E Team and Nose Out were the two situations that gave me the "well okay maybe I'll consider it" to the notion that there were no planes.
Add a little mass formation psychosis and then you have to ask yourself, did YOU see a plane? Do you know anyone who saw a plane? At the individual level, everyone just assumes that everyone else saw the plane. But if everyone assumes that everyone else saw it, what then if nobody saw it? Then surely everyone saw it, and thus it would be absolutely insane to question something that everyone saw? You can hide something in plain sight if the very idea of questioning it would be preposterous. If you're going to cook up a nefarious scheme, why not build that preposterousness (and thus plausible deniability) directly into the scheme? Helps you cover it up later.
Aye. All the adults have been conditioned over many years to think in terms that are away from that base state of understanding, thus missing the truth that's right in front of them. Also, I'll add that the child just comes right out and says it, because the child doesn't know why it is not to be pointed out! Seeing truth and pointing it out without fear, because why should one be afraid to ask a question in a free society? <--- FACT CHECK: This claim is made by someone who spreads false claims without evidence. Verdict: Mostly False
You guys are lost in space. My boss's brother nearly got killed from falling debris from the Twin Towers. There sure as hell were two airplanes, and corresponding missing and dead passengers and crew...not to mention the dead from the building collision and collapse. Very weird. You want to deny the truth of an evil act in order to support a paranoid belief that you are being lied to.
But if you are being lied to, then---for you---this whole site is a Deep State leg-pulling exercise, where 3-letter agency trolls jump on board during lunchtime in order to pull you around the block. If everyone lies to you, where does it stop?
The 1 camera they released footage from (the pentagon had over 80) was too close for anything as large as an airliner to fill the frame. It looked like a plane because a cruise missile resembles a plane at that distance.
No plane needed to hit WTC 7. The consensus appeared to be that the fires were sufficient to cause the structural weakening that led to the collapse of all buildings. No cruise missile hit the Pentagon. It was an airplane, sure enough. No cruise missile would ever attempt to hit a target at low altitude; too much altitude error. The general principle is to go into a steep dive, in order to reduce the target-miss effect of altitude error to close to zero.
More research will show that footage from the news stations was doctored and the media was 100% complicit in the day’s events even making mistakes as large as reporting the destruction of wtc7 before it had happened
Sure planes hit. No fuel melts steel buildings in freefall. Remember DJT explaining that he thought they were nuts to build it with small windows which was forced by building it so strong with the steel on the outside. Planes may have hit for show but they didn't collapse the buildings
"No fuel melts steel..." Always uttered by people who never check the details. The adiabatic flame temperature of kerosene (jet fuel) is 2093 deg C. The only metals that can tolerate that temperature (in jet engines) are special nickel alloys or columbium. Steel (iron) has a melting temperature of 1538 deg C, approximately 550 deg C below the flame temperature of burning kerosene. And steel gives up its strength rapidly with temperature, losing most of it well before it reaches the melting point. So your statement is pure puffery.
The collapse appears to have been the result of the fires and the consequent weakening of the columns, leading to pancake collapse as each floor suffered increasing weight and impact loads. Without the airplane crashes, this would never have happened. You have a strange conception of causality.
A whole lot of people were killed "for show," so your characterization is a grotesque trivialization of their deaths.
People don't understand how the WTC was constructed. For instance, at the point of impact of the first airplane, the steel I beams outside the WTC were only one quarter inch thick steel. That's because architects have an old adage that the building only has to support the weight of above it. Every time you build a building taller, you are actually sliding a floor underneath the existing weight of the floors above. The outside mesh of the WTC was designed to hold 40% of the total weight of the building.
Forgive me, but, seriously, how does e team (which branded themselves as an art collective that constructed a balcony outside the WTC) convince you that there were no planes on 9/11, that's absolutely ridiculous.
The reactions of people on the ground appear to support the official narratives that planes hit. I've viewed the videos with Gray planes instead of commercial aircraft. The first responders reported series of explosions which supports the claims of planted charges to pull the buildings when the planes hit. Huge psyop. Some might say it is bigger than the moon landing. Both events changed history.
You know, one thing that definitely changes the narrative is that both of the planes that hit the World Trade Centers entered the FAA register after 2 years off the day before 9/11. Yes, they were marked in official Airlines liveries, but there is no proof whatsoever you have the planes actually carried the passengers. But they were definitely 767's, I saw them with my own eyes
Charges placed doesn't invalidate the existence of plane collisions, and indeed there is value in going all in on a psyop instead of leaving it to one avenue of attack.
