Strong Evidence Of Fake Planes And A Media Hoax On 9/11

[Wayne Stracener]

Instructions-R-UsStop in and view our large collection of How To ManualsEnter now for your chance to winA free Back Space Button

[Davyjones]

Neatly put Wayne!Pasquales posts on this are researched,well presented and very readable.I DONT HAVE TO AGREE WITH HIM.Alex....relax,your opinion is also worth noting and I at least have done so. No point in hitting on Pasquale though its a distraction.

[kenmurray]

Bottom line, Pasquale, myself, and others will continue to make posts on this topic as we see fit.

[Bob]

Bottom line, a lot of us HAVE shown ample evidence of a connection between the JFK assassination and the events of 9/11. If you disagree, it is duly noted, but as Wayne says...move on and turn the dial to a new thread. Speaking for myself, one of the reasons this forum is unique is because we have a LOT of out of the box thinkers. And we don't just throw mud against the wall and hope it sticks like David Von Pein does, but we give validated reasons for our views. Do we all agree with one another on this view or that view? Hell no. But we respect each other opinions. That should always be lesson number one. A debate is not a debate without respect. Calling people out because you disagree...and without giving SPECIFIC reasoning...is NOT respectful. Just saying that a person is wrong does not make the other person right.

[Pasquale DiFabrizio]

Alex Hidell wrote:Nowhere in your postings or in the documents you cite is there a conclusive argument that states clearly, concisely and inarguably a connection between Bush/JFK/9-11 attacks.NOWHERE Now if you choose to spew this nonsense and your buddies on this board choose to pat you on the back for doing it- bully for you.Unfortunately, this nonsense taints all others who attempt to discuss the JFK assassination via facts and logic and not stoop to wild, irrelevant speculation.In fact, I would say this silliness you are spouting relative to 9/11-JFK is one of the most damaging things you could do to the credibility of this board.What's next? Oswald was an alien sent from another dimension thru a wormhole and Ruby had his love child??????????????????????????????????????????????Sorry, dude, for the reality check The bottom line is that you don't need to read this topic if you don't like it. Also, you are not the director of discussion on this forum either. For you to suggest that this topic taints this forum or that it should not be discussed is pure arrogant ignorance on your part.The reality is that you don't like this topic and think it's nonsense. Others do not. You are not the director of discussion on this forum. Nobody mentioned anything about a "wormhole," or an "alien" or Jack Ruby having a love child.The information presented here certainly is legitimate and doesn't taint anything, and I'll tell you why.For example, commercial jets like the 767 cannot fly anywhere near 500 mph near sea level because the air is too thick. So, contrary to what NIST and FEMA claim, those jets could not have flown at that speed at 700 feet above sea level, and they were not in any sort of "power dive." Also, commercial jets like the 767 break apart just hitting water, and yet in the instance of 9/11, those jets are depicted as going right into the buildings and leaving holes like a Roadrunner cartoon. Not even the tail sections snap off much less the wings, and there is no evident deceleration upon impact. They enter those buildings just as fast as they are depicted as flying through air. This violates fundamental laws of physics such as the fact that a plane or car that crashes into a building will experience IMMEDIATE DECELERATION upon impact. I took a chance and showed the information to a former Navy pilot who works for a friend of mine. He confirmed my suspicions, that those plane crashes on 9/11 as depicted by the media are not real plane crashes at all. There are also issues regarding contradictory trajectories of the second plane as depicted by different TV networks as well as evidence of audio tampering as evidence by the Michael Hezarkhani home video when his voice is heard at different places in two different versions of his supposed home video. On top of that, as I showed, he doesn't want to even talk about where exactly he was standing when he took the video and referred the caller to his attorney and to CNN or something like that. These are legitimate issues that I am raising here with this topic. You just don't like it. That's too bad for you. As for the connection to JFK, there's an obvious Bush connection. It seems that Poppy Bush had a hand in the JFK assassination, and his son, George W., was president when the 9/11 attacks happened. There is also the information presented by Bob regarding Operation Northwoods, where people in our own government actually considered staging terrorist attacks on U.S. soil in order to guide public opinion to suit their agenda.You don't seem to understand these points, and it is presumptuous and ignorant for you to claim that this information is nonsense or that it should not be discussed.As for your comment about this information or topic tainting this forum, you are wrong, and you are also wrong about what kind of forum you think we are or should be. For example, there are many other JFK assassination discussion forums who think the James Files and Judyth Baker information is nonsense too. We do not. This is something that distinguishes this forum from many others. We don't just go along with the program that is set by other JFK assassination forums. You seem to care about what other forums are saying. We don't really care what 99.9% of other people think about our information as you seem to be concerned with.The bottom line is that you don't need to read this topic if you don't like it. Also, you are not the director of discussion on this forum either. For you to suggest that this topic taints this forum or that it should not be discussed is pure arrogant ignorance on your part.So, "dude," this is YOUR reality check

[kenmurray]

We are to believed that this guy supposedly crashed a 757 into the Pentagon while over a month before 9/11 he had trouble controlling and landing a Cessna 172! Pasquale, I know you believe he could. http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/dec ... ilots.html

[Pasquale DiFabrizio]

kenmurray wrote:We are to believed that this guy supposedly crashed a 757 into the Pentagon while over a month before 9/11 he had trouble controlling and landing a Cessna 172! Pasquale, I know you believe he could. http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/dec ... ilots.html LOLEven if we did away with reality and said that he COULD fly a Cessna 172 well, he still couldn't have flown a commercial jet at 500 mph at 700 feet above sea level because the air is too thick. The "authorities" couldn't even hit the towers at those speeds in a simulator because it's simply too fast even if they COULD fly that fast near sea level. LOLNotice how our detractors on this topic continuously FAIL to address ANY of these points. They won't do it because they can't.

[kenmurray]

Judy Wood on Coast to Coast AM 5/03/2011:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ms1uUZX_g2I&feature=fvsr

[kenmurray]

Pasquale, what is your impression of Judy Wood's work?

[Deborah]

Deborah wrote:Mike Ellwood wrote:Thanks for the link Deborah; intriguing.See also this one (first clip of 4):http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VKhdZTeaZsBTW, does anyone know the name of the person in the TV interview with Khalezov (Deborah's link)? He sounds English, but his face is not familiar to me; he is not a well-known TV personality here, at least not one that I know.Hello MikeIt is purported that the name of the interviewer in the 1-26 video interview series was not divulged on purpose. In a commentary blog one reader asserts that this interviewer was 'suicided' by a heart attack shortly after the interview. When and if I find the name of the interviewer I will send it to you.Hello MikeFollowing up...the name of the interviewer in the Khalezov 26 part video'd interview is Daniel EstulinCiao,Deborah