Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => World War III - Chapter 2 => Topic started by: RomanCatholic1953 on January 18, 2016, 12:27:26 PM
-
https://youtu.be/5cFewUG3rSY
-
Why did I deserved a thumbs down on this thread?
-
.
Correction:
Why did I deserved [deserve] a thumbs down on this thread?
-
.
Correction:
Why did I deserved [deserve] a thumbs down on this thread?
I was not the one who thumb you down. Using deserve makes the
sentence week.
-
.
Correction:
Why did I deserved [deserve] a thumbs down on this thread?
I was not the one that thumb you down. Using deserve makes the
sentence week.
You mean, "makes the sentence weak" not week? A week is 7 days.
Using "deserved" makes the sentence jibberish. It's not English.
Are you Philippino?
-
.
Correction:
Why did I deserved [deserve] a thumbs down on this thread?
I was not the one that thumb you down. Using deserve makes the
sentence week.
Using "deserved" makes the sentence jibberish. It's not English.
Are you Philippino?
Keep on guessing.
Your English is different than mind. The most important issue is to
get the point across, and that should be all that matter.
-
.
Correction:
Why did I deserved [deserve] a thumbs down on this thread?
I was not the one that thumb you down. Using deserve makes the
sentence week.
Don't you mean, "makes the sentence weak," not week? A week is 7 days.
Using "deserved" makes the sentence jibberish. It's not English.
Are you Philippino?
Keep on guessing.
No, thank you.
Your English is different than mind. The most important issue is to
get the point across, and that should be all that matter.
Different than mind? Really? Mind?
That should be all that matter? Matter? Really?
I don't know what it is you're using but it sure isn't English.
.
-
.
Correction:
Why did I deserved [deserve] a thumbs down on this thread?
I was not the one that thumb you down. Using deserve makes the
sentence week.
Don't you mean, "makes the sentence weak," not week? A week is 7 days.
Using "deserved" makes the sentence jibberish. It's not English.
Are you Philippino?
Keep on guessing.
No, thank you.
Your English is different than mind. The most important issue is to
get the point across, and that should be all that matter.
Different than mind? Really? Mind?
That should be all that matter? Matter? Really?
I don't know what it is you're using but it sure isn't English.
You just do not want to answer my question. Instead you make
me sound ridiculous because of my grammar.
You are ridiculous by perusing this.
Did you thumb me down because you did not like my thread?
That is the question only?
.
-
Neil and his grammar ocd lol
Anyway, the video is such poor quality that it could be anything. That hole in the wall could just as easily be a picture taken of any one of the buildings in Detroit.
-
Neil and his grammar ocd lol
Anyway, the video is such poor quality that it could be anything. That hole in the wall could just as easily be a picture taken of any one of the buildings in Detroit.
Look at these photos of the Pentagon on 9-11-2001. And come back
with your reply.
http://www.truthweather.com/images/pentagon/
-
Yes, it's clear enough that there was no plane from those pictures and I believe the whole thing was staged anyway - but I have seen a lot of videos like the one in the OP, always so fuzzy that they could be just about anything.
-
.
We don't really need any clear video to know that it wasn't an aircraft that did that damage. All you have to do is look at the site and see what debris was left.
Anybody that knows aircraft knows that whatever hit the Pentagon wasn't a two-engine jet, because there would have been two holes in the wall, one for each engine (they're made of titanium), and there would have been NO hole in the wall from the fuselage (made of plexiglass and aluminum). Also there were no aircraft parts at all in the debris -- no landing gear and no engine parts.
Pilots who fly jets like that say they would never be able to steer one to hit a low wall at that speed because the wide wings make the controls unreliable when flying close to the ground. They have enough difficulty with controls when landing the jet, and that's only possible when slowing down under 200 mph. The impact at the Pentagon was at over 500 mph.
There were several walls penetrated and they were several feet thick each, which means there had to be a dense and hard material designed to penetrate obstacles in the front of the rig, like the way a cruise missile is made. It could only have been a cruise missile to do what was done to the Pentagon.
.
-
You have to realize how fast that missile was going. It was almost
supersonic speed. This may cause of the fuzziness on some early
type of video cameras.
If you were on the spot at the Pentagon 9-11-2001 the missile would
would sound like a sudden rush of wind. All you would see is the
explosion.
If you were videoing, most you will get is fuzziness.
No one heard the engines of a Boeing 757, no plane parts, no
fuselage parts, no wings and engines. No seats, no bodies.
If you look at the photo of the explosion, the lawn looks
perfectly clean.