View Single Post
Old 03-12-2012, 06:32 AM   #101
skulb
Senior Member
 
skulb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Norway
Posts: 643
Likes: 34 (17 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
This claim needs to be put to rest once and for all.

The earlier gash was likely caused by the strip mining that once occurred there, while the later one was likely cause by two cruise missiles striking in crossfire formation at trajectories of less than 10-degrees.


I know. Was joking. The weird thing about the 9/11 photo in my mind is that there doesn`t seem to be any trace of an impact at all. It looks more like someone has started a forest fire and then put it out. No wreckage, no mark in the ground anywhere that points to an impact. Nothing.
If I remember correctly the government claimed the plane disappeared down into an abandoned mine, but there`s no trace of any mine either. And even if there was why didn`t they go down into the abandoned mine to look for the plane?
If this is correct then it puts the coroners later explanation on BBC in a rather weird light, where he claimed he had seen human remains at the crash site, without specifying that he had climbed down into the mine to perform his investigation. You`d think he might have mentioned this when explaining himself. I think there`s quite a good chance he`s been threatened and told what to say like so many other people have been to help cover up 9/11.
skulb is offline   Reply With Quote