View Single Post
  #25  
Old 05-14-2005, 01:25 AM
truebeliever truebeliever is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,768
Default Re: The 911 Coincidence Guide

For the sake of brevity...

I dont accept all of Holmgrens stuff but his work on the flights "not" existing has been pretty untouchable on the surface...no one has come up with a credible counter argument.

I believe Holmgren is sincere.

I believe 2 aircraft which looked like Boeing 767's (not Jumbo's) crashed into the WTC.

There were NO explosives of ANY kind on the aircraft. There was NO missile and NO pod (come on!) The flash was simply and obviously, the impact of the aluminum body of the aircraft striking the steel of the WTC at 350-400 knots...to even have to point that out! Did they really need any more than a 50 ton aircraft and 20 tons of fuel for effect?

Explosives expand at varying velocities. One thing they ALL have in common is that the effect of a high explosive would be OBVIOUS in the slowly (relative to a high explosive) expanding and burning cloud of jet fuel. It is not. There is not the slightest evidence for explosives on that plane except for VERY excitable imaginations.

An ALCM, possibly 'retouched', hit the Pentagon.

The other flight was shot down.

The passenger lists are RIDICULOUSLY incomlete and filled with errors.

Hard to believe some stuff? I found it hard to believe they could have gotton away with planting explosives in the WTC...but we now know better.

The truth of 9-11? The EXACT truth? A long way off. Keep an open mind but like any front door on a house, feel free to vet the door knockers.

I remember around March 2003 I started looking seriously into the Pentagon crash. I found the MANY eyewitness accounts (of a Boeing 767) a huge stumbling block which to me went against what was obviously the photographic evidence of a Cruise Missile strike combined with other witness talk inside the pentagon (nose cap of aircraft found).

Gerard Holmgren provided some reasonable analysis on many of the people (witnesses) as being directly employed by the defence establishment and establishment news papers plus the contradictory nature of the witness statements.

Dave McGowan finished them off with his great multiple peice expose on the whole she bang.
http://davesweb.cnchost.com/

I worked out the eye witness statments of a 70 ton, 400knot Boeing flying directly over the heads of some witnesses as obvious bullshit and was one of the first (as far as i can tell) to point it out on as many places and e-mails on the net that i could find.

Ordinary high explosive was used on the upper floors of the WTC and most probably a thermite like compound on the main support beams in the basement.

BTW...with regards that light plane over Washington. This is an ABSOLOUTE insult and slap in the face to EVERYONE with an I.Q slightly above a rabid, flying fruit bat. Gaining a pilots license includes having drummed into your head the protocols of gaining permission to fly over restricted airspace. Light planes also have radio's. So the pilot thought it would be a good idea after 9-11 to do this? A flight instructor? Lord have Mercy! Will the level of their amature escapades EVER rise above George Bush's I.Q?

I feel personally insulted having watched the news report on the telly.

This was a deliberate slap in the face to everyone.
__________________
[size=medium]\"The Office\" is the greatest comedy...ever. [/size]
Reply With Quote