George 152
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2002
- Messages
- 5,012
But he didn't have 'zero' flying experience.
He had a current Commercial Pilots License which means he had a minimum of 250 hours flying experience.
All he wanted to do was commit suicide
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Merged What knocked over the lightpoles, if not AA77?
But he didn't have 'zero' flying experience.
He had a current Commercial Pilots License which means he had a minimum of 250 hours flying experience.
All he wanted to do was commit suicide
TJM
Potsing Whiled Runk
I'd just let the thread die. He only started this thread to escape from what he started in this thread, for obvious reasons.
ETA: Threads merged, post #7 that Cl1mh4224rd points to is now post #115.
Last edited:
A W Smith
Philosopher
Don't flatter yourself. You are displaying intelligence 25% of even that 25%
How fast was the gulf stream going? were its wings full of fuel? how fast was flight 77 at impact? Did it crash? Not that it is true or not but didn't one witness on the highway say its wings folded up upon entering the building? did you know the poles around the pentagon have to be specified as aircraft break away because of their proximity to the heliport?
Last edited:
TokenMac
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2009
- Messages
- 432
A few years back a large Gulfstream(capable of carrying a number of passengers crashed in Texas. If i remember correctly, this plane was used to carry first President Bush around at times.
It was manned by a skilled pilot and co-pilot.
It hit ONE light pole and crashed immediately, even with a veteran pilot aboard, and that ONE pole knocked its wing off.
Lucky old Hani, who had never in his life flown a large plane, supposedly hits 4 or 5 lightpoles, and in spite of this, continues leveling off and hits the Pentagon just about the level of the bottom of his engines no worse for wear.
Pretty remarkable
"Houston Fire Department District Chief Jack Williams said the twin-engine Gulfstream jet, arriving from Dallas Love Field, apparently clipped a tall light tower at a Beltway 8 toll plaza, SHEARING OFF A WING. He said the severed wing rests near the base of the tower. "
Bolding mine............
And yes, the Gulfstream is smaller than Hani's plane, but it was still a large plane with Multi engines, flown by experts with many hours flight time.
The tainted meat the denizens of this site continue to feast on is going to one day come back up
Here some quick research, because roundhead won't.
An article about the crash with pictures.
The NTSB report on the crash.
And If I linked it right, a street view of S.Beltway 8 Toll road which shows the types of light poles the plane hit.
All of this stuff took me less than ten minutes to find (even with the broad search phrase "Gulfstream crash in Texas"). Why couldn't you at least try to inform your self before you post? Could it be that you're just a parrot who is repeating "Truther" talking points in some stupid and misguided attempt to catch us of guard?
77 was going over 500 mph, the lamppost would not change the flight path; pilots know this; are you a pilot mr roundhead?
Hani hit breakaway lampposts. They (breakaway lampposts) can't stop a car, they can't stop a plane. A pilot knows this; are you a pilot mr roundhead?
The plane in Texas crashed due to pilot ERROR; the pilot flew the plane into the ground, the lamppost was in the way. Was the lamppost breakaway type? Got photos? He was off course. Oops, he flew over 700 feet past the post! OOPS there goes your failed attempt to apologize for murdering terrorists. Now what will you do?
http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2006/AAB0606.pdf
Slow speed impact with aircraft wreakage 790 feet away!!!! Hani impacts lampposts and he hits 1046 feet away and he is going 535 mph, the jet in your failed idiotic idea was going less than 200 mph. Geewhiz, you FAILED AGAIN!
Slow speed impact with aircraft wreakage 790 feet away!!!! Hani impacts lampposts and he hits 1046 feet away and he is going 535 mph, the jet in your failed idiotic idea was going less than 200 mph. Geewhiz, you FAILED AGAIN!
You posted idiotic ideas based on your failure to read and understand the accident report. Why do you fail to read the information about the event you try to tie to 911? This is a massive failure in logic.
BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
beachnut, I think we ALL need to just ignore Roundhead after this.
Mangoose
Muse
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2007
- Messages
- 921
JamesB said:
I also wonder if his aim changed en route. From the altitude the plane would have been in the area of the Navy Annex and Sheraton, he had more of a view of the interior of the Pentagon. It would seem to be easier to aim for the center courtyard and strike the A-ring on the inside. It is possible that the ground came up too fast and he adjusted his aim to the E-ring exterior. Or that could have been his intented target all along. Or maybe he wanted to center in on one of the corridors which might have made an easier path through the building. Or he wanted to hit the E-ring a few floors higher to take out potentially more damage (without the ground potentially absorbing some of the energy). Nobody knows what he intended...all we know is what the final result was, which may partially have been due to factors beyond his control.
Last edited:
BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
Mangoose, I think he was fighting just to keep from auguring in and missing entirely. That fast, that close to the deck, everything happens quick. The average person has zero idea what that sort of speed is like. I've done some 130 mph driving (on a road racing course) and it is a WORLD of different from 70 on the expressway. And 500+?! Whoa.
Mangoose
Muse
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2007
- Messages
- 921
Yeah, I kind of tried to get at that with speculating on the ground coming up way too fast. I think he probably had some idea of what specific target he wanted when he originally did his planning, and may have started his aiming of the Pentagon with that as the goal in mind, but the reality of flying a big jet and controlling it forced him to settle on whatever he ended up with.
I a unaware of witnesses "actually" saying they saw a plane impact the poles.
This has been gone over time and again, and what accounts do exist, have been refuted convincingly.
Nobody "actually" saw pole impacts. Period.
How are these embarrassing displays of ignorance and obtuseness supposed to advance your tiny, insane movement?
How is this "cult" here at JREF doing posing as a sceptic forum??
Not very good...Thought so.
Now back to the sanity only i bring to this thread.
How about showing witnesses who actually "saw" 77 clip the light poles???
Come on, roll them out......
And no, thinking it did isnt the same as actually having seen the plane actually hit them, remember that.
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
Source: http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/911pentagonflight77evidencesummary
Mark Roberts said:
Congratulations. Now you're aware of them.
The next move is that you say "All these witnesses say the plane hit the light poles, but none of them say they saw the plane hit the light poles." After that it doesn't matter much what you say, because anyone with a functioning brain understands exactly what game you're playing, even if they've never heard of quote mining. They were describing what they saw, and normal conversational usage doesn't generally involve prefacing every sentence with "I saw..." when it's simpler to relate a continuous narrative.
Dave
JimBenArm
Based on a true story!
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2006
- Messages
- 13,092
I've been reading up on the loudest, dumbest "truthers" here. Concerning the "sanity" only you bring to this forum, I discovered that you started a thread devoted to the small discrepancy in reported take-off times for U175. People who know something about the airlines industry explained the non-controversy easily enough, but your conclusion--your reason for making a total fool of yourself--was classic. Different sources giving take-off times that disagreed by a few minutes meant that THERE WERE TWO UNITED FLIGHT 175s. I have to hand it to you. That is idiocy worthy of Ultima1. You tried babbling until you were laughed off the thread. And it never occurred to you to ask yourself the first question the ringleaders of your imaginary conspiracy would have immediately put to the escaped lunatic who brought that mad plan to them: What is the purpose of the second plane?
If no living soul can be produced to assert that he or she saw the plane hit the lightposts, AA Flight77 will still have crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11/01. That is a fact, supported by overwhelming evidence.
http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=51
1. “It was very, very low -- at the height of the street lights. It knocked a couple down.”[387]
Mark Bright. Pentagon police officer who was at the guard shack. Does NOT claim to have witnessed the impact OR the plane hitting the poles. Mentioning the downed poles is not the same as seeing the plane hit them.
QUOTE
2. “He said the craft clipped a utility pole guide wire.”[388]
Utility pole guide wire? He does not claim to have seen the plane hit any light poles and no "guide wire" was hit. In fact he is not even quoted about this but he IS quoted seeing the plane "bank" which contradicts the official flight path and SUPPORTS the north side flight path. Arabesque is 0 for 2.
QUOTE
3. “Penny Elgas stopped as she saw a passenger jet descend, clip a light pole near her.”[389]
Penny also does not claim to have seen the plane hit the poles. Arabasque is not quoting Penny. Why is he deceptively attributing this quote to Penny in his analysis? He is 0 for 3.
QUOTE
4. “The plane approached the Pentagon… clipping a light pole, a car antenna… It clipped a couple of light poles on the way in.”[390]
Lee Evey was the Pentagon renovation manager. He was not a witness to the plane, the attack, or the light poles. He was at home at the time of the attack. This is EXACTLY why Arabesque's "research" is so damaging. He does ZERO fact checking and simply copies and pastes words provided for him by the complicit mainstream media. We have pointed this fact out to him in this thread and he even acknowledged it and promised to correct his mistakes in this post over 4 months ago! That means he is knowingly pushing disinfo which is an assault on truth and a slap in the face to real researchers.
QUOTE
5. “Next to me was a cab from D.C., its windshield smashed out by pieces of lampposts.”[391]
Don Fortunato. Nobody denies the cab and pole were on the road. Don does not claim he saw the plane hit the pole, the pole sticking out of the windshield of the cab OR the cab driver removing the pole. BECAUSE HE WAS IN THE ARLINGTON COUNTY POLICE DEPT HQ. He was not even a witness. He is 0 for 5 and being deceptive again.
QUOTE
6. “[she saw] a low-flying jetliner strike the top of nearby telephone poles.”[392]
Kat Gaines was on 110 and would not be able to physically see the plane hit the poles. Once again Arabesque is not quoting Kat Gaines. Without a direct quote AND confirmation of that quote he is not citing evidence but citing mainstream media deceptions. Besides....no "telephone poles" were downed at all. He is 0 for 6.
QUOTE
7. “It hit some lampposts on the way in.”[393]
Afework Hagos is not claiming to have SEEN the light poles get hit. We can't find a trace of this person existing at all but regardless.....simply mentioning the poles is NOT evidence that they literally saw the plane hit the poles. We know that a lot of people saw the poles on the ground and deduced that they were hit. He is 0 for 7.
QUOTE
8. “[the [plane flew] over Ft Myer picking off trees and light poles near the helicopter pad next to building.”[394]
Like Lee Evey, Tom Hovis is not a witness, he was in his office...8 miles away from the Pentagon. He was not present during the attack. He was reciting what he believed he learned about the flight path of the plane. Once again Arabesque has proven how inaccurate the disinformation is that he is publishing online.
QUOTE
9. “[he watched the plane clip] the antenna of the vehicle immediately behind him. It also struck three light poles between him and the building.”[395]
Don Mason was a Pentagon Renovation worker that is one of 3 PenRen workers cited in the ASCE report. Because of this he is a VERY suspect witness but once again.....he is not even quoting Don Mason. And even still...the mainstream media reporter Arabesque is quoting STILL doesn't say that he "saw" the plane hit the poles. He is 0 for 9.
QUOTE
10. “The plane clipped the top of a light pole just before it got to us, injuring a taxi driver, whose taxi was just a few feet away from my car.”[396]
Arabesque KNOWS that we did an interview with opus dei influenced priest Stephen McGraw. He KNOWS that we have posted this entire interview online for the entire world to see. He KNOWS that McGraw specifically told us and the world that he did NOT see the plane hit the poles despite the fact that he was allegedly right in front of them. Therefore Arabesque is once again caught deliberately disseminating disinformation in support of the official story. How can he do something so malicious and harmful to truth?
QUOTE
11. “I saw debris flying. I guess it was hitting light poles.”[397]
Do I even have to address this? Kirk Milburn was not in a position to see the poles and he does not even claim to have seen them. We spoke with his son who told us that Kirk died in a motorcycle accident a couple years ago.
QUOTE
12. “As the aircraft approached the Pentagon, I saw a minor flash (later found out that the aircraft had sheared off a portion of a highway light pole down on Hwy 110.”[398]
Terry Morin was at the Navy Annex parking lot where you CAN NOT see route 27 or the light poles. You can't even see the Pentagon due to the steep decline. He does not even claim to have seen the light pole get hit. Arabesque is 0 for 12.
QUOTE
13. “The tail of the plane clipped the overhanging exit sign above me.”[399]
Vin was one of the reporters in the USA Today Parade. No "overhanging exit sign" was hit and he does not claim to see the plane hit any poles.
QUOTE
14. “Street lights toppled as the plane barely cleared the Interstate 395 overpass.”[400]
Mary Ann Ownes is also part of the USA Today/Gannett Parade. She is not claiming to have "seen" the poles get hit by the plane. He is 0 for 14.
QUOTE
15. “On either side of him, three streetlights had been sheared in half by the airliner’s wings at 12 to 15 feet above the ground. An engine had clipped the antenna off a Jeep Grand Cherokee stalled in traffic not far away.”
Where is his source for this one? Who said this? Whoever it was it sure wasn't a witness because they are talking about it in 3rd person. This is not a witness account at all. He is 0 for 15.
QUOTE
16. “I saw the wing of the plane clip the light post, and it made the plane slant.”[401]
Here is the one account. Wanda Ramey. She is the ONE known witness who is directly quoted as having "seen" the plane hit the poles. She is or was a Pentagon police officer just like Chad Brooks. Chad had also said in the past that he saw the plane hit the poles. When we interviewed him he clarified and said that he didn't actually see it happen but simply saw the poles on the ground after the fact. No doubt Wanda is also deducing this and simply honestly embellishing her account just like Chad did. Since she is the ONLY one to specifically make this claim and since we have directly spoken with so many others who specifically say that they didn't see the poles get hit it is a fair assumption on our part to make. We are still trying to get a hold of her for direct clarification. Nonetheless she is the only one. He is 1 for 16.
QUOTE
17. “It knocked over a few light poles in its way…”[402]
Steve Riskus does not claim to have seen the plane hit the poles.
QUOTE
18. “[It] struck a light pole…The plane tried to recover, but hit a second light pole and continued flying at an angle.”[403]
Noel Sepulveda may sound like he saw the plane hit the poles; but he does NOT specifically state it and he may be relaying what he was told. This is why first-hand confirmation is so important. Plus it allegedly hit 5 poles not 2. Is it really possible for the plane to "try to recover" at over 500mph? If any of the 5 poles really affected the flight of the plane that would have been devastating and there is no way it would have hit with such perfect precision so low and level and fast to the ground as depicted in the security video. There is a lot of reason to doubt the legitimacy of this account and we were not able to find him for verification.
QUOTE
19. “There were light poles down.”[404]
Once again, Joel Sucherman DOES NOT claim to have seen the poles get hit, is a USA Today Editor, AND we interviewed him in his office at Gannett. He specifically told us that he did not see the plane hit the poles. That is the type of effort it takes to find the truth. Why does Arabasque refuse to confirm his research and insist on spreading information that has been PROVEN to be incorrect even though he is fully aware of it? How can he not see how harmful that is?
QUOTE
20. “It turned and came around in front of the vehicle and it clipped one of these light poles…”[405]
Once again....does not claim to have seen the poles hit. We had dinner at Mike Walter's house. He also specifically told us that he did NOT see the plane hit the poles.
QUOTE
21. “The plane was flying low and rapidly descended, knocking over light poles.”[406]
Rodney Washington is not claiming that he saw the plane hit the poles. You can not take an unconfirmed statement out of context and assume he is saying what you want him to say. He is simply relaying what he believes the plane to have done.
QUOTE
22. “I saw it clip a light pole.”[407]
Uh-huh. Here is the "Unnamed Navy admiral". Real detailed account isn't it? That is not a witness with a name and so this is not valid evidence.
So......just as I stated; there is only ONE witness who states she saw the plane hit a pole.
Out of all these, many have ADMITTED they didn't see the plane hit the poles and many aren't even witnesses to the event at all and only 1 claims she saw the plane hit a pole. It's clear this is NOT evidence strong enough to counter the rock solid north of the citgo testimony that is independently corroborated 6 times and directly refuted by NOBODY proving the plane did not hit the poles.
First-hand confirmation of ALL witness accounts is key.
Never trust the mainstream media but PARTICULARLY in regards to 9/11.
1. “It was very, very low -- at the height of the street lights. It knocked a couple down.”[387]
Mark Bright. Pentagon police officer who was at the guard shack. Does NOT claim to have witnessed the impact OR the plane hitting the poles. Mentioning the downed poles is not the same as seeing the plane hit them.
QUOTE
2. “He said the craft clipped a utility pole guide wire.”[388]
Utility pole guide wire? He does not claim to have seen the plane hit any light poles and no "guide wire" was hit. In fact he is not even quoted about this but he IS quoted seeing the plane "bank" which contradicts the official flight path and SUPPORTS the north side flight path. Arabesque is 0 for 2.
QUOTE
3. “Penny Elgas stopped as she saw a passenger jet descend, clip a light pole near her.”[389]
Penny also does not claim to have seen the plane hit the poles. Arabasque is not quoting Penny. Why is he deceptively attributing this quote to Penny in his analysis? He is 0 for 3.
QUOTE
4. “The plane approached the Pentagon… clipping a light pole, a car antenna… It clipped a couple of light poles on the way in.”[390]
Lee Evey was the Pentagon renovation manager. He was not a witness to the plane, the attack, or the light poles. He was at home at the time of the attack. This is EXACTLY why Arabesque's "research" is so damaging. He does ZERO fact checking and simply copies and pastes words provided for him by the complicit mainstream media. We have pointed this fact out to him in this thread and he even acknowledged it and promised to correct his mistakes in this post over 4 months ago! That means he is knowingly pushing disinfo which is an assault on truth and a slap in the face to real researchers.
QUOTE
5. “Next to me was a cab from D.C., its windshield smashed out by pieces of lampposts.”[391]
Don Fortunato. Nobody denies the cab and pole were on the road. Don does not claim he saw the plane hit the pole, the pole sticking out of the windshield of the cab OR the cab driver removing the pole. BECAUSE HE WAS IN THE ARLINGTON COUNTY POLICE DEPT HQ. He was not even a witness. He is 0 for 5 and being deceptive again.
QUOTE
6. “[she saw] a low-flying jetliner strike the top of nearby telephone poles.”[392]
Kat Gaines was on 110 and would not be able to physically see the plane hit the poles. Once again Arabesque is not quoting Kat Gaines. Without a direct quote AND confirmation of that quote he is not citing evidence but citing mainstream media deceptions. Besides....no "telephone poles" were downed at all. He is 0 for 6.
QUOTE
7. “It hit some lampposts on the way in.”[393]
Afework Hagos is not claiming to have SEEN the light poles get hit. We can't find a trace of this person existing at all but regardless.....simply mentioning the poles is NOT evidence that they literally saw the plane hit the poles. We know that a lot of people saw the poles on the ground and deduced that they were hit. He is 0 for 7.
QUOTE
8. “[the [plane flew] over Ft Myer picking off trees and light poles near the helicopter pad next to building.”[394]
Like Lee Evey, Tom Hovis is not a witness, he was in his office...8 miles away from the Pentagon. He was not present during the attack. He was reciting what he believed he learned about the flight path of the plane. Once again Arabesque has proven how inaccurate the disinformation is that he is publishing online.
QUOTE
9. “[he watched the plane clip] the antenna of the vehicle immediately behind him. It also struck three light poles between him and the building.”[395]
Don Mason was a Pentagon Renovation worker that is one of 3 PenRen workers cited in the ASCE report. Because of this he is a VERY suspect witness but once again.....he is not even quoting Don Mason. And even still...the mainstream media reporter Arabesque is quoting STILL doesn't say that he "saw" the plane hit the poles. He is 0 for 9.
QUOTE
10. “The plane clipped the top of a light pole just before it got to us, injuring a taxi driver, whose taxi was just a few feet away from my car.”[396]
Arabesque KNOWS that we did an interview with opus dei influenced priest Stephen McGraw. He KNOWS that we have posted this entire interview online for the entire world to see. He KNOWS that McGraw specifically told us and the world that he did NOT see the plane hit the poles despite the fact that he was allegedly right in front of them. Therefore Arabesque is once again caught deliberately disseminating disinformation in support of the official story. How can he do something so malicious and harmful to truth?
QUOTE
11. “I saw debris flying. I guess it was hitting light poles.”[397]
Do I even have to address this? Kirk Milburn was not in a position to see the poles and he does not even claim to have seen them. We spoke with his son who told us that Kirk died in a motorcycle accident a couple years ago.
QUOTE
12. “As the aircraft approached the Pentagon, I saw a minor flash (later found out that the aircraft had sheared off a portion of a highway light pole down on Hwy 110.”[398]
Terry Morin was at the Navy Annex parking lot where you CAN NOT see route 27 or the light poles. You can't even see the Pentagon due to the steep decline. He does not even claim to have seen the light pole get hit. Arabesque is 0 for 12.
QUOTE
13. “The tail of the plane clipped the overhanging exit sign above me.”[399]
Vin was one of the reporters in the USA Today Parade. No "overhanging exit sign" was hit and he does not claim to see the plane hit any poles.
QUOTE
14. “Street lights toppled as the plane barely cleared the Interstate 395 overpass.”[400]
Mary Ann Ownes is also part of the USA Today/Gannett Parade. She is not claiming to have "seen" the poles get hit by the plane. He is 0 for 14.
QUOTE
15. “On either side of him, three streetlights had been sheared in half by the airliner’s wings at 12 to 15 feet above the ground. An engine had clipped the antenna off a Jeep Grand Cherokee stalled in traffic not far away.”
Where is his source for this one? Who said this? Whoever it was it sure wasn't a witness because they are talking about it in 3rd person. This is not a witness account at all. He is 0 for 15.
QUOTE
16. “I saw the wing of the plane clip the light post, and it made the plane slant.”[401]
Here is the one account. Wanda Ramey. She is the ONE known witness who is directly quoted as having "seen" the plane hit the poles. She is or was a Pentagon police officer just like Chad Brooks. Chad had also said in the past that he saw the plane hit the poles. When we interviewed him he clarified and said that he didn't actually see it happen but simply saw the poles on the ground after the fact. No doubt Wanda is also deducing this and simply honestly embellishing her account just like Chad did. Since she is the ONLY one to specifically make this claim and since we have directly spoken with so many others who specifically say that they didn't see the poles get hit it is a fair assumption on our part to make. We are still trying to get a hold of her for direct clarification. Nonetheless she is the only one. He is 1 for 16.
QUOTE
17. “It knocked over a few light poles in its way…”[402]
Steve Riskus does not claim to have seen the plane hit the poles.
QUOTE
18. “[It] struck a light pole…The plane tried to recover, but hit a second light pole and continued flying at an angle.”[403]
Noel Sepulveda may sound like he saw the plane hit the poles; but he does NOT specifically state it and he may be relaying what he was told. This is why first-hand confirmation is so important. Plus it allegedly hit 5 poles not 2. Is it really possible for the plane to "try to recover" at over 500mph? If any of the 5 poles really affected the flight of the plane that would have been devastating and there is no way it would have hit with such perfect precision so low and level and fast to the ground as depicted in the security video. There is a lot of reason to doubt the legitimacy of this account and we were not able to find him for verification.
QUOTE
19. “There were light poles down.”[404]
Once again, Joel Sucherman DOES NOT claim to have seen the poles get hit, is a USA Today Editor, AND we interviewed him in his office at Gannett. He specifically told us that he did not see the plane hit the poles. That is the type of effort it takes to find the truth. Why does Arabasque refuse to confirm his research and insist on spreading information that has been PROVEN to be incorrect even though he is fully aware of it? How can he not see how harmful that is?
QUOTE
20. “It turned and came around in front of the vehicle and it clipped one of these light poles…”[405]
Once again....does not claim to have seen the poles hit. We had dinner at Mike Walter's house. He also specifically told us that he did NOT see the plane hit the poles.
QUOTE
21. “The plane was flying low and rapidly descended, knocking over light poles.”[406]
Rodney Washington is not claiming that he saw the plane hit the poles. You can not take an unconfirmed statement out of context and assume he is saying what you want him to say. He is simply relaying what he believes the plane to have done.
QUOTE
22. “I saw it clip a light pole.”[407]
Uh-huh. Here is the "Unnamed Navy admiral". Real detailed account isn't it? That is not a witness with a name and so this is not valid evidence.
So......just as I stated; there is only ONE witness who states she saw the plane hit a pole.
Out of all these, many have ADMITTED they didn't see the plane hit the poles and many aren't even witnesses to the event at all and only 1 claims she saw the plane hit a pole. It's clear this is NOT evidence strong enough to counter the rock solid north of the citgo testimony that is independently corroborated 6 times and directly refuted by NOBODY proving the plane did not hit the poles.
First-hand confirmation of ALL witness accounts is key.
Never trust the mainstream media but PARTICULARLY in regards to 9/11.
MG1962
Unregistered
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2006
- Messages
- 17,252
I suppose no matter what side of the debate you are on, it is a fair request we all play by the same rules
So I believe I have the right to ask you the same question. Can you produce a witness that shows the poles were not in the vertical positon before the passage of the plane through the area.
Can you produce a witness that shows the poles where trucked in or placed in position after the passage of the plane in the area
Or, can you show any variation of the above questions that involve the poles reaching their final position without being affected in any physical way by the passage of the plane through the area.
BigAl
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2007
- Messages
- 5,397
Cherrypick much?