Bobert
12th November 2008, 08:21 PM
Yup the all knowing and all doing NWO inserted smoke trails in the pentagon video to make it appear that a missle had been fired!
I imagain a bong hit or 5 might make it easier to relate to Spreston and Also as they try and explain YET ANOTHER crazy theory.
http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/852239/1/
Bonez when are you going to stop this madness? There was no missile. No one saw a missile. No missile was fired. You are fostering needless urban legend that distracts from the real truth.
Quote: Missile smoke trails are wavy like that when first fired. Had there been a real plane hitting the Pentagon, the smoke would not have been wavy at the speeds the plane was reported to be travelling.
Wouldn't a "wavy missile smoke trail" cast a shadow? Note this object and the thick smoke trail DO NOT cast a shadow as everything else in the video does.
Quote: If the video is fake, why insert a missile smoke trail?
To make people like you peddle bunk missile theories.
Actually I believe it was for 3 reasons.
1)One to fuel the missile theories, the small drone firing a missile, the fighter jet firing a missile theories. Which were absurd and kept us behind a our pc's theorizing and away from the truth and most importanatly kept us divided.
2) To throw off curious family members. I know for a fact that a victim was fed BS and innuendo about fighters in the skies and missiles being fired at the plane and taking it out. This could appease curious family members/vitims who questioned the damage and more importantly the video. The video could look like and has been theorized that it looked like a missile being fired at a plane.
3)To set up the integrated consultants video animation which was supposed to let everyone down very easily by thoroughly explaining the Pentagon attack, including the white smoke trail, which they try and say was the starboard side engine emitting smoke after taking in a piece of light pole 3.
Quote: It's more believable that a missile struck the Pentagon as the evidence lacks the proper wreckage to support a 757 having struck the Pentagon.
And yet you provide absolutely NO examples of comparisons of missile strikes against the deeply penetrated/damaged Pentagon. You provide no wreckage of a missile.
The plane flew on the north side of the Citgo and then pulled up into an ascent right before the wall. This means that it did not hit. That means your supposed missile fired from the plane, the grassy knoll, or from the secret military truck parked at FOB parking lot that you've conjured up would show up in the video, right below our flyover/away plane.
Man where can I get a hold of that CIT weed?
LOL!
I just realized that NOT ONLY did the NWO suspect that the CIT would be formed to bring them down but apparently they also know about "integrated consultants" and tried to set them up as well!
:dl:
I imagain a bong hit or 5 might make it easier to relate to Spreston and Also as they try and explain YET ANOTHER crazy theory.
http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/852239/1/
Bonez when are you going to stop this madness? There was no missile. No one saw a missile. No missile was fired. You are fostering needless urban legend that distracts from the real truth.
Quote: Missile smoke trails are wavy like that when first fired. Had there been a real plane hitting the Pentagon, the smoke would not have been wavy at the speeds the plane was reported to be travelling.
Wouldn't a "wavy missile smoke trail" cast a shadow? Note this object and the thick smoke trail DO NOT cast a shadow as everything else in the video does.
Quote: If the video is fake, why insert a missile smoke trail?
To make people like you peddle bunk missile theories.
Actually I believe it was for 3 reasons.
1)One to fuel the missile theories, the small drone firing a missile, the fighter jet firing a missile theories. Which were absurd and kept us behind a our pc's theorizing and away from the truth and most importanatly kept us divided.
2) To throw off curious family members. I know for a fact that a victim was fed BS and innuendo about fighters in the skies and missiles being fired at the plane and taking it out. This could appease curious family members/vitims who questioned the damage and more importantly the video. The video could look like and has been theorized that it looked like a missile being fired at a plane.
3)To set up the integrated consultants video animation which was supposed to let everyone down very easily by thoroughly explaining the Pentagon attack, including the white smoke trail, which they try and say was the starboard side engine emitting smoke after taking in a piece of light pole 3.
Quote: It's more believable that a missile struck the Pentagon as the evidence lacks the proper wreckage to support a 757 having struck the Pentagon.
And yet you provide absolutely NO examples of comparisons of missile strikes against the deeply penetrated/damaged Pentagon. You provide no wreckage of a missile.
The plane flew on the north side of the Citgo and then pulled up into an ascent right before the wall. This means that it did not hit. That means your supposed missile fired from the plane, the grassy knoll, or from the secret military truck parked at FOB parking lot that you've conjured up would show up in the video, right below our flyover/away plane.
Man where can I get a hold of that CIT weed?
LOL!
I just realized that NOT ONLY did the NWO suspect that the CIT would be formed to bring them down but apparently they also know about "integrated consultants" and tried to set them up as well!
:dl: