• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories

Matt Nelson: 9/11 Debris - An Investigation of Ground Zero

Oystein said:
Haha oh dear FSM!
questionitall had half of their posts moved to AAH because of blatant, obvious, and no doubt intentional breaches of the Membership Agreement - almost like a countdown to ticking off all Rules.

And then, in one of the posts moved to AAH, q. says q. will no longer post here, only at PFFFT, where, as questionitall puts it, there is no censorship.

LOL

Is there anybody here who is NOT blocked or otherwise censored at PFFFT?
Click to expand...

Um, what does this refer?
 
Dave Rogers said:
Me, I think - I've never been there. Mind you, I may have been pre-banned.

Dave
Click to expand...

Balsamo can't have the truth posted at pft - questionitall has no truth, he will be able to post nonsense at pft.

Balsamo bans rational people - questionitall is safe.
 
A reply from questionitall:

ADDENDUM
In my previous entry I stated "Mr. Nelson has since counterclaimed that Corley's chunk of fuselage wreckage "flew dead straight for about 500' then started dropping. It made it about 700' north just over the road between the Post Office and WTC7 then drifted with the wind back to WTC5."
That was an error on my part.
In fact it was the grandstanding pathological liar and provocateur
Edited by Agatha: 
Edited for rule 8
who made that statement, and I will posting my full rebuttal of why everything he's said and claimed to date is patently false in the coming days.
Click to expand...

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/...d=10814572&mode=threaded&start=#entry10814572


Edited by Agatha: 
Edited response to moderated content
 
Last edited by a moderator:
questionitall
I will posting my full rebuttal of why everything he's said and claimed to date is patently false in the coming days.
Click to expand...

While I'm waiting, I decided to look at some of your "proof" that this piece of debris was fake. One of your claims is the wrong fasteners were used, and posted this photo to prove it.

oFxm6eR.jpg


Knowing that you are the legendary Butt Joint Guy, who can't count two windows and look for a butt joint without screwing it up, I decided to check and see if you had counted the windows correctly this time. What I found was that you had managed to count 0 windows. Thats quiet an achievement, no wonder your a legend. You are comparing parts that can be seen through windows 4 & 5 to parts that are located inside the B767 bathroom, which as we all know, has 0 windows.

Knowing that Truthers love to make a claim and then provide us with the evidence that proves them wrong, I decided to take your photo labeled windows 5&6 and the Steficek-2001-10-18 debris photo and do a comparison.

This is what I found.


VxfKCge.jpg


https://www.flickr.com/photos/56322884@N02/with/5857328812/

All of the fasteners inside the red boxes are Hi-lok on both planes...as they should be.

All of the fasteners inside the blue boxes are solid rivets on both planes...as they should be.

If the fasteners are not visible the line continues on to a place where they are visible.

Yellow boxes shows where the fibreglass dampener was glued on.

I do hope the above photo helps you in your divine quest to prove this piece of UA175's fuselage is fake. Maybe you should post it on your Blog.

God speed.
Edited by Agatha: 
Edited for response to modded content




(PS you are not banned here you can still post you just can't call people names)



For those interested this is a Hi-lok fastener:

https://youtu.be/LAR6GsVcZSY

and this is a solid rivet.

https://youtu.be/IDbTUt3OG9s
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Edited by Agatha: 
Edited for rule 8

According to the NIST World Trade Center site investigators, based on their engine trajectory calculations it was estimated that the starboard engine exited World Trade Center 2 at approximately 120 mph.
As such I'm terribly perplexed with your rationale that "the last vortex leaving the building should be the one most likely dragging the part you're interested in" along with it.
So pardon me for asking but are you claiming to have proven about 19,500 cu. ft. of air from the WTC 2 aircraft passenger cabin blew Corley's [sic] Baker's chunk of alleged UA Flight 175 fuselage with multiple passenger windows in it clear through and out of WTC 2 well before, or after, the jet fuel explosion occurred?
And you're saying a Toroidal Vortex "dragged" that chunk of debris with considerably more surface area/drag 500' alongside of the Starboard engine, flaptrack and landing gear shock strut assembly with far greater mass/weight/momentum than it?
I just want to be clear on that point before I comment on your overall theories and evidence thereof at PilotsFor9/11TruthForum.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
questionitall said:
Edited by Agatha: 
Edited for rule 8

According to the NIST World Trade Center site investigators, based on their engine trajectory calculations it was estimated that the starboard engine exited World Trade Center 2 at approximately 120 mph.
As such I'm terribly perplexed with your rationale that "the last vortex leaving the building should be the one most likely dragging the part you're interested in" along with it.
So pardon me for asking but are you claiming to have proven about 19,500 cu. ft. of air from the WTC 2 aircraft passenger cabin blew Corley's [sic] Baker's chunk of alleged UA Flight 175 fuselage with multiple passenger windows in it clear through and out of WTC 2 well before, or after, the jet fuel explosion occurred?
And you're saying a Toroidal Vortex "dragged" that chunk of debris with considerably more surface area/drag 500' alongside of the Starboard engine, flaptrack and landing gear shock strut assembly with far greater mass/weight/momentum than it?
I just want to be clear on that point before I comment on your overall theories and evidence thereof at PilotsFor9/11TruthForum.
Click to expand...

Just comment here so we can follow your rationale.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
questionitall said:
Edited by Agatha: 
Edited for rule 8

According to the NIST World Trade Center site investigators, based on their engine trajectory calculations it was estimated that the starboard engine exited World Trade Center 2 at approximately 120 mph.
As such I'm terribly perplexed with your rationale that "the last vortex leaving the building should be the one most likely dragging the part you're interested in" along with it.
So pardon me for asking but are you claiming to have proven about 19,500 cu. ft. of air from the WTC 2 aircraft passenger cabin blew Corley's [sic] Baker's chunk of alleged UA Flight 175 fuselage with multiple passenger windows in it clear through and out of WTC 2 well before, or after, the jet fuel explosion occurred?
And you're saying a Toroidal Vortex "dragged" that chunk of debris with considerably more surface area/drag 500' alongside of the Starboard engine, flaptrack and landing gear shock strut assembly with far greater mass/weight/momentum than it?
I just want to be clear on that point before I comment on your overall theories and evidence thereof at PilotsFor9/11TruthForum.
Click to expand...

How did the part get there in your fantasy version of 9/11 based on paranoia and zero evidence?

pilots for truth, the perfect place to post your fantasy version of 9/11, Balsamo does not allow facts and evidence, only woo for Balsamo and his pilots who claim they can't hit a 200 foot wide target. pilots for truth = pilots with no clue
 
Last edited by a moderator:
questionitall said:
Edited by Agatha: 
Edited for rule 8
Click to expand...

Edited by Agatha: 
Loath as I am to remove any Monty Python references, edited as response to moderated content


According to the NIST World Trade Center site investigators, based on their engine trajectory calculations it was estimated that the starboard engine exited World Trade Center 2 at approximately 120 mph.
As such I'm terribly perplexed with your rationale that "the last vortex leaving the building should be the one most likely dragging the part you're interested in" along with it.
Click to expand...

Of course your terribly perplexed, somebody gave you an rational answer with evidence and now you don't know what to do.

So pardon me for asking but are you claiming to have proven about 19,500 cu. ft. of air from the WTC 2 aircraft passenger cabin blew Corley's [sic] Baker's chunk of alleged UA Flight 175 fuselage with multiple passenger windows in it clear through and out of WTC 2 well before, or after, the jet fuel explosion occurred?
Click to expand...

I don't claim to have proven anything. I offered an rational explanation with evidence. I am confident in that explanation.

Your use of the word "blew' suggest that you think the part was propelled. I would not use that word. Carried, dragged, pulled, sucked, followed, or tagged along for the ride is a better description of what happened. Take your choice but don't use any word that suggest it was pushed instead of pulled again.

The vortex carrying the part I tracked came out of the fire ball. It wasn't in it long. 6 frames in the Fairbanks video between the fireball igniting and the contrail clearing the fireball.

http://www.911conspiracy.tv/Fairbanks_HD.html

The first vortex that came out of the building was way ahead of the fireball.
You can watch it frame by frame in the fairbanks video. Remember the vortex is ahead of the contrail.

e5ZPEPY.jpg



And you're saying a Toroidal Vortex "dragged" that chunk of debris with considerably more surface area/drag 500' alongside of the Starboard engine, flaptrack and landing gear shock strut assembly with far greater mass/weight/momentum than it?
Click to expand...

