The Sensible Doubt - Danish 911

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
In any jet liner crash the pieces are again mapped out precisely where they landed, but again at the pentagon we have what look like office workers out putting debris into trash bags and hauling it off to parts unknown. Where is the reconstructed plane from the debris ?

The NTSB does that when they don't know the cause of a crash, and want to investigate why the plane crashed. In this case it was obvious that it was not an accident, so there was no need for an accident investigation.
 

Boston

Active Member
Then I'd respond, the columns did not destroy all the wings that hit them, in which case, where are they ?

What if I said that tail section is quite substantial and that if not destroyed it should be right there on the ground. 45 foot tail section should require a crane to lift. Also where's the pieces of that planes wings if not right there either embedded in the building or on the ground in front.

Oh and you'd have to show photographic evidence of every column being damaged along the entire 125 foot wing span before it could be reasonably said that there was phtographic evidence of an object with a 125 foot span struck the building. There is also that sticky little issue of the 45 foot tall tail section that somehow vanished into thin air. Also the engine furrows, if the fuselage actually did hit the first floor, where are the furrows the engines would have created. Those two columns, what number are then starting from left and going right from the left hand side corner of the effected area. One ambiguous picture without reference doesn't a very good argument make.
 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
Then I'd respond, the columns did not destroy all the wings that hit them, in which case, where are they ?
This will give you a good idea as to what happens to aircraft grade aluminum when it impact reinforced concrete at over 500mph.
 

Boston

Active Member
I'm not suggesting that in a battle between a jet liner and a concrete block the block won't win, I don't think anyone would argue that one, and in fact thats not even remotely what I'm suggesting, so the question becomes, why even bring it up ? The video doesn't count for much, just shows the rabbit going into the hat, sorta, and the magician doesn't even lift up the hat and show it to the crowd. My bet is there's substantial scoring on the flip side of that block we never saw.

But if you flew a 757 into the side of a building you'd at least break out the windows in the shape of the airplane. We don't see that here. Nor do we see any debris consistent with the idea that the tail and wing tips might have broken off previous to impact. Nor do you see any 6' deep or so furrows that would be clearly in the lawn should this type of craft have actually hit the building where its damaged.

I also liked how the few frames of video that were released don't in fact show an airplane, what I see is more of an unrecognizable smoke trail, that to my eye looks more like a solid rocket exhaust than a jet contrail or debris plume, which would again have left significant damage to the lawn.

I've read much of the material provided and no where do I see a rational explanation of the questions being presented.
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
I'm not suggesting that in a battle between a jet liner and a concrete block the block won't win, I don't think anyone would argue that one, and in fact thats not even remotely what I'm suggesting, so the question becomes, why even bring it up ? The video doesn't count for much, just shows the rabbit going into the hat, sorta, and the magician doesn't even lift up the hat and show it to the crowd. My bet is there's substantial scoring on the flip side of that block we never saw.

But if you flew a 757 into the side of a building you'd at least break out the windows in the shape of the airplane. We don't see that here. Nor do we see any debris consistent with the idea that the tail and wing tips might have broken off previous to impact. Nor do you see any 6' deep or so furrows that would be clearly in the lawn should this type of craft have actually hit the building where its damaged.

I also liked how the few frames of video that were released don't in fact show an airplane, what I see is more of an unrecognizable smoke trail, that to my eye looks more like a solid rocket exhaust than a jet contrail or debris plume, which would again have left significant damage to the lawn.

I've read much of the material provided and no where do I see a rational explanation of the questions being presented.

And I don't see an answer from you of what you think happened there.
 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
I'm not suggesting that in a battle between a jet liner and a concrete block the block won't win, I don't think anyone would argue that one, and in fact thats not even remotely what I'm suggesting, so the question becomes, why even bring it up ? The video doesn't count for much, just shows the rabbit going into the hat, sorta, and the magician doesn't even lift up the hat and show it to the crowd. My bet is there's substantial scoring on the flip side of that block we never saw.
You asked where did the plane go, I gave proof that a plane impacting reinforced concrete at 500+ mph an airplanes aluminum will, at the very least most of it broke up into small pieces and most likely turned to dust.
But if you flew a 757 into the side of a building you'd at least break out the windows in the shape of the airplane.
We don't see that here.
Maybe if they were ordinary windows and not bullet resistant laminates... I'm a bit confused though on your statement so I'm saying that adjacent windows might not have been blown out because of this.
Nor do we see any debris consistent with the idea that the tail and wing tips might have broken off previous to impact.
The wings hit some lamp poles just before impact damaging an engine but it didn't take the wings off. Again the tail probably disintegrated upon impact. There are plenty of pictures of pieces of fuselage on the lawn.
Nor do you see any 6' deep or so furrows that would be clearly in the lawn should this type of craft have actually hit the building where its damaged.
Not if the plane hit the building and not the ground.
I also liked how the few frames of video that were released don't in fact show an airplane, what I see is more of an unrecognizable smoke trail, that to my eye looks more like a solid rocket exhaust than a jet contrail or debris plume, which would again have left significant damage to the lawn.



I've read much of the material provided and no where do I see a rational explanation of the questions being presented.
At about 11:00 in this video he starts talking about the Pentagon. I can see what looks like a plane.
 
Last edited:

Boston

Active Member
And I don't see an answer from you of what you think happened there.

One of my favorite questions, and I apologize for not addressing it, I don't know what happened, but I can take a pretty good guess what didn't. The plane doesn't seem to fit the damage, either on the building or on the lawn, the logical conclusion is that a plane of the size of a 757 didn't hit the building, or that the plane was so modified by the obstacle course it had to run that it no longer contained the components required to create that damage. In which case we'd expect to see those components in those areas where obstacles are evident. Yet we don't.

Personally if I see a rabbit go into a hat and then a proud magician hold up the hat acting as if that rabbits gone into thin air, I tend to laugh and ask myself, OK how'd he do that. Same scenario here, our wonderful government who'm we all know would never ever lie cheat or steal from us, has used this day 9/11 to permanently alter the world perception of the US public, in what appears to be a very effective campaign designed to militarize the middle east, and vilify the Arab people as a whole. I see a lot of similarities in Hitlers Germany with the vilification of the Jews and communists in connection with the Reichtag fire

Even a brief look at history will show some very clear examples that look surprisingly similar to all four major events of 9/11. Does that prove that 9/11 was synonymous with a gulf of Tonkin type event, and that our governments involvement in such events is not only possible but that such events are common throughout the history of all our governments political sciences ? I don't believe the possibility proves anything, but I do think it more probable than the number of miraculous coincidences we're being asked to believe with this whole rabbit disappearing into a hat thing, or buildings that all of a sudden fall straight down into there own footprints, or pieces of glowing hot metal who's color indicated clearly and unequivocally temperatures far higher than any office fire could ever produce ;-) .
 

MikeC

Closed Account
One of my favorite questions, and I apologize for not addressing it, I don't know what happened, but I can take a pretty good guess what didn't. The plane doesn't seem to fit the damage, either on the building or on the lawn,

In what way?

all the photos of debris I've seen completely match with a 757 - from the blue painted thin aluminium skin scattered all over the lawns to the wheels and engine parts found inside the building.
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
One of my favorite questions, and I apologize for not addressing it, I don't know what happened, but I can take a pretty good guess what didn't. The plane doesn't seem to fit the damage, either on the building or on the lawn, the logical conclusion is that a plane of the size of a 757 didn't hit the building, or that the plane was so modified by the obstacle course it had to run that it no longer contained the components required to create that damage. In which case we'd expect to see those components in those areas where obstacles are evident. Yet we don't. .

So all those people were mistaken that they saw a huge jumbo jet fly into the pentagon? I mean, a jet is slightly larger than a rabbit.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
Boston doesn't agree with what folks saw happen or with what the damage says happened, but he seems unable to postulate an alternative that is believable.

Two questions.
1) What hit the Pentagon?
2) Why did the towers collapse?

If you are unwilling to make proposal and to defend it, then what is your purpose here?
 

Boston

Active Member
You asked where did the plane go, I gave proof that a plane impacting reinforced concrete at 500+ mph an airplanes aluminum will, at the very least most of it broke up into small pieces and most likely turned to dust.

No you showed a six foot thick concrete block from the back side, show me a window taking that same blow and surviving it and then, maybe, you've showed proof of what "might" happen if an airplane the size of a 757 hitting the pentagon.

Maybe if they were ordinary windows and not bullet resistant laminates... I'm a bit confused though on your statement so I'm saying that adjacent windows might not have been blown out because of this.

ah but I have worked as a glass consultant as well as worked with multiple types of blast resistant glass and your waaaaaaay off if you think that plane wouldn't/couldn't have broken out those windows. The whole notion is pretty funny actually, particularly when you've sampled blast resistant glass for some of the military contractors in the Denver area. Not ot mention any names of course. Not only would the windows hit by the alleged plane be broken, but its highly unlikely those in the immediate vicinity wouldn't have been also

OK color thing no longer works, give it one more try, aaaaaand, no go

The wings hit some lamp poles just before impact damaging an engine but it didn't take the wings off. Again the tail probably disintegrated upon impact. There are plenty of pictures of pieces of fuselage on the lawn.

The wings "may" have hit lamp posts just before impact, we have damaged lamp posts but no wings with which to confirm the cause. I'd also be curious to see if anyone reputable tested for paint residue on those lamp posts. I'm sure the different manufacturers likely use there own kinds of paint. The tail section "probably" nope, doesn't work at all for me either. The planes major components often survive even the worst of impacts. Without a single positively identifiable piece of wreckage I'm going to have to remain skeptical of exactly what hit the pentagon. Although this avenue is likely your most adventagious ( sorry english isn't my first language and spell check just isn't gettin it ) in convincing my skeptical butt otherwise. Show me a picture with resolution sufficient to get an actual part number off of and then link that to a parts list for whatever and then, I'll agree that some form of vehicle with flight capabilities with an engine containing that part number hit the pentagon. ( try that color thing again does the color thing have some kinda timer on it ?

Not if the plane hit the building and not the ground.

Um, plane couldn't hit the building where the damage occurred unless the plane vanished on impact or it was flying without engines. Check the diameter of the fuselage and the diameter of the entry hole, then add the height of the engines. Doesn't work out to well now does it ;-) ( nope color thing isn't working again )

At about 11:00 in this video he starts talking about the Pentagon. I can see what looks like a plane.

I'll check it out and see what I see, but I'd have sworn I saw a rabbit go into that hat, isn't a very convincing argument


So whats up with the text color thing not working sometimes ? maybe in edit mode

nope
 

Boston

Active Member
Boston doesn't agree with what folks saw happen or with what the damage says happened, but he seems unable to postulate an alternative that is believable.

Two questions.
1) What hit the Pentagon?
2) Why did the towers collapse?

If you are unwilling to make proposal and to defend it, then what is your purpose here?

Your funny. So folks saw that rabbit going into a hat and ?

And what damage, I see intact windows where a 45 foot tail section should have been. Your telling me it disappeared without a trace on impact with ? what ? a seagull ?

I also don't see a shred of damage on that lawn. Yet the planes fuselage height plus engines height don't fit that hole either ;-)


 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
So whats up with the text color thing not working sometimes ? maybe in edit mode

nope
You just don't get that aluminum traveling at over 500 mph, turns to dust when it impacts concrete, hence the hole will not be as large as the plane because aluminum parts of the plane turned to dust when it impacted the concrete.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
I also don't see a shred of damage on that lawn.

the lawn is 80-100 feet from the edge of the building, and the 757 hit the various construction site equipment (fence, diesel generator, spools) inside that distance, so no, you won't see any damage on the lawn, because the aircraft did not hit it.

Eg see http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analysis/conclusions/damage.html

and http://killtown.911review.org/flight77/generator.html - for many details of exactly what was on the "lawn" that was hit - actually it was a construction site next to the exterior wall....

Yet the planes fuselage height plus engines height don't fit that hole either ;-)

They do if they are traveling at a few hundred mph - see http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/debunking-911-myths-pentagon

See also a comparison of the aircraft profile with the damaged area at http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/nodebris.html - there's not actually a lot of difference!
 
Last edited:

Boston

Active Member
You just don't get that aluminum traveling at over 500 mph, turns to dust when it impacts concrete, hence the hole will not be as large as the plane because aluminum parts of the plane turned to dust when it impacted the concrete.

and you just don't get that the aluminum must impact before turning to dust. Take the profile of the airplane and aim it at a point high enough off the ground to "not" leave 6 foot deep furrows in the lawn from the engines, and you get a completely different pattern of damage to the building. Try showing that 6 foot thick concrete block from the impact side and I'll bet there's a mark were that jet hit it ;-)
 
Last edited:

Boston

Active Member
The landing gear was not down, so no lawn damage.

I notice that you are still dodging my questions. WHY?

Thats funny, I notice you didn't make any attempt to explain how all those elephants disappeared either. Are you by virtue of that lack of explanation admitting that they in fact did disappear ?

Are you dodging my suggestion that your logic doesn't work when its you who are faced with the exact same situation ?

PS
who said anything about landing gear ?
 

Boston

Active Member
Mike, good stuff, It'll take me a few hours to do those references justice.

Cheers
B

Beyond the 90-foot-by-26-foot region within which walls were broken away, the facade showed abrasion suggesting blast damage, but no impression of the profile of a Boeing 757. No windows were broken on either side of the 90-foot span or above the second floor.

an excerpt from that first link, although I'm guilty I'm commenting before I've actually read the whole thing. My point is that a 125 foot wing span doesn't fit in a 90 foot wide hole, without at least breaking windows on either side. Nor does a 45 foot tall plane fit in a two story hole without also at least breaking out some windows. And yes I'm aware the windows may have been blast resistant, still wouldn't prevent an airplane wing from blowing it out tho.

Also if you notice in the pictures of the fuselage impact area there is the column directly above the area of most damage. fuselage wouldn't have fit in that hole either unless the engines where digging some pretty substantial ditches for that irrigation system.

I'm also going to be particularly looking for evidence of at least three engines, two are obvious but there's another on these large jets that I suspect might be on a 757 as well. They are emergency power turbines, small, almost never used, but they are there on many larger planes.

without at least two engines, and I believe its this type craft that has the rolls engines with the titanium cores, some of which components are nearly indestructible IE survived the twin towers attacks ;-) I find it somewhat dubious that a twin engine airplane hit the building.

Call it my skeptical nature, I doubt those elephants disappeared. Its a healthy doubt.
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Keep looking, you'll figure it out.

It's best to ask really specific questions, one at a time, and don't move on until the question has been satisfactorily answered.

The-Sensible-Doubt---Danish-911-_-Page-6-_-Metabunk.gif
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
I don't see hoofprints in the clay of Montana valley and decide that herd of unicorns or pegasi had been there.

You seem to think that the plane should have left cartoon hole in the side of the Pentagon, it wouldn't have.

The outside walls of the Pentagon where made of thick steel reinforced concrete, with a thick layer of brick over that and then clad in 5 inch thick limestone slabs.

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/
 

Boston

Active Member
Granted I'm not exactly giving my full attention to this, beer, movie, waitin for the girl to arive, but even a cursory look at some of this info shows some serious flaws in the logic of identifiable parts. Being kinda a renascence man and building many of my own mechanical systems in a rather well stocked shop I couldn't help but notice that these rims that are supposed to "prove" its 757 debris in fact do the exact opposite



Now tell me someone else can spot the obvious difference between these two rims other than the basic damage.

I may not know what plane that rim does belong to, but I can tell you if that comparison photo is accurately depicting a 757 landing gear, its not a 757
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Boston

Active Member
Keep looking, you'll figure it out.

It's best to ask really specific questions, one at a time, and don't move on until the question has been satisfactorily answered.

The-Sensible-Doubt---Danish-911-_-Page-6-_-Metabunk.gif

Your a good sport Mick

But I was hoping Cairenn would have figured it out, or at least tried.

so now tell me whats wrong with the landing gear ;-) I'm being asked to believe is from a 757
 

Boston

Active Member
I don't see hoofprints in the clay of Montana valley and decide that herd of unicorns or pegasi had been there.

You seem to think that the plane should have left cartoon hole in the side of the Pentagon, it wouldn't have.

The outside walls of the Pentagon where made of thick steel reinforced concrete, with a thick layer of brick over that and then clad in 5 inch thick limestone slabs.

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/

Yah I looked at that earlier, it in fact fails to show the block of concrete after impact and in a fashion were we can see the impact damage to the concrete. Sorry but no go, once again its basic physics, the energy it takes to turn an airliner wing into confetti must be imparted to it by something, and that something will show evidence of that energy transfer.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Yah I looked at that earlier, it in fact fails to show the block of concrete after impact and in a fashion were we can see the impact damage to the concrete. Sorry but no go, once again its basic physics, the energy it takes to turn an airliner wing into confetti must be imparted to it by something, and that something will show evidence of that energy transfer.

