Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Politicalboi

(15,189 posts)
2. Great video
Fri Jun 7, 2013, 02:16 PM
Jun 2013

There's also Who Killed John O'Neill. I wish they would stop with the planes though. 4 planes with NO seat debris, and pilots that can magically not only hit the towers, but hit their targets on the towers. A plane would of had resistance if it hit the building. A wing or tail would have fallen off, and seats would have been showering the streets of NY. The flash we see IS a homing devise. The hologram of a plane was on the mystery pod. I know it sounds crazy. But where is the seat debris? Yes some would burn up, but at least in Pa, there should have been some seats and sections.

I got this photo of a video I was watching one day. I thought to myself that that "plane" just melted into that building. How can that be? The WTC was a steel net, and the plane is weaker. If a plane did hit the towers, it would have broken up at some point. Again, I NEVER thought I would be a "No Planer" but I am. I want evidence that I am wrong. All I want is to see ONE plane seat from any of the 4 crashes. 4 planes is over 800 seats. Where ARE they? How can so many accept the governments "facts" without ALL the evidence. How is the Pentagon video acceptable? Does anyone think with today's congress Obama would be able to get away with a blurry attack video of the Pentagon? And if this video is true, which I think it is, why wasn't an investigation of all these companies done?

<a href="http://imgur.com/i0mBqyb"><img src="" title="Hosted by imgur.com"/></a>

And today, all these people who fell for the 9/11 bullshit are wanting answers about being spied on. It's laughable to me. They were content with the shit answers the government gave over 9/11, so sit back and eat shit now. How's that taste? We "truthers" have been eating eveyones shit for years. Now that shit has come home. 9/11 IS the reason they can do all this shit to us. And until you accept the fact that 9/11 was an inside job this WILL continue.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Like Rove said: We make history..... dougolat Jun 2013 #1
Great video Politicalboi Jun 2013 #2
Yep BobbyBoring Jun 2013 #3
The plane could have been made of AtheistCrusader Jun 2013 #4
actually the building's designer said.... wildbilln864 Jul 2013 #6
And one of them died in the collapse. AtheistCrusader Jul 2013 #7
wrong! wildbilln864 Jul 2013 #9
Bullshit. Both towers were ALREADY under construction when the first prototype 747 took to the sky. AtheistCrusader Jul 2013 #10
my error..... wildbilln864 Jul 2013 #11
That's right. AtheistCrusader Jul 2013 #12
The Port Authority White Paper anticipated a 4-engine 707 jetliner Ace Acme Oct 2013 #13
And like most capitalists, they said whatever the hell they wanted to get something built. AtheistCrusader Oct 2013 #14
John Skilling, Leslie Robertson's boss, said the towers would survive the fires Ace Acme Oct 2013 #15
If you actually read the link/google book I provided, on the pages I specified you would find that AtheistCrusader Oct 2013 #16
I probably read City in the Sky years before you did. Ace Acme Oct 2013 #17
Where do you get this bullshit from? AtheistCrusader Oct 2013 #18
Robertson says fires were not factored in when he did the studies Ace Acme Oct 2013 #19
The full quote from Skilling, plus more background context is on the page I specified in the book. AtheistCrusader Oct 2013 #20
Skilling said the buildings were designed to take the fires. Ace Acme Oct 2013 #21
Oh yes, Skilling is going to admit in 1993 that he lied about the buildings when getting the plans AtheistCrusader Oct 2013 #23
Mr. Skilling did not reference the 707 study in 1993 Ace Acme Oct 2013 #24
LOL. Hoist by your own petard. AtheistCrusader Oct 2013 #25
"We looked" is past tense. You're just sinking deeper. nt Ace Acme Oct 2013 #26
Read what I said, again, very carefully. I'll wait. AtheistCrusader Oct 2013 #27
You're just blowing smoke because you cannot admit when you are wrong. Ace Acme Oct 2013 #28
Ok, I'll spell it out for you. AtheistCrusader Oct 2013 #29
"We looked" is past tense. Ace Acme Oct 2013 #30
He didn't particpate in the Robertson study. AtheistCrusader Oct 2013 #31
How do you know? You just make stuff up. Ace Acme Oct 2013 #32
I have accepted the 'evidence' of unsubstantiated allegations. AtheistCrusader Oct 2013 #33
You don't know the difference between an "allegation" and a qualified "observation" nt Ace Acme Oct 2013 #34
I allow for the possibility of an honest mistake. AtheistCrusader Oct 2013 #35
It's not an honest mistake when a reporter writes something that's not true Ace Acme Oct 2013 #36
I do, and reporters/journalists make mistakes. AtheistCrusader Oct 2013 #37
They're not honest mistakes when there's a reckless failure to verify. Ace Acme Oct 2013 #38
It is an extraordinary claim. AtheistCrusader Oct 2013 #39
It can't be both. Ace Acme Oct 2013 #40
You are attempting to artificially define 'honest mistake'. AtheistCrusader Oct 2013 #41
Knowing the melting point of steel, he had to know it would be controversial. nt Ace Acme Oct 2013 #42
Why? AtheistCrusader Oct 2013 #43
He would know from his access to experts that fires can't produce those temperatures Ace Acme Oct 2013 #44
Consider: dougolat Oct 2013 #22
By the way, in your stunning analysis you neglected to mention AtheistCrusader Jul 2013 #8
Follow the money! Frank_Norris_Lives Jun 2013 #5
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Creative Speculation»9/11 Conspiracy Solved - ...»Reply #2