You can map it out and measure it yourself. The shadows on the wall of WTC1 gives you a 2 dimensional view of how far ahead and above it is. The part I tracked is the line on the right.

DFDDuEP.png

Yw9D33d.png



You do know that this corner panel from WTC2 flew 1,200' landed in the street, possibly killed one person and injured another. That is about same distance the "Starboard engine, flaptrack and landing gear shock strut assembly with far greater mass/weight/momentum than it?" flew.

It really happened. Is it impossible too.

vHb5WXK.jpg


Pxgvjtu.png
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Edited by Agatha: 
Edited for rule 8

In post #211 you claim to have proven me wrong (about everything else apparently) by having picked-out of thin air and positively identified not one one but three pieces of fuselage flying out of WTC 2 and making it all the way out to WTC5.
Out of the two indiscernable tumbling objects seen in Joshua Good's previously edited (stabilized and cropped) video footage (you highlighted in red circles) in your humble opinion which of those is the smaller chunk of fuselage bearing the partial aircraft registration number (N6****)? If not Corley's [sic] Baker's larger chunk of alleged UA Flight 175 fuselage that is?!
I ask because you've yet to answer for my having demonstrated in post #179 why you're sorely mistaken about William F. Baker's [FEMA] one and only "official" photograph of purported United Airlines Flight 175 fuselage wreckage NOT having been Photoshopped.
Do you deny my explanation of that evidence as well?
An articulate, respectful response to those questions would be greatly appreciated, sir.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
questionitall said:
Edited by Agatha: 
Edited for rule 8

In post #211 you claim to have proven me wrong (about everything else apparently) by having picked-out of thin air and positively identified not one one but three pieces of fuselage flying out of WTC 2 and making it all the way out to WTC5.
Out of the two indiscernable tumbling objects seen in Joshua Good's previously edited (stabilized and cropped) video footage (you highlighted in red circles) in your humble opinion which of those is the smaller chunk of fuselage bearing the partial aircraft registration number (N6****)? If not Corley's [sic] Baker's larger chunk of alleged UA Flight 175 fuselage that is?!
I ask because you've yet to answer for my having demonstrated in post #179 why you're sorely mistaken about William F. Baker's [FEMA] one and only "official" photograph of purported United Airlines Flight 175 fuselage wreckage NOT having been Photoshopped.
Do you deny my explanation of that evidence as well?
An articulate, respectful response to those questions would be greatly appreciated, sir.
Click to expand...

What you need to do is prove the part can't end up where it did using physics. When will you present equations and simulations which support your point? Never!

Or you need to explain what finding the part you seem to claim can't be there, got there with evidence. Got evidence? No!

I use to fly my grammar school ruler by flipping it, it would go all different direction, flying all over, ending up at different places. You claim things can't end up where they did, but offer zero evidence, zero science, zero facts - and never explain what it means. 19 terrorists were responsible for all the damage and murders on 9/11, your inability to figure out how the part got where it ended up is not going to change who did 9/11 - it only exposes your lack of knowledge of physics and flight dynamics.

There is no reason due to physics and aerodynamics that a part of the fuselage can't be shredded off in an impact equal in Kinetic Energy to 2093 pounds and end up where it did. Check with aircraft accident investigators about how this would not be unusual - you can get help from https://aviationsafety.usc.edu/courses/aircraft-accident-investigation/

Study before making unfounded claims. Good luck.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
questionitall, will you please stop referring to ISF members as anything other than their usernames at this website unless a member has given you permission to use another name or nickname. waypastvne has made it clear that he is not "Brian Foster", so further use of this name to refer to waypastvne will be sanctioned by the mod team.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Agatha
 
questionitall said:
Edited by Agatha: 
I ask because you've yet to answer for my having demonstrated in post #179 why you're sorely mistaken about William F. Baker's [FEMA] one and only "official" photograph of purported United Airlines Flight 175 fuselage wreckage NOT having been Photoshopped.
Do you deny my explanation of that evidence as well?
An articulate, respectful response to those questions would be greatly appreciated, sir.
Click to expand...
Edited by Agatha: 


I'll be articulate: The claim that the image is Photoshopped is a lie.

I work with Photoshop every day. I loaded the image into the program and ran through the multiple filters and there is no evidence of manipulation of the image. I don't care how many times a picture has been uploaded, downloaded, shared, cut and pasted the evidence of manipulation will remain.

In fact the original photo show zero evidence of even basic enhancements to clean it up.

In conclusion: There is zero evidence of the image being altered in Photoshop.
 
Last edited:
Agatha said:
questionitall, will you please stop referring to ISF members as anything other than their usernames at this website unless a member has given you permission to use another name or nickname. waypastvne has made it clear that he is not "Brian Foster", so further use of this name to refer to waypastvne will be sanctioned by the mod team.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Agatha
Click to expand...


I still want to be called Loretta.
 
questionitall said:
Out of the two indiscernable tumbling objects seen in Joshua Good's previously edited (stabilized and cropped) video footage (you highlighted in red circles) in your humble opinion which of those is the smaller chunk of fuselage bearing the partial aircraft registration number (N6****)?
Click to expand...

I don't think any of those three pieces are the part that I tracked. Those entered from the left. The part I tracked should enter from the right a few seconds later, but the camera pans left back to the explosion so it is out of frame.

I posted that GIF because you are presenting us with "No Way" evidence.

All that is necessary to counter that is to show one piece of debris landing on WTC5 and your evidence goes out the window, flies straight line for about 500', then drifts with the wind, and lands back over at the PFFFT along with all the other crap posted there.

In other words "Yes Way"

OdUk4Sp.gif

I ask because you've yet to answer for my having demonstrated in post #179 why you're sorely mistaken about William F. Baker's [FEMA] one and only "official" photograph of purported United Airlines Flight 175 fuselage wreckage NOT having been Photoshopped.
Do you deny my explanation of that evidence as well?
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone here understands WTF you are trying to say. So I went back to post #179 and pulled out one of the more coherent sentences you posted. I think this is what you want me to respond to:

All of which means that regardless of the alleged metal cladding obstruction, at bare minimum the uppermost portion of said window opening should be visible in Baker's image. But that clearly isn't the case and I defy any fool at International Skeptics Forum to argue otherwise.
Click to expand...


I took your William F Baker photo into Photoshop (Yes I admit it. I used Photoshop on this photo) and drew a red line from the bottom of the 2 to the top of the window. I then duplicated the red line and moved it over to the bottom of the N. I rotated it slightly to align it with the N. The top of window number 1 should be some where around the bottom of that red line. (there are some perspective issues, some in my favour, some in yours, if you want to argue it... That would be awesome.)

hoo0bNB.png


If you need help counting the window, let me know.


Loretta.


PS. I still want my Banana.
 
Agatha said:
questionitall, will you please stop referring to ISF members as anything other than their usernames at this website unless a member has given you permission to use another name or nickname. waypastvne has made it clear that he is not "Brian Foster", so further use of this name to refer to waypastvne will be sanctioned by the mod team.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Agatha
Click to expand...

Now look, no one is to stone anyone until I blow this whistle. Even...and I want to make this absolutely clear... even if they do say "Brian Foster"
 
OK Loretta,
I'm sick and tired of playing your confidence game, and particularly so when this websites hypocritical Moderators condemn me for violating the Membership rules #0, #8, #10, and #12, as they turn a blind eye to you and your ISF cronies habitually breaking the same rules with absolute impunity. Which is the least of my reasons for giving up trying to explain why your admittedly falsifying (Photoshopping) Misleading Evidence in support of your fool's errand more than justifies my NOT taking anything you say seriously. All of which is precisely why Rob Balsamo first warned me about you on January 13, 2011, by saying "I have actually ran into "waypastvne" on some forums and challenged his pictures... he ran.", and that's why he bannished you. Because in my estimation you
Edited by Agatha: 
Edited for breach rule 0 and rule 12
warp and distort real facts by Photoshopping video footage and photographs to create an impression in the minds of those who observe them as true and genuine through the power of suggestion - opposed to meeting the burden of proof.
As for your latest slipshod analysis of Baker's [FEMA] specious photograph in post #261 the skinny naked truth of your deception and intellectually myopic "perspective", is as follows:
[1] In actuality photographs show the margin/distance between the AFT aircraft registration number and the top of the underlying passenger windows on UA Flight 175 is approximately three quarters the height/vertical dimension of those markings, give or take.
[2] The portion of fuselage bearing the remnants of the number 2 in Baker's [FEMA] specious photograph has been torn away from the window frame on the larger chunk of fuselage and it's clearly flared up and jutting out to the right. In other words that feature is deformed and has a completely different angle of incidence to the portion of fuselage below the N & 6. As evidenced by the identical wreckage and layout in Gary Steficek's photograph (Release_38, 42A0367 – G33D1, WTCI-95-I-GMS-multiple, Steficek-2001-10-18, 100MSDCF, DSC00478).
[3] Aside from the aformentioned deformation the portion of fuselage below the N & 6 on the smaller chunk of fuselage, and the bulk of the wreckage on its right, is lying relatively flat (horizontal) in relation to the rooftop. As evidenced by the identical wreckage and layout in Gary Steficek's photograph (Release_38, 42A0367 – G33D1, WTCI-95-I-GMS-multiple, Steficek-2001-10-18, 100MSDCF, DSC00478).
[4] The smaller piece of fuselage on the left is further away from the camera lens, and both pieces of fuselage were photographed from an angle. As evidenced by the identical wreckage and layout in Gary Steficek's photograph (Release_38, 42A0367 – G33D1, WTCI-95-I-GMS-multiple, Steficek-2001-10-18, 100MSDCF, DSC00478).
All of which means the arbitrary red line you drew (Photoshopped) under the N & 6 should be considerably shorter than the arbitrary red line you drew (Photoshopped) under the 2, so as to properly reflect the actual margin/distance between the the N & 6 and the top of the underlying passenger windows. Hence, the top of the window opening on the smaller piece of fuselage should be visible, but not according to you (the so-called "expert in digital art").
With that being the case I'd further explain in simpletons terms why you're flat-out wrong about Baker's [FEMA] specious photograph not having been surreptitiously Photoshopped with unedited video and photograhs of my own to prove otherwise, but I'm not allowed to hyperlink anything to my posts here now am I?! And because of your gutless ISF cronies whined about me to this websites Moderators they censor (delete) my comments, so why bother. All of which is precisely why I'll continue posting my refutations of everything you've claimed to date, yet failed to prove, at PF9/11TF.
And with that said good bye and good riddance to the lot of you.

You can put links in your posts when you have 15 posts. Report any posts that you think breaks the rules by clicking the exclamation mark contained within a triangle on the bottom left of a post.
Posted By: Agatha
 
Last edited by a moderator:
questionitall said:
<snip></snip>
And with that said good bye and good riddance to the lot of you.
Click to expand...

Aside from the personal attacks, we would appreciate links to your image descriptions instead of wasting time finding them. No you don't have to add links as you don't have the post count to enable that feature, but you can do this:
image dot com.
Get over the theatrics and just leave without telling us you're leaving.
 
Why Photoshop parts? Why not just pack in a bunch of real aircraft parts when you're wiring the building with your sooper seekreht silent/non-residue-leaving explosives?
 
questionitall said:
As for your statement "If you don't think the planes are the planes the FAA knows were used, then you don't trust the FAA, better stop flying" I'm a Transport Canada Licenced Aircraft Maintenance Engineer with 30 plus years experience working on commercial/passenger jet airliners.
Click to expand...
It's been probably two or three years since I last took any interest in 9/11 conspiracies and I can see I haven't missed much. Your claimed years of experience aren't a factual basis. You either prove the planes that hit the buildings were substitutes (or whatever you think they are), or you don't. We can go down the theoreticals one by one. But they fall astronomically short of all of the circumstantial, documentary and physical evidence that indeed... those planes were real. And a lot of people died. Claiming to have 30 years of experience in a profession does not automatically make your claim factual and it most certainly doesn't automatically translate to competence. There is a reason why appeals to authority are fallacious, but I see after two or three years that's not a well recognized concept amongst CT's
 
waypastvne said:
That is where AA77 starboard engine topiaryed the top of the tree. That threw the engine out of balance, which cracked the ceramic oil seals, and oil spewed out leaving the oil vapour trail seen in the gate cam videos.
Click to expand...

My first post here.

I am commenting on the above quote in the interests of accuracy. I am confident that most here are aware of the animation of the approach of the aircraft that struck the Pentagon. The animation indicates that the plume of smoke emanating from the right-hand engine was the result of the ingestion of the "luminary" on top of the third pole struck by the aircraft. As the above poster has indicated, this was not the case. It may seem a trivial matter, and of no real significance, but, in the interests of accuracy, should not the animation be amended to reflect the correct source of the plume?

I have also posted a similar comment under the video in question on the YouTube channel of the creator.

Cheers:-)
 
Dogwatch said:
My first post here.

I am commenting on the above quote in the interests of accuracy. I am confident that most here are aware of the animation of the approach of the aircraft that struck the Pentagon. The animation indicates that the plume of smoke emanating from the right-hand engine was the result of the ingestion of the "luminary" on top of the third pole struck by the aircraft. As the above poster has indicated, this was not the case. It may seem a trivial matter, and of no real significance, but, in the interests of accuracy, should not the animation be amended to reflect the correct source of the plume?

I have also posted a similar comment under the video in question on the YouTube channel of the creator.

Cheers:-)
Click to expand...

Whether the engine ingested part of a tree or a light pole (less likely of the choices, IMO), the point is that the plane flew in low at the trajectory that FDR data(corrected as beechnut has indicated) confirms. All the CTs need t do is look at the hard evidence not their beliefs to arrive at a solution. The plane hit the Pentagon an didn't fly over the building. No missile other than redefining the plane as a missile hit the Pentagon. For that matter the same goes for the twin towers.
 
bknight said:
Whether the engine ingested part of a tree or a light pole (less likely of the choices, IMO), the point is that the plane flew in low at the trajectory that FDR data(corrected as beechnut has indicated) confirms. All the CTs need t do is look at the hard evidence not their beliefs to arrive at a solution. The plane hit the Pentagon an didn't fly over the building. No missile other than redefining the plane as a missile hit the Pentagon. For that matter the same goes for the twin towers.
Click to expand...

I concur, FYI, as briefly mentioned in my book, p. 141 of the PDF. "Pentagon theories have long been the bane of the 9/11 Truth Movement – the poison in the well, so to speak..."

I haven't thought about that well for a while. But I did watch "The Ring" recently. Samara, Craig, and Aldo (of CIT) probably hang out. Check out this old but still hilarious video mocking CIT, Craig and Aldo's Excellent European Adventure. (Dailymotion link, apologies for ads)
 
Dogwatch said:
My first post here.
Click to expand...
Welcome.
Dogwatch said:
... but, in the interests of accuracy, should not the animation be amended to reflect the correct source of the plume?

I have also posted a similar comment under the video in question on the YouTube channel of the creator.
Click to expand...
I suggest no. The video reflects the state of the authors knowledge at the time it was made. As do hundreds...thousands...millions of other historic documents.

By all means comment about the error revealed by later or better research. But as a general rule I would leave the historic record intact.
 
ozeco41 said:
Welcome.

I suggest no. The video reflects the state of the authors knowledge at the time it was made. As do hundreds...thousands...millions of other historic documents.

By all means comment about the error revealed by later or better research. But as a general rule I would leave the historic record intact.
Click to expand...

I agree, especially if the core message of the film doesn't really change. It seems like the definition of being unable to see the forests from the trees.
 
heymatto70 said:
It seems like the definition of being unable to see the forests from the trees.
Click to expand...
A common method of "losing the plot" in these discussions.

"Cannot see the woods for the trees" as I first learned it in the North of England 60+ years back. "Forests for trees" I understand is the US vernacular - same aphorism.

And as I expressed it on this forum in a moment of frustration many years ago:
'"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest.'
 
bknight said:
Whether the engine ingested part of a tree or a light pole (less likely of the choices, IMO), the point is that the plane flew in low at the trajectory that FDR data(corrected as beechnut has indicated) confirms. All the CTs need t do is look at the hard evidence not their beliefs to arrive at a solution. The plane hit the Pentagon an didn't fly over the building. No missile other than redefining the plane as a missile hit the Pentagon. For that matter the same goes for the twin towers.
Click to expand...

How telling thqt 9/11 discussion has been reduced to meaningless details of that day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom