View Single Post
  #6  
Old December 29th 15, 09:05 PM posted to alt.astronomy
palsing[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,068
Default Flight 93 Crash Sight -Hole was already there.

On Tuesday, December 29, 2015 at 12:40:08 PM UTC-8, Rocky wrote:
"palsing" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, December 29, 2015 at 7:31:52 AM UTC-8, Bast wrote:
palsing wrote:


People on the streets that day saw NO passenger jets.
....They made that clear to reporters..

9/11 No Planes Used - Witnesses Proof Theory - Your Psychological
Operation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GffVvYFrtPM

Refute this, you stupid idiot...

https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7li...untsofthenycai





So ? you think a homemade website is a credible source ?

You are really going to love some of the flat earth stuff

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern...arth_societies

And it's on wikopedia, so it MUST be true, huh ?


I'm sorry I hurt your feelings when I called you stupid. I thought you
already knew...


And can you get back to the subject or at least try?

Fact is what we saw ram the Twin Towers is consistent with CGIs in that they
never slowed down on impact, they didn't lose any parts on impact and some
of them lost wings while in flight just like CGIs that have been programmed
to reflect the sky do and did.


There are plenty of photos and videos to prove otherwise. Get a freakin' life.

Didn't lose any parts on impact? Really?

http://www.911research.wtc7.net/plan...hullpiece.html

http://www.911research.wtc7.net/plan...cengines2.html

http://www.911research.wtc7.net/plan...ndinggear.html

These sure look like valid photos to me, you gullible fool...

http://www.911conspiracy.tv/2nd_hit_photos.html

I would call you stupid, too, but everyone already knows that. If you had a brain in your head you would probably take it out and play with it...