie to see if I could find if it was made by people who knew what they were talking about. The director had tried to sue a guy for pointing out all the inaccuracies in the movie. The defendent was able to show in court that the errors in the movie were indeed inaccurate and the director then made the statement that essentially said he didn't research or investiage the material in his film very thoroughly. As such, can the movie be taken seriously? I don't think so.


ProfWag, so is it your position that the footage of the Pentagon wall collapsing was not actual news footage and was somehow faked? I understand your desire to get the footage straight from the source. The problem is, the news media only aired this once and it's not included on DVD's of news footage from that day such as one that CNN released. So I think the only way we are going to see this footage outside of "In Plane Site" would be if someone happened to have recorded it on the day it aired and made it available for our review. However, I think what you are suggesting is a bit of a leap - that the footage was faked. I will have to pop the video in again to double check but I seem to remember the news logo of the station being visible on screen, a well-known news reporter with his distinctive voice describing it as it happened, etc. Furthermore, I find it extremely suspicious that for building that is equiped with such an incredible amount of video surveillance, that no clear video was ever released showing a plane hitting the building. The footage that was released looks like crappy web cam quality and it cannot be determined what is hitting the Pentagon - it's such poor quality. Why no other angles of the impact? I think the official video is the one that raises far more questions regarding authenticity.

I am in no means trying to provoke an arguement here. If that is what you believe it's ok with me that we disagree. I'm just curious how you can be so convinced that the footage I am speaking of has been faked. I've watched it dozens of times and although I am not a video expert, I have never seen anything suspicious of tampering in the footage. I can't say the same for the "official" impact footage.

I'm not saying anything was faked. Let's get back to basics. What part of the video makes you question that it was not a 757 that hit the Pentagon? If you're questioning the size of the hole in the wall of the Pentagon, then how much larger (or smaller) should the hole have been? As for the cameras around the building, that has already been discussed elsewhere in this forum, but I can go back and find it if you need me too.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3846
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Why do many cling to a theory from a pathological liar?

Postby really? » 07 Jul 2010, 21:32

Anyone want to chip in some money for a silver platter for poor ol' Winston's head? I think he's gonna need one.
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

Re: Why do many cling to a theory from a pathological liar?

Postby Edx » 07 Jul 2010, 21:45

infinite1 wrote:
Edx wrote:In Plane Site is so wrong even other major truthers call it not just wrong but "disinfo" and "hoax promoting".


"In Plane Site"

a film pretending to expose 9/11 that is mostly disinformation (mixed with plagiarism)

a Karl Rove style dirty trick that takes a real conclusion (9/11 was an inside job) and uses phony evidence (pods, dust clouds, flashes, no planes, no windows and other hoaxes)

http://911review.com/disinfo/videos.html#ips

In Plane Site, released a few months before the 2004 Presidential Election, is a compilation of most of the hoaxes infesting the 9/11 truth movement. Nearly every piece of "evidence" in it is wrong, even if the conclusion ("inside job") is correct. "Plane Site" includes misinterpreted evidence, logical leaps unsupported by evidence, and some footage that is almost certainly fraudulent.

http://www.oilempire.us/inplanesite.html

The “Plane Pod” theory appeared out of nowhere in 2004 and was widely promoted in the professionally produced “9/11: In Plane Site.” This film covers almost none of the concrete evidence for government complicity and instead makes up new “evidence” out thin air or blurry video footage. The main thesis of the film is that there were “pods” on the undersides of the planes which fired “missiles” at the buildings before impact. This is conceivably possible, but the evidence presented is simply blurry images of “flashes” as the planes enter the buildings, making this a ludicrous, damaging claim—probably a case of deliberate propaganda by someone involved in the production or promotion of this movie.


http://www.truthmove.org/content/disinformation/


Edx,
Nothing you have quoted here addresses the Pentagon footage i am speaking of. I acknowledge that the rest of the video may lean too much towards theory. But the Pentagon footage is what it is and that is the only reason why I recommend the DVD - for that one single part.


Ok well lets see what you said (and I tell you what, I'll only post links to other truthers proving it wrong again)

But in this video you will see only a tiny hole in the wall after the hit - way too small for a plane of the size that was claimed,


Wrong.

Oil Empire:
Pentagon Hole
http://www.oilempire.us/pentagon-hole.html

Oil Empire:
Pentagon Crash Photos
http://www.oilempire.us/pentagon-photos.html

Jim Hoffman's 911 Research:
ERROR: 'The Pentagon Attack Left Only a Small Impact Hole'
http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/smallhole.html

You will also see there was no wreckage of a plane that size found anywhere at the site.


Wrong.

Jim Hoffman's 911 Research:
ERROR: 'The Pentagon Attack Left No Aircraft Debris'
http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/nodebris.html

The others links I gave before direct to this claim so I don't think I need to post similar ones again (do look back at the Oil Empire link), so I'll break my rule about only posting truther sites since these websites provide more pictures of debris and some more details.

http://flight77.info/debris.php

http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/p ... ttackpage2

http://www.911myths.com/html/757_wreckage.html
Edx
 
Posts: 128
Joined: 03 Jul 2010, 03:21

Next

Return to Conspiracies / Cover Ups

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron