• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Ed All 43 videos "Second Hit"" [Explosion]at WTC 2: Plane or No Plane?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Translation: It's not relevant at all, but merely more word salad to delay having to face the questions which, if answered, would shoot down the no-plane delusion in one swoop.

Ah ha, at last. Someone admits to playing dumb "gotcha" games. Uke2se plainly admits the purpose of asking questions is to use answers given as refutation. That is what "gotcha" means. Namely, you cannot refute in your own right or on the basis of your own ability to assert claims, including refutation, rather, you rely on questions and then claims about the answers given to prove YOUR point.

If you've got a point, prove it yourself. As things stand, you haven't proven anything.

Uke2se's post is a classic acknowledgment of why I don't play "gotcha" with posters here. Your questions are often, to the point of usually, not for purpose of seeking information; and, instead, just as Uke2se admits, your questions are intended as a means to get answers that you can then treat like a strawperson and beat up on it. When someone asks a question for information or for another legitimate reason, such as what do I think about a mtter, then an answer might be appropriate. When, however, the aim of the question is to get information about which the claim of refutation will be made, that is improper. Do your own refutation on the basis of your own information.

As to gotcha games: No thanks. Not today. Not tomorrow. Not at all.

Grasp this:

If you've got a claim or if you think you can refute something I have claimed, then do so on your own. You may not use questioning of me to prove your claims, ever.
 
Last edited:
Oh come on Excaza, think for yourself, please; or, at a minimum, say that you have thought about the matter and can see no relevance. Post up either a claim that there is no way you can see any relevance and state why; or, state why you claim there is no relevance.

I do not play stupid "20 questions" games. Add to the content of the thread yourself and do not depend on me to provide your answers. I will post up information I consider relevant and you need to do likewise.

So it's not relevant, thanks for answering.

Ah ha, at last. Someone admits to playing dumb "gotcha" games. Uke2se plainly admits the purpose of asking questions is to use answers given as refutation. That is what "gotcha" means. Namely, you cannot refute in your own right or on the basis of your own ability to assert claims, including refutation, rather, you rely on questions and then claims about the answers given to prove YOUR point.

If you've got a point, prove it yourself. As things stand, you haven't proven anything.

If you've got a point, prove it yourself. As things stand, you haven't proven anything.
 
Ah ha, at last. Someone admits to playing dumb "gotcha" games. Uke2se plainly admits the purpose of asking questions is to use answers given as refutation. That is what "gotcha" means. Namely, you cannot refute in your own right or on the basis of your own ability to assert claims, including refutation, rather, you rely on questions and then claims about the answers given to prove YOUR point.

If you've got a point, prove it yourself. As things stand, you haven't proven anything.

Once again, Jammonius manages to type several sentences without saying anything. He tries once again to shift the burden of evidence, and he completely mischaracterizes a post he quotes. If anyone is still in doubt: everything Jammonius posts can be assumed to be a lie, concocted by a deeply disturbed person who cannot come to grips with his or her own fears. I'm looking at you, "Dr" Wood.

ETA: I enjoy how he completely misunderstood my point though. It's interesting to watch Jammonius post in the same way it's interesting to look at a traffic accident: revolting but still fascinating.
 
Last edited:
I have added in the age information for the alleged crew and for the alleged passengers posted up thus far by Compus.

The average age of the 9 crew members is 37.

Here is the information:

Passengers:
Hanson's seated in 19C,D,E 3/51 Ages: 21/2, ____, _____
Avraham, 22G 4/51 Age: 30
Bailey, 6F 5/51 Age: 54
Bavis, 19F 6/51 Age: 31
Berkeley, 6B 7/51 Age: 37
Bolourchi, 15C 8/51 Age: 69
Brandhurst, Gamboa, Gamboa-Brandhurst 8A,B,C 11/51 Ages: 41, 33, 3
Cahill, 6E 12/51 Age: 57
Carstanjen, 20A 13/51 Age: 33
Corcoran, 21G 14/51 Age: 43

Crew:
Saracini-pilot 1/9 Age: 51
Horrocks-first officer 2/9 Age: 38
Fangman-flight attendant 3/9 Age: 33
Jarret-flight attendant 4/9 Age: 28
King-flight attendant 5/9 Age: 29
Tarrou-flight attendant 6/9 Age: 38
Laborie-flight attendant 7/9 Age 44
Marchand-flight attendant 8/9 Age: 44
Titus-flight attendant 9/9 Age: 28

Average age of crew = 37


You seem to be saying that the average age of the crew is 37.

37 is a prime number, one more than 6x6.

eta: Dante was 35 when he was midway in our life's journey. Just sayin'.

Inferno

The poem begins on the night before Good Friday in the year 1300, "halfway along our life's path" (Nel mezzo del cammin di nostra vita). Dante is thirty-five years old, half of the biblical life expectancy of 70

It all makes sense.
 
Last edited:
I have added in the age information for the alleged crew and for the alleged passengers posted up thus far by Compus.

The average age of the 9 crew members is 37.

Here is the information:

Passengers:
Hanson's seated in 19C,D,E 3/51 Ages: 21/2, ____, _____
Avraham, 22G 4/51 Age: 30
Bailey, 6F 5/51 Age: 54
Bavis, 19F 6/51 Age: 31
Berkeley, 6B 7/51 Age: 37
Bolourchi, 15C 8/51 Age: 69
Brandhurst, Gamboa, Gamboa-Brandhurst 8A,B,C 11/51 Ages: 41, 33, 3
Cahill, 6E 12/51 Age: 57
Carstanjen, 20A 13/51 Age: 33
Corcoran, 21G 14/51 Age: 43

Crew:
Saracini-pilot 1/9 Age: 51
Horrocks-first officer 2/9 Age: 38
Fangman-flight attendant 3/9 Age: 33
Jarret-flight attendant 4/9 Age: 28
King-flight attendant 5/9 Age: 29
Tarrou-flight attendant 6/9 Age: 38
Laborie-flight attendant 7/9 Age 44
Marchand-flight attendant 8/9 Age: 44
Titus-flight attendant 9/9 Age: 28

Average age of crew = 37

I've added some random numbers:

Moons of Mars: 2
Spreadsheet program: 123
Legs on a cat: 4
City speed limit: 65
Colors in a rainbow: 7
Pips on a die: 21
-------------------------+
Total: 222

Average number = 37

Draw your own conclusion.
 
aka "Blobby thingies TM"

C'mon, Bell, your calculation is loaded with assumptions!

Grasp this:

If you think you can refute something I have claimed, then do so on your own. You may not use questioning of me to disprove my claims, ever.
 
Post # 1368 Ongoing Refutation 5/65
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...postcount=1368


Well, Carlitos, your attempt to help out with the claim there are "1000s of witnesses" to a plane hitting the South Tower has clearly failed, even though we have not yet fully completed the process of reviewing the 80something claims you posted up.

We have reviewed 65 of them, of which, only 5 count as statements. The next ten are as follows:

Scott Pasquini

Scott Pasquini had by now walked down toward Battery Park, along the river, and was standing in a crowd of people looking up at the North Tower when he heard a sound overhead and watched the second plane hit the other tower.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...8407-2001Sep15


The above is obvious hearsay and does not count as a reliable, verifiable witness.

Mike Penzer

About 9:03 a.m., as I was still looking north toward the Trade Center, I heard the very loud sound of a jet passenger plane flying very low behind me. I spun around and saw the plane directly above the Statue of Liberty and about to fly over our heads. Then, the plane avoided a high-rise just north of us and flew into the south side of the South Tower at about the 70th floor level. The huge plane disappeared into the even larger building, and a huge ball of flame and smoke erupted.
http://www.nabe.com/am2001/penzer.html


The above is written as a story, posted as a story (at a website for business economics) and so, therefore, must be treated like a story. It is not a valid witness statement.

Dominic Perella

Dominic Perella had just gotten home to Brooklyn after working the overnight shift at the Associated Press. He was getting ready for bed when his roommate shouted into his room, saying Perella must not have known what happened when he left work.
"We went onto the roof, which has a Manhattan view," Perella said. "We saw the second plane approach. I thought it was a rescue plane or something, and then it disappeared from sight."
http://www.cdalumni.org/news/vii1/No...c-attacks.html


Obvious hearsay and does not count as a reliable, verifiable witness.

PARAMEDIC JOEL PIERCE

...I watched eventually the second plane, I saw it. It looked like it was circling around south, then came back north, striking the south side of Tower No. 2.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...IC/9110485.PDF


While the source is valid and the statement otherwise valid as a witness statement, it will not count because it describes a flight path completely at variance with what the common storyline demands. Plus, this witness was in Brooklyn when the event happened and is not considered to have been at a vantage point from where a reliable statement could be made.

Stanley Praimnath
As Praimnath enters his office, his phone is ringing. A friend from Chicago asks Praimnath if he heard about the north tower being hit. He assures her all is fine.
But all is not fine. It is 9:03 a.m. and United Airlines Flight 175 is staring him in the face.
"Suddenly I see this big gray airplane with red letters on the wing and tail filling my window," Praimnath says. "It’s coming right at me."
Praimnath drops the phone and tucks under his desk in a fetal position as the plane obliterates the wall. The impact is a prolonged, gut-wrenching screech, a hideous, metallic roar. "It sounded like a huge steel cage being ripped apart," Praimnath recalls...
http://stanleypraimnath.com/1.htm


Stanley Praimnath is famous for watching a jetliner explode all around him as he watched it smash through his window at 550mph +/-, and then disintegrate as it hit his desk, which desk saved him from being hit by the jetliner traveling as described. Right, Stanley.


David Reck

David Reck was handing out literature for a candidate for public advocate a few blocks away when he saw a jet come in "very low, and then it made a slight twist and dove into the building."
http://www.gallupindependent.com/1999-2001/9-11-01.html


More unreliable hearsay.

Andrea Refol

It was our 4-year-old Jordan's first day of pre-kindergarten. We left our house at 8:22 a.m.; I was on my way to a doctor's appointment, the radio was on, and we heard the news report. I had my first contraction. We were driving down Sackett Street in Brooklyn, and we watched the second plane make contact. My first thought was, Oh, my God, my appointment -- I'm supposed to have a baby!
http://nymag.com/news/articles/wtc/6...imonials/2.htm


A magazine story does not count as a witness statement as everyone surely knows by now.

Luigi Ribaudo

About 18 minutes later, Luigi Ribaudo -- who works nearby, in Tribeca -- heard a twin-engine plane making what he said was a strange noise. He looked up; he saw a plane that was "too low."
"It was going to hit something and it hit and exploded inside," he said.
http://www.esubjects.com/curric/gene...l_HardNews.pdf


More unreliable hearsay.

EMT Mercedes Rivera
"As I passed by St. Vincent's Hospital below 14th Street, Paul said, 'Wow. Look at that plane. It's pretty close.' I said, 'Jeez, you're right. Look at the size of that plane.' We watched that plane get closer; it flew over us, it went over the Hudson River, then we saw it make a tilt and go right into the South Tower. It was like science fiction.
Then we saw the explosion...
Women at Ground Zero, Susan Hagen and Mary Carouba


The above is part story and part statement. The story part is obvious. The statement part is: "Then we saw the explosion..."

This account is not a reliable witness account.

Police Officer J Rivero

At this time I heard a loud roar coming from the south I yelled 'Al look at this ****' the plane smashed into W.T.C. #2...
http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa-...-reports01.pdf


The above is technically not a report of a person seeing a plane crash. It is altered beyond reliability as a witness of a plane crash. All one has to do is read it.
 
Post # 1368 Ongoing Refutation 5/65
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...postcount=1368


Well, Carlitos, your attempt to help out with the claim there are "1000s of witnesses" to a plane hitting the South Tower has clearly failed, even though we have not yet fully completed the process of reviewing the 80something claims you posted up.

We have reviewed 65 of them, of which, only 5 count as statements. The next ten are as follows:
.


One need only look at thge Naudet video, or any videos of the planes hitting the towers, and the streets are filled with throngs of people with eyes focused on the towers. Jam, you really seem to think on a dozen or so people live in NYC The fact is thousands of people who were there saw the planes hit the towers, and millions saw the second plane hit live on tv. You have yet to prove the video footage is fake, despite your lunatic claims.
 
