Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
911 - Points to discuss
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
adrian280582 wrote: »Hang on second how many plane crashes have there been where a plane travels at a large speed and flies directly into building im talking major airliner here. Most either crash into water, woods even housing estates etc, not directly staright into building at top speed so its like trying to find needle in hay stack really
It doesn't need to be a building, just that it travelled at hight speed and hit something pretty solid very hard.
Such as...
And...
Actually anyone who believes it wasn't a plane should read through all of this. (Click next in the top right to forward through).0 -
It doesn't need to be a building, just that it travelled at hight speed and hit something pretty solid very hard.
Such as...
And...
Actually anyone who believes it wasn't a plane should read through all of this. (Click next in the top right to forward through).
Yes but if we want to do comparision it needs to be of similar consequences.
as for that research site it was there very yay or nay answers not really providing anything other then what we or dont already think.
Also dint the wings folded as some eye witnesses suggested and now we are saying its 140 width of impact...Somebody is talking rubbish thenIf my mother tongue is shaking the foundations of your state, it probably means you built your state on my land.
EVENFLOW
0 -
-
adrian280582 wrote: »Yes but if we want to do comparision it needs to be of similar consequences.
A plane that crashes into anything very hard at speed covers that.adrian280582 wrote: »as for that research site it was there very yay or nay answers not really providing anything other then what we or dont already think.
It goes through every aspect of the crash and looks at it in detail. Many of the people behind this started off with the belief there was no plane but with the overwhelming evidence that it was plane they changed tack. Read it all and tell me how if wasn't a plane other than you just feel it wasn't, because there is no evidence it was anything other than a plane, none whatsoever, not even the teeniest little bit.adrian280582 wrote: »Also dint the wings folded as some eye witnesses suggested and now we are saying its 140 width of impact...Somebody is talking rubbish then
The wings impacted the front of the building which there is damage for contrary to what people say and then snapped back and went into the hole.
So I think it's only fair at this stage that you list all the evidence for your no-plane theory. List it all down and we'll we able to measure the two lists and see if we can move things along.0 -
Advertisement
-
A plane that crashes into anything very hard at speed covers that.
It goes through every aspect of the crash and looks at it in detail. Many of the people behind this started off with the belief there was no plane but with the overwhelming evidence that it was plane they changed tack. Read it all and tell me how if wasn't a plane other than you just feel it wasn't, because there is no evidence it was anything other than a plane, none whatsoever, not even the teeniest little bit.
The wings impacted the front of the building which there is damage for contrary to what people say and then snapped back and went into the hole.
So I think it's only fair at this stage that you list all the evidence for your no-plane theory. List it all down and we'll we able to measure the two lists and see if we can move things along.
where did you get that picture of measurements because there not correct with others (not saying its incorrect though)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UX01twhfUK4&feature=related even commission believe its missile:D:D:D
where is there any sign of plane impacting in this photo
Anyway
(1) Radiation was found up to 12 miles away from the crash ,believed to be deplated uranium warhead which was totally ignored by bush administration
(2)my german friends have shown me evidence that there officials were told by fbi agents that it was cruise missle. this of course was shattered but there still many people who ask for the answers to come from the states on this and they have refused
these are two reasons in which i have clear word and researced i will explain others when i have have evidence to suggest it may not have been plane.
[SIZE=+1][/SIZE]If my mother tongue is shaking the foundations of your state, it probably means you built your state on my land.
EVENFLOW
0 -
-
-
-
-
-
adrian280582 wrote: »where did you get that picture of measurements because there not correct with others (not saying its incorrect though)
If you read the link I posted it explains that the pictures used to measure the sizes on the CT sites are heavily smoke covered which this one isn't.adrian280582 wrote: »http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UX01twhfUK4&feature=related even commission believe its missile:D:D:D
He says missile plane which is exactly what is was, or a plane being used like a missile.adrian280582 wrote: »
where is there any sign of plane impacting in this photo
The whole centre section have collapsed so it's hard to say and if it was just a missile making a small hole why would the front collapse?
Okay let's look at this video for a moment. It's very much a propaganda peice but look at the damage to the bunker (let's not get into the fact lot's of people were killed as it irrelevant to what we're talking about). The bomb fired here went through ten feet of reinforced concrete and look at the neat (and fairly small) hole. About 29seconds in. At the pentagon the support columns were cut by something big impacting into them.
Hmm these columns seem all bent in one direction like something impacted into them.adrian280582 wrote: »Anyway
(1) Radiation was found up to 12 miles away from the crash ,believed to be deplated uranium warhead which was totally ignored by bush administration
Depleted uranium is used in armour piercing shells not missiles. Although I'd like to see the source for this 'story'. Plus the front of the Pentagon isn't 10 feet of concrete so you wouldn't need anything specifically bunker busting, just ram a big plane into it for example.adrian280582 wrote: »(2)my german friends have shown me evidence that there officials were told by fbi agents that it was cruise missle. this of course was shattered but there still many people who ask for the answers to come from the states on this and they have refused.
So we're back to the bigger picture? Of course someone might believe this if they ignore all the other evidence.adrian280582 wrote: »these are two reasons in which i have clear word and researced i will explain others when i have have evidence to suggest it may not have been plane.
Looking forward to it.
Adrian I'm really want to believe you're not taking the weewee here because it seems so black and white to me with all the evidence. Even this stuff you've come up with completely ignores the evidence. I kinda had it in my mind you'd counter the evidence supplied. I can't help but feel you just don't want it to be a plane no matter what.0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QwE85OSJr4
Advertisement