You are not logged in. Please register or login.

Tommie
 Rep: 67 

Re: 9/11

Tommie wrote:

Nah for the most part they are all over the planes.  I remember when I went to Vegas, we had 6 different planes (round trip) and there were phones right on the back of each seat.

polluxlm
 Rep: 221 

Re: 9/11

polluxlm wrote:
Tommie wrote:

Nah for the most part they are all over the planes.  I remember when I went to Vegas, we had 6 different planes (round trip) and there were phones right on the back of each seat.

Fair enough. Doesn't quite explain why the government version says otherwise though, or why all the records of these calls have been erased.

Tommie
 Rep: 67 

Re: 9/11

Tommie wrote:

I have no idea, its been way to long since I've read anything to do with 9/11.  I wouldnt even know where to start.

mitchejw
 Rep: 130 

Re: 9/11

mitchejw wrote:

The Cleveland stuff is pretty messed up.

Also, I was wondering if any of you could help me out with this. I always wondered why these giant buildings in New York landed so neatly on top of themselves. I don't understand how such a reckless thing like a plane crash would cause such neatly falling buildings.

What do you think?

PaSnow
 Rep: 205 

Re: 9/11

PaSnow wrote:
mitchejw wrote:

The Cleveland stuff is pretty messed up.

Also, I was wondering if any of you could help me out with this. I always wondered why these giant buildings in New York landed so neatly on top of themselves. I don't understand how such a reckless thing like a plane crash would cause such neatly falling buildings.

What do you think?

I don't get it, were you expecting the plane to knock the building over onto it's side? hmm

mitchejw
 Rep: 130 

Re: 9/11

mitchejw wrote:
PaSnow wrote:
mitchejw wrote:

The Cleveland stuff is pretty messed up.

Also, I was wondering if any of you could help me out with this. I always wondered why these giant buildings in New York landed so neatly on top of themselves. I don't understand how such a reckless thing like a plane crash would cause such neatly falling buildings.

What do you think?

I don't get it, were you expecting the plane to knock the building over onto it's side? hmm

LMAO...the image of the that actually has me laughing quite loudly, right now.

Hardly, I'm just saying it was a very clean fall. I have no background in controlled demolitions so I am not implying that, either. I'm just saying that if a plane crashes into some buildings, is it natural for it them both to fall straight down on top of themselves. If steel was melting, might there be some leaning taking place, or just part of the building collapses leaving a jagged part of the building. Why wouldn't the building fall in any other direction other than straight down?

Again, not implying anything...just throwing it out there.

I'm not really suggesting anything other than I always thought it was strange that the collapses seemed so controlled or clean.

polluxlm
 Rep: 221 

Re: 9/11

polluxlm wrote:
mitchejw wrote:

The Cleveland stuff is pretty messed up.

Also, I was wondering if any of you could help me out with this. I always wondered why these giant buildings in New York landed so neatly on top of themselves. I don't understand how such a reckless thing like a plane crash would cause such neatly falling buildings.

What do you think?

I think 'controlled demolition'.

The laws of physic does not permit the official scenario to happen. There's just not enough force to make a massive steel core collapse in on itself. Not to mention all the anomalies; Smoke coming from the base of the buildings and witnesses saying they heard explosions in the basement, steel columns blasted hundreds of meters away from the building, WTC7 collapsing, BBC news report saying the building had collapsed 30 mins before it did (#7), molten steel at the site, traces of termite etc.

Whether you believe it to be a conspiracy or not, the official story simply does not hold water.

polluxlm
 Rep: 221 

Re: 9/11

polluxlm wrote:

I'm gonna keep this going for a while longer:

Clocks Frozen In Time

19_64.jpg clock1.jpg

Many of the clocks in vicinity of the impact at the Pentagon on September 11th. were frozen in time at the initial blast. Strange thing is that they all stopped at around 9.32 AM, the official story however claims the attack happened at 9.37 AM, downgraded from the initial set time, 9.46 AM.

polluxlm
 Rep: 221 

Re: 9/11

polluxlm wrote:

The testimony of Norman Mineta, Secretary of Transportation on 9/11/01.

"During the time that the airplane was coming into the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President...the plane is 50 miles out...the plane is 30 miles out....and when it got down to the plane is 10 miles out, the young man also said to the vice president "do the orders still stand?" And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said "Of course the orders still stand, have you heard anything to the contrary!??"

His testimony was omitted from the 911 Commission Report.

pipegnr
 Rep: 0 

Re: 9/11

pipegnr wrote:

illuminaty in the darkness I fears

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB