| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
prole art threat
Validated Poster
Joined: 13 Apr 2006
Posts: 804
Location: London Town
|
 Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 7:27 pm Post subject: Flight 93 shot down! Rumsfeld admitted it. |
 |
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0v0_HDwg84
Come on critics, marigolds and scrubbing brushes at the ready!
_________________
'Maybe if I can show some lurking kids that this is all a pack of lies, then maybe I can make a difference. I don't plan on converting any of you because you're all mad.'
-Johnny Pixels |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 7:36 pm Post subject: Re: Flight 93 shot down! Rumsfeld admitted it. |
|
|
| prole art threat wrote: | http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0v0_HDwg84
Come on critics, marigolds and scrubbing brushes at the ready! |
Wait a minute, I'm confused here. Which was it--a shoot-down order or a stand-down order? Which one means it was an Inside Job, again?
_________________
"They, the jews, also have this thing about linage don't they?
We know a person from recent history who had a thing for linage and gene pools don't we?"
--Patrick Brown |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
prole art threat
Validated Poster
Joined: 13 Apr 2006
Posts: 804
Location: London Town
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 7:43 pm Post subject: Re: Flight 93 shot down! Rumsfeld admitted it. |
|
|
| chipmunk stew wrote: | | prole art threat wrote: | http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0v0_HDwg84
Come on critics, marigolds and scrubbing brushes at the ready! |
Wait a minute, I'm confused here. Which was it--a shoot-down order or a stand-down order? Which one means it was an Inside Job, again?
|
Youre cracking up, Chipmunk.
_________________
'Maybe if I can show some lurking kids that this is all a pack of lies, then maybe I can make a difference. I don't plan on converting any of you because you're all mad.'
-Johnny Pixels |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Patrick Brown
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 10 Oct 2006
Posts: 1201
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 7:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yes he said shot down when the OCT says it crashed!!
Yes that should read munky stew. 
_________________
We check the evidence and then archive it: www.911evidencebase.co.uk
Get the Steven E Jones reports >HERE< |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 01, 2006 8:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| and yet if they just admitted they shot down flight 93 in the first place the whole offical conspiracy theory might of been more believable at the start. i wonder if mistakes were made on purpose in order to make the public aware, its the only explanation for such poor story's that needs new excuses repeatidly to carry on exsisting. i reckon some people in the ranks gave us the tip off's needed. no one is that dumb surely, if it was a cover-up. flight 93 shot down is logical i would of thought if we were told that first. they were preventing more loss of life presuming the plane would be slammed into a full building, however they shot it down then to cover it they told us they took the controls and flew it into the ground. so eager were they to cover the whole thing they failed to realise that something they really did would of been a better explantion than a lie. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 01, 2006 8:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| deliberate mistakes is the only conclusion from what i can see, i doubt they have the brain of an hampster |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Busker
Moderate Poster
Joined: 13 Jun 2006
Posts: 374
Location: North East
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 01, 2006 8:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
For me there was never any doubt the plane over PA was shot down. The debris pattern on the ground gave it away.
Ironically enough, that was the one component where I felt they could have told the truth and got away with it. Something along the lines of "take a few hundred to save a few thousand" would have been saleable to the US Public that day.
So has anyone reported this video to their FBI local field office and asked for an investigation I wonder? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 01, 2006 10:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
So if the plane was shot down, then it had been hijacked, so 9/11 was not an inside job, is that what you are telling us, prole fart?
_________________
".......some partial collapse [of WTC7] would not have been suspicious......." - chek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 01, 2006 8:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hypothetically at least, there are several reasons why the two points are potentially consistent -
- Something went wrong with 'the plan' - e.g. there was an actual insurrection or 'global hawk' malfunctioned or whatever.
- The plane had been in the air too long (wasn't 93 delayed taking off?) and it stretched the credulity of the failure of the air defence if it'd got to Washington.
- It was scripted - you need all American heroes to add some fight back spirit to the day.
I'm not supporting any of these specifically, just suggesting there are numerous possibilities that would be consistent.
_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 01, 2006 8:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| wobbler wrote: | Hypothetically at least, there are several reasons why the two points are potentially consistent -
- Something went wrong with 'the plan' - e.g. there was an actual insurrection or 'global hawk' malfunctioned or whatever.
- The plane had been in the air too long (wasn't 93 delayed taking off?) and it stretched the credulity of the failure of the air defence if it'd got to Washington.
- It was scripted - you need all American heroes to add some fight back spirit to the day.
I'm not supporting any of these specifically, just suggesting there are numerous possibilities that would be consistent. |
You're working well, wobbler, now see if you can add in it not really being the plane wreckage in Shanksville, to win a major prize.
_________________
".......some partial collapse [of WTC7] would not have been suspicious......." - chek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 02, 2006 3:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | So if the plane was shot down, then it had been hijacked, so 9/11 was not an inside job, is that what you are telling us, prole fart? |
not sure i understand the logic here, but from everything thats been said over time there are 3 possibilities. 1. the plane was shot down because it was hijacked. 2 the plane was hijacked and the passengers took control and flew it into the ground in the struggle. 3 the plane wasnt hijacked at all but just diverted then shot down. why would shooting it down mean it was hijacked if there was a cover-up? as it stands we were told 2 but with a crashsite looking like 1 or 3. its why there should really be a reinvestigastion, a proper one not a behind door on sensitive matters and picking out the witnesses who give nothing away to put in the report, but lets just ignore the others and things that dont fit in. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 02, 2006 10:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | So if the plane was shot down, then it had been hijacked, so 9/11 was not an inside job, is that what you are telling us, prole fart? |
not sure i understand the logic here, but from everything thats been said over time there are 3 possibilities. 1. the plane was shot down because it was hijacked. 2 the plane was hijacked and the passengers took control and flew it into the ground in the struggle. 3 the plane wasnt hijacked at all but just diverted then shot down. |
Your possibilities 1 and 2 involve the plane being hijacked. If the plane was really hijacked then 9/11 was not an inside job. LIHOP is still a possibility with 2 but not 1, there would be no point letting it happen and then shooting down a plane.
What would be the point of your possibility 3, it just adds complication to the plot and nothing else?
| Quote: | | its why there should really be a reinvestigastion, a proper one not a behind door on sensitive matters and picking out the witnesses who give nothing away to put in the report, but lets just ignore the others and things that dont fit in. |
The 9/11 Commission was not behind closed doors. Ignoring inconvenient witnesses and things that do not fit it is more of a truthshirker tactic, like the hundreds of witnesses of flight 77 at the Pentagon, and the calls made by passengers in the hijacked aircraft. Some of course do attempt to explain those, but the explanations involving family and friends being deceived by actors or strange technology are all quite absurd.
_________________
".......some partial collapse [of WTC7] would not have been suspicious......." - chek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 02, 2006 12:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Bushwacker -
| Quote: | | now see if you can add in it not really being the plane wreckage in Shanksville, to win a major prize. |
I'm not sure I get you - do you mean that LC idea about it not actually being flight 93? - do many people subscribe to that idea?
If it were that, I suppose you'd suggest what they say in LC is true and they dumped some wreckage or crashed a drone or something. The Rumsfeld comment was therefore cunning disinformation referring to a bogus plane. What do I win?
| Quote: | | The 9/11 Commission was not behind closed doors. |
Well most of it was. Some of it was behind closed doors. Mind you, at least they got one. Conspiracies aside, I'm bemused at how the British public were so complacent about the lack of a proper investigation into 7/7. The 'official narrative' for that makes the 911 commission look like the most rigorous investigation in history.
| Quote: | | Ignoring inconvenient witnesses and things that do not fit it is more of a truthshirker tactic, |
I totally agree a lot of that goes on, but feel compelled to point out the commission did a lot of that too.
_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
prole art threat
Validated Poster
Joined: 13 Apr 2006
Posts: 804
Location: London Town
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 02, 2006 3:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | So if the plane was shot down, then it had been hijacked, so 9/11 was not an inside job, is that what you are telling us, prole fart? |
God, youre fukking stupid. If you listen to what the evil b*stard is saying he basically states that 'the people who shot down the plane in Pensylvania' are the same group ' who atacked the towers'.
Go on Bushwacker, get your marigolds on, get your hard-on, and start scrubbing the doorstep again. You Neocon's bitch! Go on, get on your hands and knees Bushwacker bitch and give it some more whitewashing.
_________________
'Maybe if I can show some lurking kids that this is all a pack of lies, then maybe I can make a difference. I don't plan on converting any of you because you're all mad.'
-Johnny Pixels |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 02, 2006 4:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If the plane was shot down, why was the debris buried in a field? Look at Lockerbie. That plane exploded at high speed, and left large debris. Why would the Shanksville plane, if blown up, then bury itself in the ground?
_________________
I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. - Umberto Eco
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
prole art threat
Validated Poster
Joined: 13 Apr 2006
Posts: 804
Location: London Town
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 02, 2006 5:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Johnny Pixels wrote: | | If the plane was shot down, why was the debris buried in a field? Look at Lockerbie. That plane exploded at high speed, and left large debris. Why would the Shanksville plane, if blown up, then bury itself in the ground? |
If the plane wasnt shot down, why is Donald Rumsfeld saying it was? Just that, Pixels, answer me that.
*throws Pixels a new xmas scrubbing brush*
_________________
'Maybe if I can show some lurking kids that this is all a pack of lies, then maybe I can make a difference. I don't plan on converting any of you because you're all mad.'
-Johnny Pixels |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 02, 2006 6:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| prole art threat wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | So if the plane was shot down, then it had been hijacked, so 9/11 was not an inside job, is that what you are telling us, prole fart? |
God, youre fukking stupid. If you listen to what the evil b*stard is saying he basically states that 'the people who shot down the plane in Pensylvania' are the same group ' who atacked the towers'.
Go on Bushwacker, get your marigolds on, get your hard-on, and start scrubbing the doorstep again. You Neocon's bitch! Go on, get on your hands and knees Bushwacker bitch and give it some more whitewashing. |
Oh, you want me to listen to what he is saying do you? Well then I think he just "miss-spoke" as so many of the administration seem to. If you think he meant it literally you also have to believe, according to you, that the 9/11 insiders also were responsible for the Madrid bombing.
Do tell us why you think the 9/11 insiders shot down a plane that had not been hijacked, lied about it, and faked calls from the passengers. And do you think the wreckage in Shanksville was flight 93 or not?
We'll wait while you work all that out.
_________________
".......some partial collapse [of WTC7] would not have been suspicious......." - chek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
prole art threat
Validated Poster
Joined: 13 Apr 2006
Posts: 804
Location: London Town
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 02, 2006 6:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: |
Oh, you want me to listen to what he is saying do you? Well then I think he just "miss-spoke" as so many of the administration seem to. If you think he meant it literally you also have to believe, according to you, that the 9/11 insiders also were responsible for the Madrid bombing.
Do tell us why you think the 9/11 insiders shot down a plane that had not been hijacked, lied about it, and faked calls from the passengers. And do you think the wreckage in Shanksville was flight 93 or not?
We'll wait while you work all that out. |
Oh he mis-spoke did he? He just 'mis-spoke'? Is that all you can say? Rumsfeld talks about, "the people responsible for the attacks in New York, who shot down the plane in Pensylvania and who attacked the Pentagon". He puts them all under the same umbrella. But he just 'misspoke'.
That plane was shot down because if it had been left to land safely, it would have been obvious that there were no hijackers on it. It was probably destined for WTC 7.
'Mis-spoke'? Get back on your hands and knees 'Bushwacker Bitch'! You're a useless Neocon's tart because you dont seem to have scrubbed this one very clean. I may report you to your Neocon masters for negligence!
_________________
'Maybe if I can show some lurking kids that this is all a pack of lies, then maybe I can make a difference. I don't plan on converting any of you because you're all mad.'
-Johnny Pixels |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 02, 2006 7:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| prole art threat wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: |
Oh, you want me to listen to what he is saying do you? Well then I think he just "miss-spoke" as so many of the administration seem to. If you think he meant it literally you also have to believe, according to you, that the 9/11 insiders also were responsible for the Madrid bombing.
Do tell us why you think the 9/11 insiders shot down a plane that had not been hijacked, lied about it, and faked calls from the passengers. And do you think the wreckage in Shanksville was flight 93 or not?
We'll wait while you work all that out. |
Oh he misspoke did he? He just 'misspoke'? Is that all you can say? Rumsfeld talks about, "the people responsible for the attacks in New York, who shot down the plane in Pensylvania and who attacked the Pentagon". He puts them all under the same umbrella. But he just 'misspoke'.
That plane was shot down because if it had been left to land safely, it would have been obvious that there were no hijackers on it. It was probably destined for WTC 7.
'Misspoke'? Get back on your hands and knees 'Bushwacker Bitch'! You're a useless Neocon tart because you dont seem to have scrubbed this one very clean. I may report you to your Neocon masters for negligence! |
You truthshirkers have a wonderful way of avoiding what you don't want to see! Or perhaps more than one point at a time is too much? MADRID, he also mentioned Madrid and other bombings, why don't you include those?
and why should it not then have been flown into WTC7 or anywhere else, like the ground, if it was flown by remote control? And why risk discovery by faking calls from passengers? And how about answering the question, do you now accept it was flight 93 that crashed at Shanksville, whether shot down or not?
_________________
".......some partial collapse [of WTC7] would not have been suspicious......." - chek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 02, 2006 7:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| prole art threat wrote: | | Johnny Pixels wrote: | | If the plane was shot down, why was the debris buried in a field? Look at Lockerbie. That plane exploded at high speed, and left large debris. Why would the Shanksville plane, if blown up, then bury itself in the ground? |
If the plane wasnt shot down, why is Donald Rumsfeld saying it was? Just that, Pixels, answer me that.
*throws Pixels a new xmas scrubbing brush* |
What makes you think that Donald Rumsfeld is incapable of making mistakes?
_________________
I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. - Umberto Eco
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fallious
Moderate Poster
Joined: 27 Oct 2006
Posts: 762
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 02, 2006 8:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| A mistake is forgetting the plane number. Saying flight 93 was shot down is a freudian slip. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 12:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
Prole fart, what is the point of you sending me pm's of abuse? Do you think your childish messages are going to change my point of view? Grow up, why don't you?
_________________
".......some partial collapse [of WTC7] would not have been suspicious......." - chek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 1:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
If Donald Rumsfeld said the world was a cube, it wouldn't make it true.
| Johnny Pixels wrote: | | If the plane was shot down, why was the debris buried in a field? Look at Lockerbie. That plane exploded at high speed, and left large debris. Why would the Shanksville plane, if blown up, then bury itself in the ground? |
I still need an answer to this.
_________________
I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. - Umberto Eco
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 5:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Johnny Pixels wrote: | If Donald Rumsfeld said the world was a cube, it wouldn't make it true.
| Johnny Pixels wrote: | | If the plane was shot down, why was the debris buried in a field? Look at Lockerbie. That plane exploded at high speed, and left large debris. Why would the Shanksville plane, if blown up, then bury itself in the ground? |
I still need an answer to this. |
didnt the commission report answer that?, if so why ask us. they said it was flew into the ground, they came to the conclusions in the commission report, and they (rummy) said it was shot down.and your asking us the questions? think your mistaken your asking the wrong guys we didnt invent any of those story's. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 10:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | | Johnny Pixels wrote: | If Donald Rumsfeld said the world was a cube, it wouldn't make it true.
| Johnny Pixels wrote: | | If the plane was shot down, why was the debris buried in a field? Look at Lockerbie. That plane exploded at high speed, and left large debris. Why would the Shanksville plane, if blown up, then bury itself in the ground? |
I still need an answer to this. |
didnt the commission report answer that?, if so why ask us. they said it was flew into the ground, they came to the conclusions in the commission report, and they (rummy) said it was shot down.and your asking us the questions? think your mistaken your asking the wrong guys we didnt invent any of those story's. |
Some people on this site seem to think it is significant that Rumsfeld said it was shot down. It has been pointed out that this was a mistake. The pattern of debris in the field indicates that the plane hit the ground at high speed, rather than as debris from a mid-air explosion, therefore the evidence backs up the fact that Rumsfeld made a mistake.
So can we conclude that a mistake was made, and not keep bringing up non-issues?
_________________
I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. - Umberto Eco
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Patrick Brown
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 10 Oct 2006
Posts: 1201
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 10:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hmm maybe there was a bomb of that plane! 
_________________
We check the evidence and then archive it: www.911evidencebase.co.uk
Get the Steven E Jones reports >HERE< |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hampton
Validated Poster
Joined: 03 Sep 2005
Posts: 310
Location: London
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 9:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
if it was shot down, the fighter pilots probably didn't know it was an inside job. maybe they disobeyed orders.
_________________
Have No Fear! Peace, Love & Hemp is here!
Remember Tank Man (Tiananmen Sq) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 9:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Patrick Brown wrote: | | Hmm maybe there was a bomb of that plane! |
Oh look, Patrick has made a mistake or mis-spoke! Is it a Freudian slip? Does it mean a bomb was made out of bits of the plane?
_________________
".......some partial collapse [of WTC7] would not have been suspicious......." - chek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 10:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| hampton wrote: | | if it was shot down, the fighter pilots probably didn't know it was an inside job. maybe they disobeyed orders. |
If it were shot down then the debris would be spread out much differently than how it did. If it were shot down it would break up in mid-air, causing it to lose speed rapidly, spreading the debris out, rather than it burying itself into the ground.
Basically the plane wasn't shot down.
_________________
I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. - Umberto Eco
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 6:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Johnny Pixels wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | | Johnny Pixels wrote: | If Donald Rumsfeld said the world was a cube, it wouldn't make it true.
| Johnny Pixels wrote: | | If the plane was shot down, why was the debris buried in a field? Look at Lockerbie. That plane exploded at high speed, and left large debris. Why would the Shanksville plane, if blown up, then bury itself in the ground? |
I still need an answer to this. |
didnt the commission report answer that?, if so why ask us. they said it was flew into the ground, they came to the conclusions in the commission report, and they (rummy) said it was shot down.and your asking us the questions? think your mistaken your asking the wrong guys we didnt invent any of those story's. |
Some people on this site seem to think it is significant that Rumsfeld said it was shot down. It has been pointed out that this was a mistake. The pattern of debris in the field indicates that the plane hit the ground at high speed, rather than as debris from a mid-air explosion, therefore the evidence backs up the fact that Rumsfeld made a mistake.
So can we conclude that a mistake was made, and not keep bringing up non-issues? |
ah ok just a mistake then. not a slip up. and why can we conclude? YOU keep qouting the offical storey, YOU keep saying it looked like the plane crashed into the ground, however others disagree so how can we conclude? ah i see how it works now, someone says something you debunk it by qouting the offical storey which people are questioning in the first place then no one else can comment because you concluded it. you keep saying the plane buried itself how the hell does that work then? some physics please because i cannot picture it as other planes have slammed into the groud at 500mph and not buried them selves and left remains that can be identified as a plane. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