Last edited:
Post # 1368 Ongoing Refutation 5/65
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...postcount=1368


Well, Carlitos, your attempt to help out with the claim there are "1000s of witnesses" to a plane hitting the South Tower has clearly failed, even though we have not yet fully completed the process of reviewing the 80something claims you posted up.

We have reviewed 65 of them, of which, only 5 count as statements. The next ten are as follows:

Scott Pasquini

Scott Pasquini had by now walked down toward Battery Park, along the river, and was standing in a crowd of people looking up at the North Tower when he heard a sound overhead and watched the second plane hit the other tower.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...8407-2001Sep15


The above is obvious hearsay and does not count as a reliable, verifiable witness.

Mike Penzer

About 9:03 a.m., as I was still looking north toward the Trade Center, I heard the very loud sound of a jet passenger plane flying very low behind me. I spun around and saw the plane directly above the Statue of Liberty and about to fly over our heads. Then, the plane avoided a high-rise just north of us and flew into the south side of the South Tower at about the 70th floor level. The huge plane disappeared into the even larger building, and a huge ball of flame and smoke erupted.
http://www.nabe.com/am2001/penzer.html


The above is written as a story, posted as a story (at a website for business economics) and so, therefore, must be treated like a story. It is not a valid witness statement.

Dominic Perella

Dominic Perella had just gotten home to Brooklyn after working the overnight shift at the Associated Press. He was getting ready for bed when his roommate shouted into his room, saying Perella must not have known what happened when he left work.
"We went onto the roof, which has a Manhattan view," Perella said. "We saw the second plane approach. I thought it was a rescue plane or something, and then it disappeared from sight."
http://www.cdalumni.org/news/vii1/No...c-attacks.html


Obvious hearsay and does not count as a reliable, verifiable witness.

PARAMEDIC JOEL PIERCE

...I watched eventually the second plane, I saw it. It looked like it was circling around south, then came back north, striking the south side of Tower No. 2.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...IC/9110485.PDF


While the source is valid and the statement otherwise valid as a witness statement, it will not count because it describes a flight path completely at variance with what the common storyline demands. Plus, this witness was in Brooklyn when the event happened and is not considered to have been at a vantage point from where a reliable statement could be made.

Stanley Praimnath
As Praimnath enters his office, his phone is ringing. A friend from Chicago asks Praimnath if he heard about the north tower being hit. He assures her all is fine.
But all is not fine. It is 9:03 a.m. and United Airlines Flight 175 is staring him in the face.
"Suddenly I see this big gray airplane with red letters on the wing and tail filling my window," Praimnath says. "It’s coming right at me."
Praimnath drops the phone and tucks under his desk in a fetal position as the plane obliterates the wall. The impact is a prolonged, gut-wrenching screech, a hideous, metallic roar. "It sounded like a huge steel cage being ripped apart," Praimnath recalls...
http://stanleypraimnath.com/1.htm


Stanley Praimnath is famous for watching a jetliner explode all around him as he watched it smash through his window at 550mph +/-, and then disintegrate as it hit his desk, which desk saved him from being hit by the jetliner traveling as described. Right, Stanley.


David Reck

David Reck was handing out literature for a candidate for public advocate a few blocks away when he saw a jet come in "very low, and then it made a slight twist and dove into the building."
http://www.gallupindependent.com/1999-2001/9-11-01.html


More unreliable hearsay.

Andrea Refol

It was our 4-year-old Jordan's first day of pre-kindergarten. We left our house at 8:22 a.m.; I was on my way to a doctor's appointment, the radio was on, and we heard the news report. I had my first contraction. We were driving down Sackett Street in Brooklyn, and we watched the second plane make contact. My first thought was, Oh, my God, my appointment -- I'm supposed to have a baby!
http://nymag.com/news/articles/wtc/6...imonials/2.htm


A magazine story does not count as a witness statement as everyone surely knows by now.

Luigi Ribaudo

About 18 minutes later, Luigi Ribaudo -- who works nearby, in Tribeca -- heard a twin-engine plane making what he said was a strange noise. He looked up; he saw a plane that was "too low."
"It was going to hit something and it hit and exploded inside," he said.
http://www.esubjects.com/curric/gene...l_HardNews.pdf


More unreliable hearsay.

EMT Mercedes Rivera
"As I passed by St. Vincent's Hospital below 14th Street, Paul said, 'Wow. Look at that plane. It's pretty close.' I said, 'Jeez, you're right. Look at the size of that plane.' We watched that plane get closer; it flew over us, it went over the Hudson River, then we saw it make a tilt and go right into the South Tower. It was like science fiction.
Then we saw the explosion...
Women at Ground Zero, Susan Hagen and Mary Carouba


The above is part story and part statement. The story part is obvious. The statement part is: "Then we saw the explosion..."

This account is not a reliable witness account.

Police Officer J Rivero

At this time I heard a loud roar coming from the south I yelled 'Al look at this ****' the plane smashed into W.T.C. #2...
http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa-...-reports01.pdf


The above is technically not a report of a person seeing a plane crash. It is altered beyond reliability as a witness of a plane crash. All one has to do is read it.

Since you have now said flat out that you'll answer no questions in defense of your assertions, I'll make some of my own, since I'm not required to defend them either.

Judy Wood is a fraud, a liar, and is mentally Ill. She is not a scientist. She follows no known scientific principles because she doesn't know what they are. Anyone who believes in the utter BS she spews is a moron.

It is true because I've said and therefore you cannot refute it.
 
As to gotcha games: No thanks. Not today. Not tomorrow. Not at all.

Grasp this:

If you've got a claim or if you think you can refute something I have claimed, then do so on your own. You may not use questioning of me to prove your claims, ever.


Your refusal to answer questions is proof that you are afraid, and unable to back your crackpot theories with proof. You are unwilling and unable to debate the issue in a rational way, so like the babbling streetcorner madman with their fingers in their ears, you prattle off your nonsense, knowing full well answering questions would expoise your theories as having no foundation to stand on. This is typical Truther behavior.
Not only are you a liar, but youre also a coward.

Remember Truther, the burden is on you to back your claims with evidence, and to date, you've failed.
 
Last edited:
Continuation of Review and assessment of Simulation of alleged Flight 175 Flight from video posted by Bill Smith:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jop84...eature=channel


In this next segment, we have the beginning of the process of reconstructing the 4min40sec flight path, with particular emphasis on altitude, descent, ground speed and air speed from points G to F, as follows:

10--2:31-2:31 Reconstruction segment starts.
11--2:31-2:36 Reconstruction starts at point "G"
12--2:36-2:41 Aircraft said to have descended from 31,000 ft to 24,700ft at point "F"
13--2:41-2:53 Superimposition of NTSB chart on simulation confirming accuracy.
14--2:53-3:03 42 miles from GZ, with 4min40secs to go = 540mph ground speed.
15--3:03-3:23 Comparison of dials and ground speed calculation ending in "let's rock and roll."
16--3:23-3:30 1st min. gs calculation used to confirm 3600ft/min descent.
17--3:30-4:02 Rate of descent is shown on instrument, confirming rapid descent and max. speed of 360knots (air speed).
18--4:03-4:06-Location at this point is shown as confirmed on instrument.


fliightsim10-18.jpg


For those who lack patience, the video concludes that the flight path completely contradicts the video depictions; or, vice versa. Accordingly, the NO PLANE claim as it relates to alleged Flight 175 is strengthened by this forensic evidence.
 
Continuation of Review and assessment of Simulation of alleged Flight 175 Flight from video posted by Bill Smith:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jop84...eature=channel

In this next segment, we have the beginning of the process of reconstructing the 4min40sec flight path, with particular emphasis on altitude, descent, ground speed and air speed from points G to F, as follows:

10--2:31-2:31 Reconstruction segment starts.
11--2:31-2:36 Reconstruction starts at point "G"
12--2:36-2:41 Aircraft said to have descended from 31,000 ft to 24,700ft at point "F"
13--2:41-2:53 Superimposition of NTSB chart on simulation confirming accuracy.
14--2:53-3:03 42 miles from GZ, with 4min40secs to go = 540mph ground speed.
15--3:03-3:23 Comparison of dials and ground speed calculation ending in "let's rock and roll."
16--3:23-3:30 1st min. gs calculation used to confirm 3600ft/min descent.
17--3:30-4:02 Rate of descent is shown on instrument, confirming rapid descent and max. speed of 360knots (air speed).
18--4:03-4:06-Location at this point is shown as confirmed on instrument.




For those who lack patience, the video concludes that the flight path completely contradicts the video depictions; or, vice versa. Accordingly, the NO PLANE claim as it relates to alleged Flight 175 is strengthened by this forensic evidence.
The video is nonsense made up by an idiot. Oops, parts of 175 were found at the WTC. Darn, you lies are beat by reality based evidence not delusions posted by a moron on youtube.

Why do you apologize for terrorists by posting moronic lies?
 
Last edited:
The crew and passengers of United Airlines Flight 175

On the morning of September 11 2001, United Airlines Flight 175 was flying to Los Angeles from Boston, and was hijacked by Islamic terrorists. Shortly after taking off it was deliberately flown into the South Tower of the World Trade Centre, New York.

60 passengers and crew were on board (not counting the hijackers).

There were no survivors.

UNITED AIRLINES FLIGHT 175 PASSENGERS

Lisa Frost, 22, was a passenger on Flight 175. She lived in Rancho Santa Margarita, California. She left behind her father, Tom, her mother, Melanie, and a brother, Daniel. Lisa also left many friends at Boston University, where she graduated summa cum laude with degrees from the School of Hospitality Administration and the College of Communication in 2001.

Subsequent to the attacks, DNA analysis confirmed that some of Lisa's remains had been recovered at the crash site in New York. In 2004, the Frost family flew to the city to collect the remains and take them home. They were cremated. They didn't talk about it publicly.

Katey Ferguson, a friend of Lisa said "Lisa was intelligent, caring, compassionate, and always made any situation more fun. Lisa, you will be missed. My thoughts and prayers are with you, your family, and everyone else who knew and loved you."

Her father Tom said, "I like to talk about Lisa it keeps the memory in me. If you don't the memories just fade I don't want Lisa to fade away."

A credit card Lisa carried on the day she died was donated by the family to the New York State Museum in Albany.

Tom and Melanie Frost visit Lisa's gravesite in Orange once every couple of weeks. It's located in the far east of Holy Sepulcher Cemetery, "Where she looks over at us all the time," Tom said.


344914c58522a015c2.jpg



Source:- HERE HERE HERE


Immutable facts. Unassailable reason.


Compus
 
Continuation of Review and assessment of Simulation of alleged Flight 175 Flight from video posted by Bill Smith:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jop84...eature=channel


In this next segment, we have the beginning of the process of reconstructing the 4min40sec flight path, with particular emphasis on altitude, descent, ground speed and air speed from points G to F, as follows:

10--2:31-2:31 Reconstruction segment starts.
11--2:31-2:36 Reconstruction starts at point "G"
12--2:36-2:41 Aircraft said to have descended from 31,000 ft to 24,700ft at point "F"
13--2:41-2:53 Superimposition of NTSB chart on simulation confirming accuracy.
14--2:53-3:03 42 miles from GZ, with 4min40secs to go = 540mph ground speed.
15--3:03-3:23 Comparison of dials and ground speed calculation ending in "let's rock and roll."
16--3:23-3:30 1st min. gs calculation used to confirm 3600ft/min descent.
17--3:30-4:02 Rate of descent is shown on instrument, confirming rapid descent and max. speed of 360knots (air speed).
18--4:03-4:06-Location at this point is shown as confirmed on instrument.


[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/flightsimvideo/fliightsim10-18.jpg?t=1280944199[/qimg]

For those who lack patience, the video concludes that the flight path completely contradicts the video depictions; or, vice versa. Accordingly, the NO PLANE claim as it relates to alleged Flight 175 is strengthened by this forensic evidence.


It doesn't disprove the fact that 2 planes were flown into the WTC by hijackers, killing all those on board. The crashes were were caught and film, and seen by thousands of eye witynesses, Airplane debris was strewn all over the streets below, as were body parts of people on the planes. Calls were made from the planes, and the flights were tracked from beginning to end by radar. You have offered nothing that disproves any of this.
Here are images of some of the airplane debris at the WTC site:


untitledddddd.jpg


untitleddd.jpg


untitled.jpg
 
untitledddddd.jpg



Jam, notice how this life vest from one of the planes has American Airlines markings. How will you explain this away?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom