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

9/11 Truth News and Updates

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.

Re: 9/11 Truth News and Updates

Postby FatFreddy » 19 Jan 2014, 23:48

I'm sorry, but I will refuse to respond to anything in reference to killtown.


All I can say I suppose is that this statement would get you laughed out of the debating hall.
FatFreddy
 
Posts: 114
Joined: 12 Jan 2014, 03:31






Re: 9/11 Truth News and Updates

Postby SydneyPSIder » 20 Jan 2014, 14:47

ProfWag wrote:
FatFreddy wrote:All the wreckage that was there was plantable and bodies could have been planted in the part of the Pentagon that was destroyed beforehand.

But trust me Freddy, AA Flight 77 flew into the Pentagon on 9/11/01.

Very unlikely indeed on the facts, including numerous eyewitness accounts of an alternative plane route, and of course on the physics, the complete absence of wreckage, luggage, body parts, impossibility of the delicate mashable nose of an airliner penetrating 5 rings of building, degree of difficulty of a sweeping 270 deg turn (experienced pilots say they couldn't pull it off), impossibility of getting a visual on the Pentagon from an airliner where you can't see down, lack of ability of the supposed hijackers to even understand an airliner cockpit or radio system as they had failed to even fly single-engine Cessnas successfully, 'ground effect' at low altitude pushing the plane back up, impossibly low height of the engines scraping on the untouched lawn, narrowness of the entry including no damage by the multi-ton engines or the tall tailplane, and the confiscation of all footage from local businesses by FBI agents who suddenly appeared here and there within minutes in the middle of an apparent crisis still taking place down at the Pentagon and of a supposedly unknown scale -- footage never to be seen again. No Pentagon camera systems or missile defence systems working on the day in what is supposed to be a highly defended space. No scrambling of jets from Edwards air base. Eyewitnesses at the nearby servo swear they saw a jetliner going in a direction overhead that could not have resulted in the damage trail we are being asked to believe. Taxi driver Lloyd England has been caught out in a lie, his vehicle could not have been damaged by a falling light pole in the manner shown, and his story doesn't add up to boot -- he could not have been in the location he reported. And a jetliner cannot travel at anywhere near 500mph at sea level or low altitude, it would fall apart, would be lucky to be able to do 250 mph. It's impossible to make a mobile phone call at altitude and speed also, so they were faked. Ted and Barbara Olson are extremely suss, Ted was live on radio lamenting his loss within 5 minutes of 'hearing' about it. Airport rules at the time meant that any knives or blades found in carry-on luggage had to be escalated to a supervisor -- and we are being asked to believe that on 4 separate flights, X-ray operators at security escalated 4-5 different characters with middle eastern names carrying sharp blades to their supervisors, and the supervisors said that would be OK 4-5 times in a row on each flight. And that these guys, who were meant to be slight and 5'6" could hold an entire plane hostage with tiny boxcutters.

Oh, and it was a bunker busting missile, either launched from the nearby airbase, or from an air force plane, possibly with some planted explosives in the building -- that wing just happened to be full of auditors and contentious CIA records being audited. That explains the real physical evidence perfectly.

Welcome to 1984.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: 9/11 Truth News and Updates

Postby ProfWag » 21 Jan 2014, 18:59

SydneyPSIder wrote:
ProfWag wrote:But trust me Freddy, AA Flight 77 flew into the Pentagon on 9/11/01.

Very unlikely indeed on the facts, including numerous eyewitness accounts of an alternative plane route, and of course on the physics, the complete absence of wreckage, luggage, body parts, impossibility of the delicate mashable nose of an airliner penetrating 5 rings of building, degree of difficulty of a sweeping 270 deg turn (experienced pilots say they couldn't pull it off), impossibility of getting a visual on the Pentagon from an airliner where you can't see down, lack of ability of the supposed hijackers to even understand an airliner cockpit or radio system as they had failed to even fly single-engine Cessnas successfully, 'ground effect' at low altitude pushing the plane back up, impossibly low height of the engines scraping on the untouched lawn, narrowness of the entry including no damage by the multi-ton engines or the tall tailplane, and the confiscation of all footage from local businesses by FBI agents who suddenly appeared here and there within minutes in the middle of an apparent crisis still taking place down at the Pentagon and of a supposedly unknown scale -- footage never to be seen again. No Pentagon camera systems or missile defence systems working on the day in what is supposed to be a highly defended space. No scrambling of jets from Edwards air base. Eyewitnesses at the nearby servo swear they saw a jetliner going in a direction overhead that could not have resulted in the damage trail we are being asked to believe. Taxi driver Lloyd England has been caught out in a lie, his vehicle could not have been damaged by a falling light pole in the manner shown, and his story doesn't add up to boot -- he could not have been in the location he reported. And a jetliner cannot travel at anywhere near 500mph at sea level or low altitude, it would fall apart, would be lucky to be able to do 250 mph. It's impossible to make a mobile phone call at altitude and speed also, so they were faked. Ted and Barbara Olson are extremely suss, Ted was live on radio lamenting his loss within 5 minutes of 'hearing' about it. Airport rules at the time meant that any knives or blades found in carry-on luggage had to be escalated to a supervisor -- and we are being asked to believe that on 4 separate flights, X-ray operators at security escalated 4-5 different characters with middle eastern names carrying sharp blades to their supervisors, and the supervisors said that would be OK 4-5 times in a row on each flight. And that these guys, who were meant to be slight and 5'6" could hold an entire plane hostage with tiny boxcutters.

Oh, and it was a bunker busting missile, either launched from the nearby airbase, or from an air force plane, possibly with some planted explosives in the building -- that wing just happened to be full of auditors and contentious CIA records being audited. That explains the real physical evidence perfectly.

Welcome to 1984.

You do realize, don't you Syd, that virtually everything you said is inaccurate. Just a couple notes--the portion of the plane that went furthest into the building was the tail section. There was wreckage, body parts, etc. that was found. It is not impossible for the plane to have made the maneuvers it did--it just isn't safe. There are NO missiles at any nearby airbase of that size and the only ones that are can hang from an airplane wing. Certainly not big enough to make the hole in the building that it did. You mentioned Lloyd England, could I mention Daryl Donley, Afework Hagos, Mike Walter, and Terrance Kean to mention just a few of the many, many people who witnessed the airliner.
Again you, and other CTers, claim there were no body parts. May I refer you to the following web site and scroll down to the exhibits beginning at number P200030. It's towards the bottom of the list:
http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution.html
Feel free to browse the entire exhibit to see for your own eyes rather than the eyes of a fellow conspiracy theorist.
Here is a
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: 9/11 Truth News and Updates

Postby ProfWag » 21 Jan 2014, 19:11

SydneyPSIder wrote:
Oh, and it was a bunker busting missile, either launched from the nearby airbase, or from an air force plane, possibly with some planted explosives in the building -- that wing just happened to be full of auditors and contentious CIA records being audited. That explains the real physical evidence perfectly.

Oh, and one more thing Syd, et al., The most powerful "bunker busting missile" in the Air Force inventory in 2001 was the GBU-37 and can only be launched by a B-52 (how many B-52's were spotted in D.C. or New York on 9/11/01? The GBU-37's diameter is 31 inches and its maximum (MAXIMUM) penetrating ability into a hardened facility is 6 meters or about 20 feet. If you think for one second that it was a bunker buster, then you simply haven't done your research.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: 9/11 Truth News and Updates

Postby SydneyPSIder » 27 Jan 2014, 17:45

ProfWag wrote:You do realize, don't you Syd, that virtually everything you said is inaccurate. Just a couple notes--the portion of the plane that went furthest into the building was the tail section. There was wreckage, body parts, etc. that was found. It is not impossible for the plane to have made the maneuvers it did--it just isn't safe. There are NO missiles at any nearby airbase of that size and the only ones that are can hang from an airplane wing. Certainly not big enough to make the hole in the building that it did. You mentioned Lloyd England, could I mention Daryl Donley, Afework Hagos, Mike Walter, and Terrance Kean to mention just a few of the many, many people who witnessed the airliner.
Again you, and other CTers, claim there were no body parts. May I refer you to the following web site and scroll down to the exhibits beginning at number P200030. It's towards the bottom of the list:
http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecas ... ution.html
Feel free to browse the entire exhibit to see for your own eyes rather than the eyes of a fellow conspiracy theorist.

No, it's not inaccurate. It's pretty well spot on.

"the portion of the plane that went furthest into the building was the tail section."

What does that mean? You mean the tail section overtook the nose inside the building somehow? Impossible in physics. The top floors collapsed much later during fire fighting, well after the initial impact, so no 'tail section' hit the building -- there are clear photos demonstrating the top floors intact. Conveniently, a fire truck happened to be stationed just nearby, before there was any apparent hint of an attack on the Pentagon.

There was virtually no wreckage and no body parts identified, apart from the few fatalities inside the building, sacrificed by the conspirators in the interests of realism.

The remains of a single small jet engine (part of a turbine) that did not appear to be from a jetliner were discovered in the building. The part is neither from a Pritt & Whitney nor a Rolls Royce engine fitted on Boeing 757s. The problem of 2 giant 5 ton Rolls Royce engines simply disappearing, along with all the other 'wreckage' is addressed below. I don't see any luggage or plane wreckage in the series of pics you have cited, Profwag.

"I mention Daryl Donley, Afework Hagos, Mike Walter, and Terrance Kean to mention just a few of the many, many people who witnessed the airliner."

You could mention them, perhaps you could even paste in transcripts of their testimony and we will examine their backgrounds. Many people witnessed a jetliner fly overhead -- the only problem is that it was on a different trajectory to one that could have clipped the light poles and hit the Pentagon where it did. Numerous witnesses at the service station have indicated which direction it went. So the conspirators staged a flyover of a jetliner for anyone who happened to be driving by on the expressway.



Here's a link to all 16 'Pentagon Reality Check' segments, including a number of eyewitness statements:

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_q ... Check&sm=3

Eyewitnesses:
EDWARD PAIK
DARIUS PRATHER
CNN's JAMIE MCINTYRE
former USMC Aviator TERRY MORIN
WILLIAM MIDDLETON SR.
DARRELL STAFFORD
Officer CHAD BROOKS
ERIC DIHLE
SEAN BOGER
Officer WILLIAM LAGASSE
MARIA DE LA CERDA
ROOSEVELT ROBERTS: Plane Flew OVER the Pentagon!
ROBERT TURCIOS
DONALD CARTER

And your friend from USAToday, Mike Walter, also gets a dishonorable mention (and I use the word advisedly): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXKYI9wkbSg
He changes his story during the day, but there were also certain other planted actors and media heads claiming to have witnessed a plane crashing into the Pentagon -- a careful analysis of their delivery shows them to be scripted, too glib and fake in light of the actual physical evidence -- as with other planted actors at Ground Zero who seem to be reading from a rehearsed script.

There are the 'north side of the servo' testimonies that make it impossible for the jetliner that was observed to have taken the trajectory the official story claims, and indeed produce the trail of wreckage of lightpoles that were probably placed there after the fact.

Experienced pilots have stated "they could not have made the manoeuvre". There are numerous other reasons there was unlikely to be a plane with passengers and hijackers involved -- airport regs in force at that time would have made it impossible for 4 people with middle eastern names and passports to have taken any kind of sharp blades on to the planes. It's impossible to make mobile phone calls from a plane travelling at high speed and/or any altitude. Neither UA nor AA had inflight phone services working at that time either. Hani Hanjour, the supposed 'hijacker', could not even fly a single-engine Cessna, let alone take over the cockpit of a 757, turn off transponders, fly to and get a visual on the Pentagon, etc etc.

Any thoughts on Ret Major General Albert N. Stubblebine III's observations?

http://consciouslifenews.com/911-prove- ... bblebine/#

ProfWag wrote:
SydneyPSIder wrote:
Oh, and it was a bunker busting missile, either launched from the nearby airbase, or from an air force plane, possibly with some planted explosives in the building -- that wing just happened to be full of auditors and contentious CIA records being audited. That explains the real physical evidence perfectly.

Oh, and one more thing Syd, et al., The most powerful "bunker busting missile" in the Air Force inventory in 2001 was the GBU-37 and can only be launched by a B-52 (how many B-52's were spotted in D.C. or New York on 9/11/01? The GBU-37's diameter is 31 inches and its maximum (MAXIMUM) penetrating ability into a hardened facility is 6 meters or about 20 feet. If you think for one second that it was a bunker buster, then you simply haven't done your research.

Could be a cruise missile, combined with planted explosives, or even a remote controlled small jet plane. The remains of a single small jet engine that did not appear to be from a jetliner were discovered in the building (apparently). The Pentagon was not a hardened facility per se on that side, that was the side that was awaiting reinforcing building works.

There is a picture of a small smoking hole supposedly at the end of travel. A jetliner pretty much could not possibly produce a smoking hole 5 walls in due to the highly crushable nature of the nose that is just a thin aluminium skin with sensitive radio and telecoms gear concealed behind it.

Then there is the problem of the 'disappeared' 5 ton engines that would have been outside of the hole that was made, and should have made a much wider hole -- apart from the impossibility of the jet engines under the plane body 'skimming' the Pentalawn without leaving a mark or contacting the ground. The 'official' story/excuse/pretext is that the wings must have just folded back and also disappeared into the small central hole, with no wreckage to be found. Although wings are massively braced in plane design where they join the body.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: 9/11 Truth News and Updates

Postby SydneyPSIder » 30 Jan 2014, 15:31



Published on Oct 20, 2013

Several leading American mainstream journalists say that the US government is lying about 9/11 and the so-called war on terror. Unfortunately, media owners and editors won't let them report their findings.

Recently, Seymour Hersh, America's top mainstream investigative reporter, broke the news that the US government's claim to have killed Osama Bin Laden on May 2nd, 2011 is "a big lie. There is not one word of truth in it."

Hersh went on to harshly criticize his long-time employer, the New York Times, and other big media outlets: "We lie about everything, lying has become the staple." He said all big US media outlets should be shut down for lying to the American people.

"It's very doubtful that Muslims were behind 9/11. Think about this for one minute: That President Bush's family had done business with the family of the man who allegedly made the terrorist attack, Osama Bin Laden. The Bin Laden family was actually on the board of Bush's oil company. How is it possible that of all the billions of families in the world, the one family that makes the attack on America has done business with the President of America. That sounds more like a favor than anything else. I don't think 9/11 was an Arab conspiracy or a Muslim conspiracy. I think it's an American conspiracy to overthrow the government of the United States and install what is becoming a police state, and also to advance the imperial ambitions of the United States, to swindle the Middle East out of their energy resources."

"You don't see any serious questioning by the mainstream media. I thought one of the tip-offs that it was a put-up job was when a cameraman from a little weekly in Pennsylvania went to the site where this airliner had supposedly crashed (on 9/11). And he said, 'I didn't see any airliner. I saw a hole in the ground. I didn't see any bodies. I didn't see any luggage. And then at the Pentagon, you had the claim that airliner hit it. But again, there was no wreckage. Reporters who worked in the Press Room at the Pentagon went out there on the lawn, and they couldn't see any airliner. So, over and over again, you have manufactured lies that the press largely is not reporting."

But if you write about 'why did 7 World Trade Center collapse when it wasn't hit by an airplane,' nobody will pick it up.

"One of the worst things that ever happened (to America) was when President Clinton allowed five companies to concentrate the American media. That destroyed its independence. And ever since Clinton permitted that, which was totally against all American tradition, and totally against the antitrust law ... but in the United States, as we've seen, law doesn't mean anything anymore. So, the so-called mainstream media is no longer the media. It doesn't tell you anything. It's a propaganda ministry -- the Ministry of Propaganda. Gerald Celente calls them 'presstitutes.'"

Rather than writing for the mainstream media, Paul Craig Roberts is now exposing the fake killing of Osama Bin Laden and deconstructing the 9/11 false-flag operation for an independent outlet called the Institute for Political Economy. In a recent article published on the 12th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, Dr. Roberts wrote:

"The neoconservatives who advocate America's hegemony over the world called for 'a new Pearl Harbor' that would allow them to launch wars of conquest ... No evidence exists that supports the government's 9/11 story ... On this 12th anniversary of a false-flag event, it is unnecessary for me to report the voluminous evidence that conclusively proves that the official story is a lie. You can read it for yourself. It is available online. You can read what the architects and engineers (for 9/11 truth) have to say. You can read the scientists' reports. You can hear from the first responders who were in the WTC towers. You can read the pilots who say that the maneuvers associated with the airliner that allegedly hit the Pentagon are beyond their skills and most certainly were not performed by inexperienced pilots. You can read David Griffin's many books. You can watch the film produced by Richard Gage and Architects & Engineers for 9/11 truth. You can read the 9/11 Toronto Report, International Hearings on 9/11."

But don't bother reading the mainstream media. As Seymour Hersh, Sherwood Ross, Paul Craig Roberts, and a rapidly growing number of ordinary Americans realize, the mainstream media's motto is now: "We lie about everything. Lying has become the staple."

The government's not demanding an investigation into an event that is the greatest embarrassment to a "superpower" in world history is a complete give-away that 9/11 was a false-flag event.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: 9/11 Truth News and Updates

Postby ProfWag » 31 Jan 2014, 11:11

Do you conspiracy theorists read your own posts before hitting the "Submit" button? I mean, I'd like to have a sensible, friendly debate, but some of the things you guys post just leaves me speechless in your hypothesis. Your posts say things like "maybe" this or "maybe" that, but unfortunately that's all you can do is speculate whereas all the actual hard evidence points towards the published results.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: 9/11 Truth News and Updates

Postby SydneyPSIder » 31 Jan 2014, 13:03

ProfWag wrote:Do you conspiracy theorists read your own posts before hitting the "Submit" button? I mean, I'd like to have a sensible, friendly debate, but some of the things you guys post just leaves me speechless in your hypothesis. Your posts say things like "maybe" this or "maybe" that, but unfortunately that's all you can do is speculate whereas all the actual hard evidence points towards the published results.

that's just another characteristically silly comment. It was doable. Nobody looking in from the outside knows all the details, they can only infer and hypothesise, just as no-one knows exactly how a murderer might have murdered someone if they hid the evidence. Forensics can only work out so much.

The 'official' account of the events of 9/11 are deeply suspicious and implausible based on a study of the physics of demolitions, civil engineering standards in buildings, the collapse of WTC7, difficulty in making mobile phone calls from the air and lack of visible evidence of wreckage, luggage, and people which are incongruent with the events as 'officially' explained. To work out every last detail of what ordnance might have been used is a little tricky. I didn't realise that was the main aim -- or is it just another convenient digression for a pseudoscep of unknown provenance?
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: 9/11 Truth News and Updates

Postby ProfWag » 31 Jan 2014, 19:36

SydneyPSIder wrote:
The 'official' account of the events of 9/11 are deeply suspicious and implausible based on a study of the physics of demolitions, civil engineering standards in buildings, the collapse of WTC7, difficulty in making mobile phone calls from the air and lack of visible evidence of wreckage, luggage, and people which are incongruent with the events as 'officially' explained.

Is this based on your knowledge of the study of physics or someone else's? I'm not an expert in that sort of thing, but the events of 9/11 HAVE been shown to be exactly how it would have happened based on studies from several different people and organizations. I'd post them, but since I doubt anyone actually reads that kind of stuff, I think it would be pointless.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: 9/11 Truth News and Updates

Postby ProfWag » 31 Jan 2014, 19:52

FatFreddy wrote:
I'm sorry, but I will refuse to respond to anything in reference to killtown.


All I can say I suppose is that this statement would get you laughed out of the debating hall.

Actually, Mr. Freddy, bringing up killtown in any debate would lose points immediately. Even the "truthers" don't give him credit. He hides behind his avatar and seeks publicity any way he can get it, even through harsh criticism of innocent bystanders. If you want a debate on 9/11, Freddy, bring it on, but I promise you that using killtown's posts as part of your evidence will get slammed into the ground (pardon the pun...)
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: 9/11 Truth News and Updates

Postby SydneyPSIder » 31 Jan 2014, 20:06

profwag, I'm still not sure why all the cameras were 'down' around the Pentagon that day, why there was no missile protection, why the USAF was nowhere nearby and stood down, why the planes flew for over an hour without interception, why Dick Cheney barked in the Pentagon control room to do nothing while a plane was supposed to be approaching.... do you have 'hard evidence' explanations for that strange congruence of events? I mean, it's like these half-assed and untrained patsies who couldn't fly a Cessna and had fake passports and were someone else from the same country and somehow got thru airport security 4 times on every flight with illegal boxcutters on their person somehow 'knew' about USAF exercises scheduled in Alaska that day that meant they could stay airborne for a couple of hours without interception.... all directed from a cave somewhere.... they were smarter than they looked....
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: 9/11 Truth News and Updates

Postby SydneyPSIder » 31 Jan 2014, 20:11

ProfWag wrote:
SydneyPSIder wrote:
The 'official' account of the events of 9/11 are deeply suspicious and implausible based on a study of the physics of demolitions, civil engineering standards in buildings, the collapse of WTC7, difficulty in making mobile phone calls from the air and lack of visible evidence of wreckage, luggage, and people which are incongruent with the events as 'officially' explained.

Is this based on your knowledge of the study of physics or someone else's? I'm not an expert in that sort of thing, but the events of 9/11 HAVE been shown to be exactly how it would have happened based on studies from several different people and organizations. I'd post them, but since I doubt anyone actually reads that kind of stuff, I think it would be pointless.

sorry, but I call complete and utter BS on that one. go ahead and post whatever you think it is you've got on the 'physics', and you can get your ass handed to you yet again... my background includes physics and chemical, civil and mechanical engineering, but it really isn't much of a home turf advantage in detecting the unbridled BS we've seen from the NIST and others over anyone else with half a brain.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: 9/11 Truth News and Updates

Postby ProfWag » 31 Jan 2014, 20:24

SydneyPSIder wrote:
"I mention Daryl Donley, Afework Hagos, Mike Walter, and Terrance Kean to mention just a few of the many, many people who witnessed the airliner."

You could mention them, perhaps you could even paste in transcripts of their testimony and we will examine their backgrounds.

Okay, let's examine their backgrounds. And while we're at it, let's examine Lloyd England's as well. Considering you have your nose up Jarrah White's ass, I'd say you probably aren't a good judge of what is and isn't credible and reliable.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: 9/11 Truth News and Updates

Postby SydneyPSIder » 31 Jan 2014, 22:00

ProfWag wrote:
SydneyPSIder wrote:
"I mention Daryl Donley, Afework Hagos, Mike Walter, and Terrance Kean to mention just a few of the many, many people who witnessed the airliner."

You could mention them, perhaps you could even paste in transcripts of their testimony and we will examine their backgrounds.

Okay, let's examine their backgrounds. And while we're at it, let's examine Lloyd England's as well. Considering you have your nose up Jarrah White's ass, I'd say you probably aren't a good judge of what is and isn't credible and reliable.

sure, let's... I thought ad hominem insults weren't a legitimate form of argumentation though....

I know for a fact Mike Walter changed his story from the morning to the afternoon on the day, as per the youtube series I pasted in a prior post. Not the least bit suspicious to a pseudoscep, of course -- a guy saying he saw a cruise missile in the morning, then saw a plane in the afternoon.



Mike Walters pretty much just making it up in retrospect again, acting on orders -- clearly he couldn't see the Pentagon on his route, and yet has a full explanation worked out of how plane's wings (where the engines are centres of gravity and are propelling the plane forward, not being dragged along) can just fold back like origami, despite the massive bracing in their design. Further, it's impossible for a plane to travel at 500 mph at sea level, so how is he so sure after the fact that it was doing 500 mph??? He's a bit of a schmaltzy ham actor kind of guy for a newspaper journo too -- does he ever ordinarily do TV work? Then his constant glancing to the right and being unable to look into the camera are one of those 'body language' things, aren't they? Where have I seen that kind of body language before? Perhaps in the 1960s press conference with the 'returned astronauts' from Apollo 11 who look downcast and evasive -- and a nervous Mike Collins answers a question for Neil Armstrong that he could not possibly have answered or known about, as it would have required him to be on the surface of the moon, which he wasn't, not even in the official story.

SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: 9/11 Truth News and Updates

Postby ProfWag » 01 Feb 2014, 20:40

SydneyPSIder wrote:
I know for a fact Mike Walter changed his story from the morning to the afternoon on the day, as per the youtube series I pasted in a prior post. Not the least bit suspicious to a pseudoscep, of course -- a guy saying he saw a cruise missile in the morning, then saw a plane in the afternoon.




First, I apologize if you felt attacked. I'll try to remember to keep the discussion on subject.
Having said that, I'm afraid that I must point out that your ears are deceiving you. Please look at your video again. It's only 17 seconds so it won't take long. He says, and I quote (emphasis mine): "It was LIKE a cruise missile WITH WINGS." He never said it WAS a cruise missile.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

PreviousNext

Return to Conspiracies / Cover Ups

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

cron