It's not that E Team convinced me that there were no planes on 9/11, it's that it was the missing piece of the puzzle that would explain the explosion and corresponding damage to the "impact zone" that was visible to everybody after the "plane" struck.
It's that E Team had unprecedented access to the buildings in the months leading up to 9/11.
It's that their "diary" was filled with all sorts of weird imagery, including people falling from the sky with a down arrow and saying something to the effect of "hundreds of feet of pure pleasure."
Then Nose Out gave the explanation for how the second plane appeared in live footage on the broadcast, because it was composited over live footage.
Pieces of the puzzle that go from "schizo-town" to "there just may be something here."
I was a couple miles from the Pentagon when “the plane” hit it. I drove by it within an hour after the strike to retrieve my daughter from pre-k. That video is what the crash site looked like, but w smoke billowing out. No one saw or heard any plane. Within a year or so, people started saying they saw or heard the plane…the same people. Mass formation psychosis.
Yep, I'm blanking on the exact phrase, but it's exactly like what happened to Kitty Genovese;
Multiple, multiple people heard her screaming for help while being raped, but everyone assumed that someone else must be calling 911, so nobody ended up doing it.
I feel like clowns who are seriously implying 10 million people didn't really see two planes hit the buildings are CIA plants designed to make us look fucking nuts.
I'm not insulting nor questioning you nor your father, but how do you explain the above video which doesn't show a single scrap of aircraft wreckage?
How do you explain the surveillance camera footage which relatively clearly shows an object that - coincidentally of course - is exactly the size of a cruise missile striking the Pentagon?
Er wait...... are you talking about the Twin Towers?
Yeah, I don't necessarily doubt that planes hit the WTC, but I do think the towers were pre-rigged with tons of explosives.
To clarify; I'd certainly be open to the possibility that NO planes hit ANYTHING on 9/11, but I think what's more likely is:
Twin Towers were pre-rigged with explosives. There's no physical way the aircraft strike & ensuing damage 100% on its own collapsed the towers.
How does anyone explain WTC 7???
The surveillance camera footage of the pentagon very clearly (well, in 2001 VHS clarity LOL) shows a cruise-missile sized thing shooting towards the pentagon & then an explosion.
SO anyway; your dad saw aircraft hit the twin towers?
yeah. and we saw the nose of one of the planes come out of the other side of the building fully intact, in a video that was never displayed again on live TV. Have you seen what a several-pound bird strike does to the nose of a 757? How can you see it come out the other side of a steel building fully intact and not question the narrative?
A video compositing error + timed explosives rather than a plane impact.
Here's the thing. Did they SEE a plane, or did they see something hit, were later told it's a plane, and so it became a plane? I know there have been times I have seen something, couldn't really explain it, then when someone said what it "was", I swear I saw that. This happened to me most notably with a magic trick. I swore I saw one thing, then when I was told it was something else, I totally believed it. The brain is a very complex thing, and brings conclusions we are convinced are correct when in fact, they are not. they were planted there. check out the series Brain Games for more on that also! Such a good show.
I'd love to hear your story. Were you there at ground zero?
I had a friend who was in the building, and was evacuated and saw the firefighters going up the stairs as she was going down the stairs on the way out.
I'm all for no plane on both: the Pentagon, and the Pennsylvania field.
I'm not sure about WTC1/2 - plane/no-plane?
Still, it's an irrelevant point, thankfully (that would have made a nasty plane/no-plane division). It's irrelevant because WTC7 wasn't hit with a plane, and fell at approximately free-fall, straight down, and pictures show mostly into its own footprint.
WTC7 ended up being the smoking gun for that whole day, and i believe all 3 buildings were imploded, simply due to the fact there is not enough energy to compromise the buildings structure below 10-20 floors below WTC1/2's 'impact' floor... certainly not in the way we saw it go down boom.. boom.. boom.. floor by floor at a high rate of speed, right down to the ground floor.
I'm 100% for a re-investigation on this. But at this point we have bigger things to focus on.
Some planes may have gone "missing", but definitely no plane at the Pentagon. It was most likely a cruise missile. If planes hit WTC towers they were remote control tanker type aircraft and definitely NOT passenger planes as reported (it has been speculated that 767 tankers or 767 tanker prototypes had this capability for remote takeover/control). Should have been engine debris at the towers if there were planes. Engines are specifically designed with materials that have to withstand high stresses and heat, and this is why they are always physically visible after ALL type of crashes even if they are mangled.
Still unclear how all those people that were supposedly on the planes "disappeared", but that part of it looks like Deep State murder of people who were troublesome to them.
On the planes and WTC1/2 i'm of the opinion they were planes like you said. But i cannot for the life of me get by the controlled demolition nature of all the collapses.
I believe all the debris was scooped up and shipped away asap to hide the facts.
Generally, from the 80s-90s investigators pieced together things somewhere to get a better idea of what happened. That was not done here and it should have been. I believe if they had done this, the evidence of thermite cuts on the support beams would have been too obvious to deny.
When you watch the footage of the planes hitting the buildings, do you see any big parts falling to the ground? I see a clean entry of the planes followed by an explosion. I have never once seen a video where a large engine type "thing" falls and tumbles to the ground as the planes hit.
Planes landed and the people most likely were told they were part of a drill to gain cooperation with making phone calls. Then they were killed or let go on a planned disappearance. I think there were some on the plane in on it to help pull it off.
BTW the article at this link says "Her remains were recovered and eventually interred" yet I've never read or heard any details of 9-11 passengers' remains being recovered. 🤔
Slowed down footage of the plane hitting a tower shows it literally melting into it like a knife into butter. It just isn’t possible to do that and not leave plane parts falling off the side of the buildings. There were no plane parts anywhere because no planes hit the buildings. They took off, had their signals transferred to incoming missiles so that it looked like planes, the planes landed, the people told they were part of the drill and then killed. I saw an entire film on this 10 years ago and I absolutely think the scenario is plausible, especially when you have no plane parts. The rest was a Hollywood made movie clip that played over and over until it was buried in our brains to believe it.
Well said. It‘s like when someone said „Well if that‘s true then who did it?“
You got to investigate the crime and collect evidence. Wonder why they had GPS on the waste removal trucks taking all that steel out? Wonder no more. They controlled and reused that steel as quick as they could and some type of war ship with it, lol. Damn satanists.
Why can't both things happened? Why couldn't they have flown planes into the towers (faked the pentagon one of course) and then set off whatever explosives they planted in the buildings before hand?
I thought there are many eye witness accounts of the planes actually hitting the towers?
I am not sure to be honest, I know forsure I could have looked into this one way more but I just always thought the planes were real but were never enough to take the towers down. I defiantly think they wanted to pin everything on the plane high jacking but it was forsure controlled demolition.
I have seen another video like this that goes over a lot of the same evidence, but this one is extremely well done and highly convincing. I just wish he didn't put that stupid song in the middle. 🙄
Inside the Pentagon. That's what happens when a plane crashes INTO something. When a car crashes INTO your house, is it just splattered all over the exterior? Part of the mystery is that you are not aware of what happens in a crash.
No planes hit any buildings on 911.
Come at me bro.
Tell me how your uncle saw the planes hit the buildings with his own eyes.
The reason they will expend infinite money on trying to stop speech like this is because:
The media was complicit on 911
They put the doctored video feeds on the air.
They are desperately trying to keep that fact from spreading.
Too bad....
You chased us off all the platforms you control, so now we have platforms you do not control.
Hahaha best comment of the day!
No femurs.
I've been to airplane crash sites ---- you see femurs.
E Team and Nose Out were the two situations that gave me the "well okay maybe I'll consider it" to the notion that there were no planes.
Add a little mass formation psychosis and then you have to ask yourself, did YOU see a plane? Do you know anyone who saw a plane? At the individual level, everyone just assumes that everyone else saw the plane. But if everyone assumes that everyone else saw it, what then if nobody saw it? Then surely everyone saw it, and thus it would be absolutely insane to question something that everyone saw? You can hide something in plain sight if the very idea of questioning it would be preposterous. If you're going to cook up a nefarious scheme, why not build that preposterousness (and thus plausible deniability) directly into the scheme? Helps you cover it up later.
Now I understand why only a child spoke out when he saw the emperor had no clothes. A child only sees truth.
Aye. All the adults have been conditioned over many years to think in terms that are away from that base state of understanding, thus missing the truth that's right in front of them. Also, I'll add that the child just comes right out and says it, because the child doesn't know why it is not to be pointed out! Seeing truth and pointing it out without fear, because why should one be afraid to ask a question in a free society? <--- FACT CHECK: This claim is made by someone who spreads false claims without evidence. Verdict: Mostly False
Good take. Children don't have bias built in.
You guys are lost in space. My boss's brother nearly got killed from falling debris from the Twin Towers. There sure as hell were two airplanes, and corresponding missing and dead passengers and crew...not to mention the dead from the building collision and collapse. Very weird. You want to deny the truth of an evil act in order to support a paranoid belief that you are being lied to.
But if you are being lied to, then---for you---this whole site is a Deep State leg-pulling exercise, where 3-letter agency trolls jump on board during lunchtime in order to pull you around the block. If everyone lies to you, where does it stop?
The 1 camera they released footage from (the pentagon had over 80) was too close for anything as large as an airliner to fill the frame. It looked like a plane because a cruise missile resembles a plane at that distance.
No plane needed to hit WTC 7. The consensus appeared to be that the fires were sufficient to cause the structural weakening that led to the collapse of all buildings. No cruise missile hit the Pentagon. It was an airplane, sure enough. No cruise missile would ever attempt to hit a target at low altitude; too much altitude error. The general principle is to go into a steep dive, in order to reduce the target-miss effect of altitude error to close to zero.
This ^^^
More research will show that footage from the news stations was doctored and the media was 100% complicit in the day’s events even making mistakes as large as reporting the destruction of wtc7 before it had happened
Sure planes hit. No fuel melts steel buildings in freefall. Remember DJT explaining that he thought they were nuts to build it with small windows which was forced by building it so strong with the steel on the outside. Planes may have hit for show but they didn't collapse the buildings
"No fuel melts steel..." Always uttered by people who never check the details. The adiabatic flame temperature of kerosene (jet fuel) is 2093 deg C. The only metals that can tolerate that temperature (in jet engines) are special nickel alloys or columbium. Steel (iron) has a melting temperature of 1538 deg C, approximately 550 deg C below the flame temperature of burning kerosene. And steel gives up its strength rapidly with temperature, losing most of it well before it reaches the melting point. So your statement is pure puffery.
The collapse appears to have been the result of the fires and the consequent weakening of the columns, leading to pancake collapse as each floor suffered increasing weight and impact loads. Without the airplane crashes, this would never have happened. You have a strange conception of causality.
A whole lot of people were killed "for show," so your characterization is a grotesque trivialization of their deaths.
People don't understand how the WTC was constructed. For instance, at the point of impact of the first airplane, the steel I beams outside the WTC were only one quarter inch thick steel. That's because architects have an old adage that the building only has to support the weight of above it. Every time you build a building taller, you are actually sliding a floor underneath the existing weight of the floors above. The outside mesh of the WTC was designed to hold 40% of the total weight of the building.
Talking about the Pentagon....try to pay attention.
I have. Have you? Plenty of assertions that certain things are true that were not true at all...on the part of the conspiracy theorists.
Forgive me, but, seriously, how does e team (which branded themselves as an art collective that constructed a balcony outside the WTC) convince you that there were no planes on 9/11, that's absolutely ridiculous.
The reactions of people on the ground appear to support the official narratives that planes hit. I've viewed the videos with Gray planes instead of commercial aircraft. The first responders reported series of explosions which supports the claims of planted charges to pull the buildings when the planes hit. Huge psyop. Some might say it is bigger than the moon landing. Both events changed history.
You know, one thing that definitely changes the narrative is that both of the planes that hit the World Trade Centers entered the FAA register after 2 years off the day before 9/11. Yes, they were marked in official Airlines liveries, but there is no proof whatsoever you have the planes actually carried the passengers. But they were definitely 767's, I saw them with my own eyes
Charges placed doesn't invalidate the existence of plane collisions, and indeed there is value in going all in on a psyop instead of leaving it to one avenue of attack.
It's not that E Team convinced me that there were no planes on 9/11, it's that it was the missing piece of the puzzle that would explain the explosion and corresponding damage to the "impact zone" that was visible to everybody after the "plane" struck.
It's that E Team had unprecedented access to the buildings in the months leading up to 9/11.
It's that their "diary" was filled with all sorts of weird imagery, including people falling from the sky with a down arrow and saying something to the effect of "hundreds of feet of pure pleasure."
Then Nose Out gave the explanation for how the second plane appeared in live footage on the broadcast, because it was composited over live footage.
Pieces of the puzzle that go from "schizo-town" to "there just may be something here."
Excellent work frog. Solid. 🐸🐸🐸🐸
I was a couple miles from the Pentagon when “the plane” hit it. I drove by it within an hour after the strike to retrieve my daughter from pre-k. That video is what the crash site looked like, but w smoke billowing out. No one saw or heard any plane. Within a year or so, people started saying they saw or heard the plane…the same people. Mass formation psychosis.
Yep, I'm blanking on the exact phrase, but it's exactly like what happened to Kitty Genovese;
Multiple, multiple people heard her screaming for help while being raped, but everyone assumed that someone else must be calling 911, so nobody ended up doing it.
My dad was in Jersey City and saw the plane hit with his own eyes.
Why did three people down vote this? Amazing.
Because its a meaningless statement. We have no way to verify who is writing this, what his dad saw, or whether either of them are telling the truth.
Lead mod here, was S of the second plane, it flew right over me. This is the reason that I've been doing this for the past 7 or 8 years.
Some people are fucking retarded. Denying eyewitness shit like this makes us all look retarded and less credible.
Eye witness accounts are actually some of the LEAST reliable pieces of "evidence"
https://theconversation.com/new-research-reveals-how-little-we-can-trust-eyewitnesses-67663
By design.
I feel like clowns who are seriously implying 10 million people didn't really see two planes hit the buildings are CIA plants designed to make us look fucking nuts.
I'm not insulting nor questioning you nor your father, but how do you explain the above video which doesn't show a single scrap of aircraft wreckage?
How do you explain the surveillance camera footage which relatively clearly shows an object that - coincidentally of course - is exactly the size of a cruise missile striking the Pentagon?
Er wait...... are you talking about the Twin Towers?
Yeah, I don't necessarily doubt that planes hit the WTC, but I do think the towers were pre-rigged with tons of explosives.
To clarify; I'd certainly be open to the possibility that NO planes hit ANYTHING on 9/11, but I think what's more likely is:
Twin Towers were pre-rigged with explosives. There's no physical way the aircraft strike & ensuing damage 100% on its own collapsed the towers.
How does anyone explain WTC 7???
The surveillance camera footage of the pentagon very clearly (well, in 2001 VHS clarity LOL) shows a cruise-missile sized thing shooting towards the pentagon & then an explosion.
SO anyway; your dad saw aircraft hit the twin towers?
I don't dispute that.
Yes, he saw the 2nd plane hit the tower. Not the Pentagon.
Damn, that's crazy. I can't even imagine what it would have been like to witness it. Thanks for the info & take care.
yeah. and we saw the nose of one of the planes come out of the other side of the building fully intact, in a video that was never displayed again on live TV. Have you seen what a several-pound bird strike does to the nose of a 757? How can you see it come out the other side of a steel building fully intact and not question the narrative?
A video compositing error + timed explosives rather than a plane impact.
That's not how any of this works, fren.....
Bullshit.
Ok. My whole family is from Hudson county. I know at least a dozen of eyewitnesses in my family see the second plane.
Here's the thing. Did they SEE a plane, or did they see something hit, were later told it's a plane, and so it became a plane? I know there have been times I have seen something, couldn't really explain it, then when someone said what it "was", I swear I saw that. This happened to me most notably with a magic trick. I swore I saw one thing, then when I was told it was something else, I totally believed it. The brain is a very complex thing, and brings conclusions we are convinced are correct when in fact, they are not. they were planted there. check out the series Brain Games for more on that also! Such a good show.
Ding ding ding
LOL
Work out the probabilities. How many people here on this tiny forum?. How many people in nyc that day.
LOL. Bots are just not very smart.
Yet.
You dead ass a think I'm a bot? Check my post history.
Some of these people are as close-minded as the libs and only deal in absolutes. Not worth arguing, fren.
Re-read your comment, LOL.
Ding Ding sing. Me. Lead mod. Was there that day.
I'd love to hear your story. Were you there at ground zero?
I had a friend who was in the building, and was evacuated and saw the firefighters going up the stairs as she was going down the stairs on the way out.
I'm all for no plane on both: the Pentagon, and the Pennsylvania field.
I'm not sure about WTC1/2 - plane/no-plane?
Still, it's an irrelevant point, thankfully (that would have made a nasty plane/no-plane division). It's irrelevant because WTC7 wasn't hit with a plane, and fell at approximately free-fall, straight down, and pictures show mostly into its own footprint.
WTC7 ended up being the smoking gun for that whole day, and i believe all 3 buildings were imploded, simply due to the fact there is not enough energy to compromise the buildings structure below 10-20 floors below WTC1/2's 'impact' floor... certainly not in the way we saw it go down boom.. boom.. boom.. floor by floor at a high rate of speed, right down to the ground floor.
I'm 100% for a re-investigation on this. But at this point we have bigger things to focus on.
Some planes may have gone "missing", but definitely no plane at the Pentagon. It was most likely a cruise missile. If planes hit WTC towers they were remote control tanker type aircraft and definitely NOT passenger planes as reported (it has been speculated that 767 tankers or 767 tanker prototypes had this capability for remote takeover/control). Should have been engine debris at the towers if there were planes. Engines are specifically designed with materials that have to withstand high stresses and heat, and this is why they are always physically visible after ALL type of crashes even if they are mangled.
Still unclear how all those people that were supposedly on the planes "disappeared", but that part of it looks like Deep State murder of people who were troublesome to them.
On the planes and WTC1/2 i'm of the opinion they were planes like you said. But i cannot for the life of me get by the controlled demolition nature of all the collapses.
I believe all the debris was scooped up and shipped away asap to hide the facts.
Generally, from the 80s-90s investigators pieced together things somewhere to get a better idea of what happened. That was not done here and it should have been. I believe if they had done this, the evidence of thermite cuts on the support beams would have been too obvious to deny.
There was film of at least one engine on the ground.
When you watch the footage of the planes hitting the buildings, do you see any big parts falling to the ground? I see a clean entry of the planes followed by an explosion. I have never once seen a video where a large engine type "thing" falls and tumbles to the ground as the planes hit.
Planes landed and the people most likely were told they were part of a drill to gain cooperation with making phone calls. Then they were killed or let go on a planned disappearance. I think there were some on the plane in on it to help pull it off.
...like the wife of the very guy whose legal gymnastics in Florida in 2000 helped get GW Bush into office. Surprised I've never seen anyone connect the dots on that: https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/6048175/barbara-kay-olson
BTW the article at this link says "Her remains were recovered and eventually interred" yet I've never read or heard any details of 9-11 passengers' remains being recovered. 🤔
Slowed down footage of the plane hitting a tower shows it literally melting into it like a knife into butter. It just isn’t possible to do that and not leave plane parts falling off the side of the buildings. There were no plane parts anywhere because no planes hit the buildings. They took off, had their signals transferred to incoming missiles so that it looked like planes, the planes landed, the people told they were part of the drill and then killed. I saw an entire film on this 10 years ago and I absolutely think the scenario is plausible, especially when you have no plane parts. The rest was a Hollywood made movie clip that played over and over until it was buried in our brains to believe it.
Well said. It‘s like when someone said „Well if that‘s true then who did it?“ You got to investigate the crime and collect evidence. Wonder why they had GPS on the waste removal trucks taking all that steel out? Wonder no more. They controlled and reused that steel as quick as they could and some type of war ship with it, lol. Damn satanists.
i agree, i just replied to someone else saying basically the same thing about the steel.
Why can't both things happened? Why couldn't they have flown planes into the towers (faked the pentagon one of course) and then set off whatever explosives they planted in the buildings before hand?
I thought there are many eye witness accounts of the planes actually hitting the towers?
here fren.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/2ynY9D0sfusP/
think there were more eyewitnesses than fit on the CIA's payroll?
I will watch this one, thank you pede.
I am not sure to be honest, I know forsure I could have looked into this one way more but I just always thought the planes were real but were never enough to take the towers down. I defiantly think they wanted to pin everything on the plane high jacking but it was forsure controlled demolition.
I have seen another video like this that goes over a lot of the same evidence, but this one is extremely well done and highly convincing. I just wish he didn't put that stupid song in the middle. 🙄
Where were the wings and fuselage? Where were the seats and luggage?
Inside the Pentagon. That's what happens when a plane crashes INTO something. When a car crashes INTO your house, is it just splattered all over the exterior? Part of the mystery is that you are not aware of what happens in a crash.
You are not aware that you believe absolute bullshit. It was a scud missile that hit the Pentagon, not a plane. Get up to speed!
If a car crashes into your house, you see the car. Is this seriously your argument?
An aluminum plane does not cleanly penetrate a metal wrapped building. An iron car goes into a wood house and you still got a car, lol.
That I cannot say, but I just think maybe both things could be true at the same time.
They are not. Believe me, this has been pored over for years. We have been lied to about everything.
This.