And where exactly is this evidence lacking? Can you show a picture?

 
Last edited:

Boston

Active Member
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0290.shtml

I do hope you are simply not going to rotate through the entire pantheon of 9/11 "evidence". Really, it wastes everyone's time. If you have a genuine question then try to find out if it has been answered already.

I'm just pointing out that the hole in the building as well as the area the hole is in pretty much rules out a 757. While I was at it I noticed at least one bit of debris claimed to be proof it was from a 757 isn't, in fact from a 757. Or if it does it comes from some other area than the sample photo which is purported to be of a 757.

Oh and no, I try and stay away from the more spurious claims, it could certainly be that a 757 hit the pentagon. But I'd think if it did there's be some kinda smoking gun. Instead there's a whole slew of perfectly reasonable questions, like how'd they get that rabbit into that hat ;-)

The fall of WTC 7 is definitive as is the color of the glowing steel they removed weeks after the fact. I've just never really considered the size, location, and shape of the hole in the pentagon, till I started reading some of these threads. You guys have never really adequately answered these questions, and I didn't notice anyone really bringing the site to task on it.

I'm a pretty open minded kinda person, but when you have to accept reams of highly unlikely scenarios in order to believe what our lovely government is trying oh so hard to convince me of, I'm far more likely to remain skeptical.
 

Boston

Active Member
Your a good sport Mick

But I was hoping Cairenn would have figured it out, or at least tried.

so now tell me whats wrong with the landing gear ;-) I'm being asked to believe is from a 757


you have two columns, of unknown location, separated by about ten feet, and I dont' think it represents proof of a 125 foot wing span 45 foot tall jet liner striking the pentagon. I'm thinking if thats the case we can go straight back to those disappearing elephants
 

Boston

Active Member
You seem to be studiously ignoring all the answers posted here. What about the wheels being full debunked:
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0290.shtml

Please indicate on a photo where there is damage lacking.

actually I was studiously observing the photo's I'd been directed to. In the photo I was directed to the landing gear has 8 cut outs not ten as pictures in teh photo presumably representing a 757. Which kinda begs the question, just how many different landing gear set ups did they use on that plane and just how interchangeable are they from other similar plains


I was also directed ( in response to suggesting we take a look at the face of that 6 foot thick block of concrete someone saw fit to run a jet into ) to a page that in fact does not show what kinda damage we can expect on the pentagon stone facade. What it shows is an explosion blocking our view of whatever happened to that block.

Course thats all just distraction, I'm still curious how a 12 foot diameter fuselage with a 7 foot diameter engine doesn't require a pathway of aprox 16 foot ( check the diagrams ) tall to reach its target. IE there's no way there wouldn't be furrows in the lawn assuming you could get past the ground effects.

Its a simple question really, but one without an answer. You can't show furrows in the lawn, so you must conclude the engines hit something, but engines are tougher than light polls and security shacks, sooooo what did both engines hit that prevented them from leaving furrows if in fact they hit anything.

All the crazy explanations aside, no one but the NSTB should have been out there cleaning up that sight and under any other circumstance we'd have had a complete investigation including reconstruction of "whatever" hit the pentagon.

We will never know what exactly happened because we are being deliberately kept in the dark. I suspect there is a reason for that. You apparently are comfortable with it. Reminds me of that movie "the matrix"
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
I think that you are keeping yourself in the dark.

You are ignoring solid evidence in favor of nonsense.

I don't what your problem with me is, but I am getting tired of your veiled comments.

NOW What hit the Pentagon, if it wasn't a plane? And what is your evidence for that?
 

Boston

Active Member
Our illustrious leaders are on the one hand claiming security footage doesn't contain anything, but somehow may effect national security and thus aren't releasing it. On the other hand, if it doesn't contain anything, then why not release it. Mick in another thread agreed that it was the way it is.

If I remember there would have been no investigation at all if not for the public outcry against the Bush administrations inaction.

The simple logic is that simply because you can't explain something, doesn't mean its true. If you can't explain the disappearing elephants trick, does that make it true. Obviously there are going to be things we observe, that remain inexplicable, but that doesn't mean that the first, highly dubious and least likely explanation is what we must accept, rather than continue digging until a viable explanation is found.

A hypothesis is exactly that. Within the sciences multiple hypothesis might be forwarded before a working theory emerges.

did I really have to explain that ?

Oh and almost forgot


my personal take on this photo is that the lines are drawn somewhat wrong. The left hand, port wing line should be lining up with the center line of the fuselage better , that , and the whole thing should be raised up off the ground to at least clear the engines off the dirt, since there was no furrows evident in the grass. Which makes the hole even less plausible

I think the perspective is somewhat off and a better view of the horizon would indicate these red lines are somewhat askew

Something else thats not being considered is that given the angle of attack the hole should actually be a lot larger, or at least the scar left by the plane on the buildings facade should be. Also that tail stabilizer is quite substantial, its often the only large piece of debris left in an air disaster. Could be because they don't tend to catch on fire but also they do have some very heavy members as they are expected to resist some significant forces. Yet no broken windows where the tail should have hit. I also question where they project the tail stabilizer should have hit. Should have been directly above the centerline of the fuselage and about midway of the fourth floor. Puts it right about in the middle of the column, yet that column looks entirely intact. I'm not sure if a 757 hit this building or not, but I see a lot of problems with this picture. There should at least be some scaring in the areas left substantially intact and there isn't.

The deal is if enough energy is imparted on the two materials, concrete and aluminum, its the aluminum that will be the one to dissociate first, this is due to its greater rigidity however, that concrete will deform substantially in the transfer of that energy, due to its lesser rigidity. So the opportunity for a 757 to hit a chunk of concrete at hundreds of miles a hour and leave no appreciable mark other than maybe dust the surface is highly unlikely. If we consider there was a material harder than concrete veneering the outside of the structure then we'd see an even more mutual dissociation between the two, yet again all I see is some soot residue and some whole lot of intact windows.

My inclination is to await a more reasonable explanation. Problem is, without pushing for that more reasonable explanation I'm being asked to accept that rabbit in the hat trick, and those security videos that presumably don't show anything, apparently are vital to national security ;-)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
If there was a plane, people died. Why don't you attack it from that angle?
Who are they? Where did they live? Who is their family? What record is there of their existence? etc.
 

JRBids

Senior Member.

Cairenn: Boston doesn't agree with what folks saw happen or with what the damage says happened, but he seems unable to postulate an alternative that is believable.

Two questions.
1) What hit the Pentagon?
2) Why did the towers collapse?

If you are unwilling to make proposal and to defend it, then what is your purpose here?

Your funny. So folks saw that rabbit going into a hat and ?

And what damage, I see intact windows where a 45 foot tail section should have been. Your telling me it disappeared without a trace on impact with ? what ? a seagull ?

I also don't see a shred of damage on that lawn. Yet the planes fuselage height plus engines height don't fit that hole either ;-)



I understand you think your "rabbit" analogy is extremely clever, so much so that you repeat it over and over, long after the joke has lost its giggle.

What are you here for? Just to ask questions? Just to point out "anomalies" you see? Why do you keep telling us you don't see damage on the lawn after it's been explained to you numerous times that the plane did not hit the lawn. Why do you keep repeating yourself?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

JRBids

Senior Member.
Thats funny, I notice you didn't make any attempt to explain how all those elephants disappeared either. Are you by virtue of that lack of explanation admitting that they in fact did disappear ?

Are you dodging my suggestion that your logic doesn't work when its you who are faced with the exact same situation ?

PS
who said anything about landing gear ?


So now you've switched from a rabbit to an elephant? When are you going to get to a jumbo jet? What happened to all the people on that jet? Where are they?

PS: Your story has more holes than swiss cheese.
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
Your a good sport Mick

But I was hoping Cairenn would have figured it out, or at least tried.

so now tell me whats wrong with the landing gear ;-) I'm being asked to believe is from a 757


Boston is another in a long line of visitors who cannot point out what is obvious to him and plays coy. Or maybe it is a long line of different names with the same person behind them.

SPIT IT OUT BOSTON! What is wrong with the landing gear. I'm not drinking beer watching TV or waiting to get [ahem]. I'm going to work. What is so obvious to you that no one else can see?
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Graham2001 Aulis article uses NASA documents to cast doubt on the reality of Apollo Conspiracy Theories 26

Related Articles

Top