latest false flag attack?

[juan]

On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 06:30:09 +1000
jamesd at echeque.com vomited:


> 
> The video evidence shows a commercial airliner sized plane


	no it does not - it show a small blured smudge. At best the blured smudge is 20x10 pixels in size. 

	And of course, as I already mentioned, only a complete retard or a propaganda bot like you would claim that all the video 'evidence' you have is that one video. 

	Because, if a real plane had hit the pentagon, then the real surveillance cameras installed in the pentagon would have recorded full speed, high definition images. But since no plane hit the pentagon, they don't have any video of it, and so all they offer is that  fake bullshit done in mspaint. 


> Bits of the plane and the victims showed up in the ruins at the Pentagon.'

	yet another lie. Indeed there are no pictures showing any bits of people. 

> 
> > 	2) WTC7 is an example of controlled demolition that gets a score of 9/10, it is so good.
> 
> The video of WTC7 shows that it begins its fall by toppling like a tree, 


	no it does not - your trolling is pretty retarded. 




> > 	3) of course the twin towers were blown up using the same technique, apart from the damage from 'planes' that alone could not have brought them down in the way that was seen on tee vee.
> 
> We all saw on television damage amply sufficient to bring down a 
> building. 

	no you did not. What was actually shown was the controlled demoltion of the twin towers. 


> it  was surprising to me as I watched the second plane hit the second tower 
> that it did no fall immediately.

	and thank you for providing evidence of your complete ignorance of the most basic laws of physics.

	 Hell yeah, as soon as the plane(?) hit it, it shoud have gone directly to heaven in a pink mushroom cloud. 

	Hey james, did you see all the pictures of jesus in the clouds caused by the boms? That was a real joo-kkkristian miracle, I have to admit.