99% Undeniable Conclusive Evidence That 9/11 Was An Inside Job

Originally posted by thedman
www.aerospaceweb.org...reply to post by keldas

 

Also the engines of the planes were made of titanium and so should not have been destroyed.

The engines were found in the debris in the Pentagon

www.aerospaceweb.org...

That has got to be the weakest, fakest piece of 'evidence' I've ever seen! Almost as bad as the WTC engine with the headphone next to it! Do the government and all their cronies think the general public are really that dumb! What a bunch of fools!

Originally posted by 4hero

Originally posted by thedman
www.aerospaceweb.org...reply to post by keldas

 

Also the engines of the planes were made of titanium and so should not have been destroyed.

The engines were found in the debris in the Pentagon

www.aerospaceweb.org...

That has got to be the weakest, fakest piece of 'evidence' I've ever seen! Almost as bad as the WTC engine with the headphone next to it! Do the government and all their cronies think the general public are really that dumb! What a bunch of fools!

As you are so certain those engine parts are fake no doubt you can enlighten us as to how they got there ?

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by 4hero

Originally posted by thedman
www.aerospaceweb.org...reply to post by keldas

 

Also the engines of the planes were made of titanium and so should not have been destroyed.

The engines were found in the debris in the Pentagon

www.aerospaceweb.org...

That has got to be the weakest, fakest piece of 'evidence' I've ever seen! Almost as bad as the WTC engine with the headphone next to it! Do the government and all their cronies think the general public are really that dumb! What a bunch of fools!

As you are so certain those engine parts are fake no doubt you can enlighten us as to how they got there ?

Erm like all the other 'evidence' planted there!

Did you see the laughable 'engine' that supposedly traveled approx 1 mile from the WTC, with some non-pilot headphones planted next to it! Hahaha! What a joke, even if they were from the 'planes' there is no way they could fly over 1 mile and land perfectly next to that fake engine! Jeez, who were the muppets that planned this shambles?!

I agree that him saying they left the errors in there on purpose is a bad idea, but the repeated editing and the fact there are several editions is a good sign to me. You have some information wrong or you get more supporting evidence. You cut out some of the weaker arguments and make clarifications on others. Someone who is truly searching for the truth instead of trying to prove an answer they already "know" should be willing to concede solid points that go against their original hypothesis and also should still be trying to freshen and upgrade evidence that makes their supporting information stronger. If this is your idea of something that makes an argument less credible then the number of times the official story changed should frighten you, and what should frighten you the most are the few times where some details of the official story have been proven beyond a doubt to be false and has never been fixed(such as NORAD's own response time line from September 18 that is totally wrong). a reply to: Section31

a reply to: TupacShakur

The main thing with regards to an airplane impact, is that the jets fuel supply is in the wings, these would be ripped off as the fuselage entered the structure . Or should have been. Which wouldn't leave much fuel to burn inside the structure.

a reply to: TupacShakur The main thing with regards to an airplane impact, is that the jets fuel supply is in the wings, these would be ripped off as the fuselage entered the structure . Or should have been. Which wouldn't leave much fuel to burn inside the structure.

a reply to: anonentity

I agree with this. The NIST report even says that most of the fuel burned up on impact and in the first 10 minutes. The fires were then supplemented by anything in the offices.

a reply to: anonentity

these would be ripped off as the fuselage entered the structure .

That sounds like a hunch on your part.
Unless you can prove it.

The hole in the pentagon was to small for a large aircraft to fit. The only video i've seen shows a streek at ground level entering the pentagon. There is no way a plane of that size could hit a building at a level that is parallel with the ground.

a reply to: Oannes

The initial hole was about 14 feet across. That's slightly larger than a 757 fuselage and fits nicely with one hitting the building.

Are you sure on that 99%? Not like 99.2% or 99.4%... how about 60% or 20% or 5%....what went into that 99% calculation?

originally posted by: Oannes
The hole in the pentagon was to small for a large aircraft to fit. The only video i've seen shows a streek at ground level entering the pentagon. There is no way a plane of that size could hit a building at a level that is parallel with the ground.

And your qualifications for stating such an absolute statement is what?

a reply to: Xtrozero

And your qualifications for stating such an absolute statement is what?

They read it on a web site somewhere.