• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Shamie has some explainin' to do

lightninboy

Well-known member
Washington D.C. probably has more cameras doing surveillance in it that any other place in the world. Obviously I am mentioning this for a reason. How many times on television did all of us repeatedly see Flights 11 and 175 crash into the WTC? Why did we not see any footage of this "Boeing 757" hit the Pentagon? To answer that question, the U.S. Military claimed it did not have ANY footage of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon. Were we actually meant to believe that they had no video footage of this event taking place? No surveillance cameras at the Pentagon? Well, there were in fact surveillance videos showing an aircraft hitting the Pentagon.

Why would the FBI confiscate these films and refuse to release them? The government claimed that it had no footage of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon. However, in 2003 the Pentagon released 5 frames of video. The only problem was these 5 frames of video seemed to raise a lot more questions than they answered.

When looking at the video, you would probably realize there are only 5 frames of video, and you would wonder “Why are there only 5 frames?” A U.S. security camera takes 60 FPS. So, if there were only 5 frames of video, that means that the Boeing 757 traveled 80 Meters (length of the lawn of the Pentagon) in only 0.0833 of a second, which means the aircraft was traveling at a bit over 1000 meters a second (1KM a second.)

100 / 60 = 1.6666 (how fast is each frame taken, considering security cameras take 60 FPS)

1.6666 x 5 = 8.3333 (there are 5 frames of video)

8.3333 / 100 = 0.08333 (convert to milliseconds)

1000 / 80 = 12.5

12.5 x 0.08333 = 1.0416

1.0416 = KM a second the aircraft was traveling.

1.0416 x 60 = 62.496 (KM per minute)

62.496 x 60 = 3 749.76 (KM per hour)

3 749.76 / 1.609 = 2 330.490 (convert to MPH)

According the government, the Boeing 757 which hit the Pentagon was only traveling at 530 MPH. If U.S. security cameras record at 60 FPS, and these are the only frames which the government claims to posses, the aircraft which hit the Pentagon was traveling at over 2,000 MPH (over 3,000 KM)! Obviously we can conclude from this that the government has taken frames out of this footage. Either that or the Boeing 757 which supposedly crashed into the Pentagon managed to travel at speeds that only military aircraft can travel at. If the "Boeing 757" which hit the Pentagon was traveling at 500 MPH, we know that there should be at least 20 frames of video. Why doesn't the U.S. military/government release these frames? What are they trying to hide?

The second question you’re probably asking is “Where is the Boeing 757 in the film?” The only thing you can see is a small white aircraft that looks a lot more like a drone than a Boeing 757. The Pentagon is 77 ft tall. A Boeing 757 has a tail height of 44 ft, meaning it is more than half the height of the building. How come the object shown appears to be less than half the height of the Pentagon? Below is a picture of a super-imposed Boeing 757.
pentagonw.jpg

Does the small white aircraft look anything (in shape) like the super-imposed Boeing 757? Did the military cut out 15 or more frames of the video so we would be unable to identify what hit the Pentagon? If a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon, the above film should have looked similar to the film below.
pentstrike3.gif


Obviously the fireball at the Pentagon was a bright red and rose upwards and expanded very quickly. Fires that are powered by hydrocarbons are pretty much always yellow. They are not a bright red color. The fact that the fireball at the Pentagon was a bright red points towards a lot of oxygen being inside the fireball. When hydrocarbons start burning, the air around them is quickly consumed. Explosives are a mix of fuel and oxygen. With military grade explosives, oxygen is attached to the fuel source of the explosive, allowing a fast and rapid expansion of the explosive. Below is a picture of what the Pentagon fireball should have looked like:
fireballsuper.jpg


You should notice that with fires that are powered by hydrocarbons such as candle flames do not expand. The flame reaches a certain size and then stops, and unless more fuel is added it stays the same size. The flame also wonders aimlessly. However, the fireball at the Pentagon continued rising upwards. The Pentagon is 77 ft tall. We could estimate that the fireball at the Pentagon was over 200 ft. tall. Considering the plane hit the Pentagon head on, it is not possible that the fireball could expand like that. A fireball that expands and rises quickly upwards like that is characteristic of explosives.

Below is a picture showing how far the smoke from the explosion that took place at the Pentagon rose:
pentagon1.jpg

From this angle it is quite hard to see the Pentagon. However, we could estimate that this plume of smoke is at least 5 times the size of the Pentagon. Also notice that this fireball is not drifting upwards. It is actually expanding (which is characteristic of explosives).
 

lightninboy

Well-known member
A lot of people question whether or not a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon. One of the first websites to have information was called Hunt the Boeing: Test Your Perception. It was a French website which showed pictures of the Pentagon after it had supposedly been hit by a Boeing 757. Have a careful look at the picture below.
avionincrustation.jpg

The first thing that should come to your head when looking at the picture is, “How did the Boeing 757 fit into that hole? The hole seems too small to fit a Boeing 757.” If you’re thinking what I have just said, you’re on the right track.

Below is a picture of the wall of the Pentagon before it collapsed:
pentagonhole.jpg

As you should be able to see, there is indeed a hole in the Pentagon. This hole is approximately 14 to 16 ft across. Why is this important?

A Boeing 757 has a wingspan of 124 ft and a tail height of 44 ft. How does a plane with these dimensions fit in such a small hole and leave no wreckage on the outside of the Pentagon?

The WTC columns were square and measured 1.2 meters on each side. Is it possible that a jet wing can cut through 1.2 meters of steel, yet fail to even damage concrete at the Pentagon?

pentagon4.jpg

Above is a picture of the hole the aircraft which hit the Pentagon made. It would seem this hole would be 12 to 16 ft across. Obviously a Boeing 757 cannot fit in a 16 ft hole.

cubsj.jpg

Above is a simulation of a Boeing 757 striking the Pentagon. The wings of the plane did not break off obviously because there is no debris in front of the Pentagon, and there is no visible wing debris inside the Pentagon. What happened to the wings of the plane? What about the tail of the plane?

As you can see above, the entry hole the aircraft made is an important piece of evidence against the official story of 9/11. Now let's take a look at the exit hole:
070large.jpg

First, if a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon and the fuselage of the plane compacted and the force behind it allowed it to punch through 3 rings of the Pentagon, then where is the wreckage from the aircraft that caused this punchout hole? Most of the wreckage that is out of the punchout hole appears to be from office equipment inside the Pentagon. Some resembles pieces of an aircraft but not a Boeing 757. A thing that you would have noticed when looking at the hole is that it is an almost perfect circle. This seems more likely to have been caused by an explosion of some sort. Another very important thing to note is the black smudge above the hole. This would have had to have been caused by an explosion.

757americanlogo.jpg

At first it would seem that his piece may well be from an American Airlines jet. As you can see the red coloring on the piece of metal is quite a bright red, meaning it has NOT faded at all. If the red paint hasn't faded, the other paint wouldn't have either. It would also appear that this piece of metal is far too thin to have come from a Boeing 757. Is the outside of a Boeing 757 as thin as a soft drink can?

paintaa.jpg

Notice that the background of the writing is a highly polished light blue. Why is it that the debris on the beautiful green grass of the Pentagon has a completely different background color? It would seem someone painted "American Airlines" on the shell of the aircraft which struck the Pentagon in order to make it look something like an American Airlines flight. This may be why one or two of the witnesses said they saw an American Airlines jet. If a military drone traveling over 500 MPH was traveling past you and it was painted like an American Airlines jet, it is possible that you may mistake it for an actual American Airlines flight.

Boeing 757-200 Wheel Has: 10 holes.

Wheel Found At The Pentagon Has: 8 holes.

Facts:

1. Jet Engines are made of Titanium.

2. Titanium melts at 1600 degrees Celsius

3. The maximum possible temperature a hydro-carbon fire can reach in our atmosphere is 825 degrees Celsius.

Therefore it is scientifically impossible for a fire even when powered by a hydro-carbon to produce a temperature hot enough to melt the engines, let alone vaporize them.

Why didn't the supposedly plane which hit the Pentagon make any significant seismic spike? Was it really a large commercial airliner which hit the Pentagon? The analysis given by the people at the seismic station say it occurred at too high of a frequency to be a large commercial airliner. Was it instead a military drone being shattered by a missile?


http://911physics.atspace.com/Pages/Pentagon.htm
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I am still waiting for steve to explain the hole size....that should show is ability in math.
 

Tam

Well-known member
shaumei said:
I am still waiting for steve to explain the hole size....that should show is ability in math.

Well Sham we are still waiting for you to explain why the EYEWITNESSES caught in a traffic jam claimed they SAW a Plane flying over their heads and hitting the Pentagon and why nobody but you conspiracy loons have tried to claim anything else. :roll:
 

Larrry

Well-known member
Tam said:
shaumei said:
I am still waiting for steve to explain the hole size....that should show is ability in math.

Well Sham we are still waiting for you to explain why the EYEWITNESSES caught in a traffic jam claimed they SAW a Plane flying over their heads and hitting the Pentagon and why nobody but you conspiracy loons have tried to claim anything else. :roll:

There is no reasonable way to dismiss these eyewitnesses
 

Tam

Well-known member
shaumei said:
Tam said:
lightninboy said:
This could be fun.


1) Kennedy Assassination.......
Oswald alone,
CIA involvement,
other?

CIA involvement,


2) Moon landing......
real,
faked?

faked?


3) Robert Kennedy.....
Sirhan Sirhan alone,
CIA involvement,
other?

CIA involvement,

4) Murrah Building......
McVeigh alone,
McVeigh with others,
CIA involvement,
other?

McVeigh with others,
CIA involvement,


5) Princess Diana......
accident,
MI6,
Saudis,
other?

MI6,


6) Condensation trails.....
natural phenomenon,
goverment gassing,
other?

Don’t know much about vapor trails. Could be government, could be corporations.


Bataan Death March. Real or faked? Was FDR involved? Did the Japanese do it all by themselves, or did they have help?

Don’t know much about the Bataan Death March. I’ll guess it was faked with FDR involved with the Japanese and help.


How many did I get right?

One question when has not knowing much about an issue ever stopped you from making a guess/comment/opinion? :wink:

Tam,

you know nothing about any of these issues based on your posts on them....nothing other than what you learned when you sat in your easy chair in front of your tv watching faux news and ate your cheese sandwich during your break at the sewage plant.

Wow Sham you got me all figured out don't you. :roll: BTW I just saw something that reminds me of you, it just floated by my station. here at the sewage plant. :wink:
 

Tam

Well-known member
Larrry said:
Tam said:
shaumei said:
I am still waiting for steve to explain the hole size....that should show is ability in math.

Well Sham we are still waiting for you to explain why the EYEWITNESSES caught in a traffic jam claimed they SAW a Plane flying over their heads and hitting the Pentagon and why nobody but you conspiracy loons have tried to claim anything else. :roll:

There is no reasonable way to dismiss these eyewitnesses

You are talking about REASONABLE when it comes to SHAM. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Thanks, I really needed a good laugh. :wink: :lol: :lol: :lol:
 

lightninboy

Well-known member
Tam said:
Well Sham we are still waiting for you to explain why the EYEWITNESSES caught in a traffic jam claimed they SAW a Plane flying over their heads and hitting the Pentagon and why nobody but you conspiracy loons have tried to claim anything else. :roll:
Got proof there was a traffic jam?
 

Tam

Well-known member
lightninboy said:
Tam said:
Well Sham we are still waiting for you to explain why the EYEWITNESSES caught in a traffic jam claimed they SAW a Plane flying over their heads and hitting the Pentagon and why nobody but you conspiracy loons have tried to claim anything else. :roll:
Got proof there was a traffic jam?

Highway Traffic Jams right next to the Pentagon
There were reported traffic jams on early morning 9/11 near the Pentagon. Traffic jams were reported on I-395, Washington Boulevard, and Columbia Pike. All of these witnesses were in excellent position to observe the plane.
“I took these pictures less then 1 minute after I watched the American airlines 757 airplane crash into the pentagon on September 11 2001. I left shortly after the pictures were taken in fear of further attacks… Yes, I did actually see the plane impact the building.”[574] Steve Riskus

1. “I was in a massive traffic jam, hadn't moved more than a hundred yards in twenty minutes… I had just passed the closest place the Pentagon is to the exit on 395.”[575]
2. “James R. Cissell sat in traffic on a Virginia interstate by the Pentagon Tuesday morning.”[576]
3. “we slowly crept along in traffic at about 9:30 am”[577]
4. “Traffic was at a standstill… I believe that I may have also had one or more car windows open because the traffic wasn’t moving anyway.”[578]
5. “Traffic was at a standstill, so I parked on the shoulder, not far from the scene and ran to the site.”[579]
6. “Afework Hagos, a computer programmer, was on his way to work but stuck in a traffic jam near the Pentagon… [when the plane came]Everybody was running away in different directions.”[580]
7. “At the time of the crash, Mason was “stopped in traffic west of the building.”[581]
8. “Traffic is normally slow right around the Pentagon as the road winds and we line up to cross the 14th Street bridge heading into the District of Columbia.”[582]
9. “He mistakenly took the Pentagon exit onto Washington Boulevard…The traffic was very slow moving, and at one point just about at a standstill.”[583]
10. “With traffic at a standstill, my eyes wandered around the road, looking for the cause of the traffic jam… [after the plane hit] the highway was filled with shocked commuters, walking around in a daze.”[584]
11. “I was sitting in traffic on route 110 on my way to work.”[585]
12. “I sat lodged in gridlock on Washington Boulevard, next to the Pentagon on September 11. [I experienced] frustration with the worse-than-normal traffic snarl.”[586]
13. “I was sitting in heavy traffic in the I-395 HOV lanes about 9:45 a.m., directly across from the Navy Annex. I could see the roof of the Pentagon and, in the distance, the Washington Monument.”[587]
14. “For all of my twenty-eight years living in the Washington, D.C. area, terrible traffic was a constant… and now I was officially late for work. I was at a complete stop on the road in front of the helipad at the Pentagon; what I had thought would be a shortcut was as slow as the other routes I had taken that morning.”[588]
15. “Probst took a sidewalk alongside Route 27, which runs near the Pentagon’s western face. Traffic was at a standstill because of a road accident.”[589]

16. “Naval officer Clyde Ragland, who works near the Pentagon, was stuck in his office because the streets outside were clogged with traffic.”[590]

17. “I was sitting in heavy traffic in the I-395 HOV lanes about 9:45 a.m., directly across from the Navy Annex. I could see the roof of the Pentagon and, in the distance, the Washington Monument… Like the other commuters on the road, I was stunned into disbelief.”[591]

18. “I was sitting in the northbound on 27 and the traffic was, you know, typical rush-hour—it had ground to a standstill.”[592]

19. “Rodney Washington, a systems engineer for a Pentagon contractor, was stuck in stand-still traffic a few hundred yards from the Pentagon.”[593]

The scene at highway traffic after the plane hit
1. “People were just leaving their vehicles on Highway 110 and staring in disbelief.”[594]

2. “[on highway 110:] Everybody stopped [their cars] and got out…and started running left to right, and we had [a lot of] panic at that time.”[595]
3. “I parked my car and got out, and by the time I got out all the [people from the] buildings in the area had come out into the street, and everybody was seeing what was happening.”[596]
4. “Ironically, the passage of emergency vehicles got traffic moving again.”[597]

5. “Drivers began pulling over to the side—some taking pictures—not quite believing what they were seeing.”[598]
6. “[after the Pentagon was hit] Cars were going over the median on Route 27 because there wasn’t any traffic coming southbound toward the Pentagon. People were hopping over it any way they could, on the grass, anything… and we started yelling at people, Get back in your cars! We gotta get the f--- out of here! And I just kept repeating, Get in your cars! Let’s go, Let’s go! Get the f--- out of here. Go! Go! Go! And people must have listened because down the road you heard more people telling everyone to get in their cars and go.”[599]
7. “Afraid of being trapped, I drove through a gap in the median barrier and drove across 395 to an exit ramp.“[600]

8. “All of the drivers seemed to be in a trance. Then suddenly it ended when a woman began to scream, ‘They just hit the Pentagon, get back, get back.’ She backed her SUV back and forth until she was able to create a crease and then she sped out of the area on the emergency lane. That’s when all hell broke loose as people began trying to get out of the area any way they could, some went forward, and others turned their cars around and drove in the wrong direction. All in an effort to get out of the area.”[601]

9. “I could then hear cars squealing all around and people were just stunned.”[602]


First the eyewitnesses don't know what a plane looks like when it is flys within a hundred feet of the roof of their car and now they don't know what a traffic jam is when they are in one!!!!!!!! :roll: What's next lb will they not know their own names? :roll: Face it the eyewitnesses were in a traffic jam on I 395 and they SAW A PLANE. And noboby but you loons have come forward to dispute any of these EYEWITNESSES accounts of the events on the morning of 911. :roll:
 

lightninboy

Well-known member
A Cruise Missile at The Pentagon
by Peter Wakefield Sault

The slipstream of a cruise missile skimming the treetops at, say, 750mph (1,200km/h) would have dragged objects behind it and quite possibly have pulled down lamp-posts as it passed, leaving a trail of rubble strewn across the highway as it crossed low above the traffic. We also have a large airplane flying close and very low which was visible to Mr. Mike Walter through his car window immediately before the explosion at the Pentagon. This large airplane may well have struck lamp-posts in passing, as well as having had its own slipstream and powerful jet engines, all of which would have caused damage on the ground. This is very likely to have been the selfsame airplane from which the cruise missile was launched.

The initial damage to the Pentagon wall was inconsistent with the wall having been struck by an airplane of any size.

Major General Stubblebine Speaks Out

A variety of websites contain attacks on the case for a cruise missile. Here, a representative sample will be analyzed.

Pentagon "Missile" Hoax
http://www.oilempire.us/pentagon.html

[2] there is zero evidence for any of the "no plane" claims ­­­ hundreds of people saw Flight 77, none saw a cruise missile, Global Hawk robot plane, smaller plane or flying saucer piloted by giant lizards
[3] the physical evidence shows that a large twin engine jet hit the nearly empty part of the Pentagon, the "Black Boxes" were found, cleanup crews found remains of the passengers, the "hole was too small" claim was a hoax

Here are the appropriate responses:

2. Nobody, let alone “hundreds of people”, could possibly have known whether or not the airplane she saw was Flight 77. As far as I am aware the only person to have identified American Airlines livery was Mr Mike Walter ­­­— but the paint job does not identify the flight number and does not even prove that it was an AA airplane. The rest of these “hundreds of people” appear to be as anonymous and untraceable as the author of this hit piece. If a cruise missile passed above you in the street, travelling at 750mph (1,200km/h), would you see it? How long did it take the UFO to get from above the cloverleaf to the Pentagon wall? Let us do a little calculation to find out: the distance is roughly 1,000 feet (300m) and 750mph is just about 1,100fps (340m/s), hence it would have taken the object about 0.9s to travel that far. How much can anyone see of a high-speed object in that time, especially a completely unexpected object with a completely unexpected destination? If you only heard it, then by the time you turned your head it would be gone. The simple fact is that because no one reported seeing the Pentagon strike object and identifying it as a cruise missile does not mean that it was not there. The evidence of the smoke trail proves conclusively that it was a rocket no matter what anyone thought he saw. Witness evidence is notoriously unreliable.
3. The author asserts there is “physical evidence” which he does not identify, making it hard to discuss, let alone to refute. Nonetheless, since the evidence is not identified we can safely dismiss the claim that it exists as a ‘because-I-say-so’ argument, which is worthless. How could the author possibly know that any part of the Pentagon was “nearly empty”? Is he taking the word of a Pentagon spokesman ­­­— in other words a possible accessory after the fact to the murders by persons otherwise unknown that took place there? Apparently some 125 Pentagon employees were killed. As for the claim about the black boxes, the problem with this is that they were “found” by people who may be accomplices of the murderers. Moreover, it would seem that the data in the boxes, however it got there and wherever they really came from, is incomplete and stops short several seconds before the impact. It is very easy to falsify the data in a black box and it was only the data that was released. No one outside the Pentagon has, to the best of my knowledge, ever actually seen these black boxes. Finally, we get another bald assertion, this one patently absurd, yet again presented without any evidence beyond ‘because-I-say-so’, that the real entry hole is much bigger than the hole which is visible in photographs taken before the ‘collapse’ (probable demolition) of the wall.

She was at work in the Pentagon that morning and, shortly after the impact, had overheard men she described as “FBI” making a decision to dynamite the Pentagon wall because they felt that the damage and the entry hole didn't look enough like an airplane crash to be presentable to the gathering television cameras. It would seem that the wall collapsed quite soon after that.

9/11/06 Missile Comment
CNN
Tim Roemer
Former 9/11 Commissioner

http://www.spingola.com/Peter/Cruise_Missile.html
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
if you look at the hole, it is clear the jet did not hit it...does not fit with wingspan....only a missile could have done the damage seen at the pentagon. the plane probably did fly over as a diversion but was not the flight with passengers...it was a military plane painted to look like the airline..

if we are wrong on this, the pentagon/fbi/cia would release the videos...they will not as they cannot without exposing that 9/11 was a false flag operation to start wars so these elite could get richer....they knew the American people are stupid and they had the networks in their back pocket since Kennedy was murdered by the govt.
 

lightninboy

Well-known member
Just wanted to share my FAVORITE 9-11 picture that trashes "AA77 at the Pentagon" story...
author: a picture is worth 1000 words

shutterbugg
07.May.2006
Pictures? You want pictures? Look at these from German sources. The first floor is obviously intact. From both the front and rear. So how could a jet have plowed through three rings of buildings? Notice all the extra non-damaged office space 'cleared away' in the last photo.

338972.jpg

a jet you say?

338973.jpg

through 3 rings?

338974.jpg

mmmmmm..busy bees...


96 feet? What are YOU smoking? You must mean 16 feet.


Last time I checked, I thought the government said that a 757 plowed through three rings of the Pentagon. Uh. Well. Apparently it didn't. And the photographs provide evidence of that. And THAT is the official story.

As for whether or not a 757 caused the breach of the first wall, the official story suggests that the plane skidded on the ground prior to hitting the building. So why is the first floor still intact, then? Planes don't bounce much, AP. So, the picture shows that the first floor IS still intact. Did this 757 happen to magically bounce over the ground floor? Is the ground floor somehow much stronger than the 2nd floor and somehow managed to ramp the plane over it? I think not. Thus the picture does provide evidence, again, that the government line is untrue.

And didn't the government also say something about the heat of the fire vaporizing the airplane metals? I can't remember on that point, but if that's correct, then why can we see some building metal dangling from the wall (not vaporized, apparently) in the leftmost picture that Shutterbug posted?

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2006/05/338937.shtml?discuss
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
Personally, I think both of you loons should have your asses kicked until your noses bleed for suggesting what you're suggesting.

Say what you want about politicians.

But for this to have been pulled off as you've described, American servicemen and women would have to have willingly participated in the murder of their fellow citizens....many of whom were innocent civilians working hard to protect and defend the United States.

You two are absolutely nothing short of shameful.

Having said that, I still support your right to express your hateful, ignorant, anti-American and anti-Semite views on this public forum.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Whitewing said:
Personally, I think both of you loons should have your asses kicked until your noses bleed for suggesting what you're suggesting.

Say what you want about politicians.

But for this to have been pulled off as you've described, American servicemen and women would have to have willingly participated in the murder of their fellow citizens....many of whom were innocent civilians working hard to protect and defend the United States.

You two are absolutely nothing short of shameful.

Having said that, I still support your right to express your hateful, ignorant, anti-American and anti-Semite views on this public forum.

that is what we are saying the evidence tells us. look at the hole size...a jet does not fit in there...

it is not the first time...Tim McVeigh was a govt black ops agent fall guy but did not act alone. the govt planted bombs inside the murrah building...

the evidence is clear...architects and engineers are signing up by the HUNDREDS NOW AND PUTTING THEIR NAMES AND REPUTATIONS ON THE LINE THAT 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB.

we are not alone ....new yorkers want a new investigation but the politicians do not...hmmmm...

9/11 was clearly a govt and mossad job...mossad are the only people arrested that day with explosives...held 72 days and then released by dual israeli mossad agent citizen michael chertoff....he now is part owner in the tsa body scanners...
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
9/11 was clearly a govt and mossad job...mossad are the only people arrested that day with explosives

You've repeated this crap over and over again, and over and over again you've not produced a single credible link to a story that verifies what you claim.

You're full of crap Shamu, you and the thousands of others who believe all this hogwash.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Whitewing said:
9/11 was clearly a govt and mossad job...mossad are the only people arrested that day with explosives

You've repeated this crap over and over again, and over and over again you've not produced a single credible link to a story that verifies what you claim.

You're full of crap Shamu, you and the thousands of others who believe all this hogwash.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/hundreds.html


Read and weep moron.
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
Weep? With crap like this posted by that wonderful source of yours?

These Israelis were up to some sort of dirty business, and you can be sure it had nothing to do with moving furniture. These Israeli spies may have had a dark sense of humor. The name of their "moving company" actually contained the word MOSSAD embedded inside. Moving Systems Incorporated. MOving SyStems IncorporAteD...MOSSAD

:lol:

Shamu, send me to a single credible link (not infowars or prisonplanet) that verifies that Mossad agents were arrested with explosives. And I'm not talking about a first day report in some county rag like that story of the moving van in Washington State that later fell flat on its face.

I'm talking about a verifiable instance of Mossad agents being arrested in the US with explosives. That's the claim you made. Put up or stfu.
 

Latest posts

Top