LA RAM FAN
Diamond Member
- Mar 1, 2008
- 50,037
- 17,408
unfortunately Eots they wont bother to read it since they only see what THEY want to see just like they wont read this either.
Press Release
The Power Hour
NEWS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
RETIRED AIR FORCE COLONEL CHALLENGES OFFICIAL REPORTS OF SEPTEMBER 11TH
Dave vonKleist April 27, 2005
P.O. Box 85
Versailles, MO 65084
(573) 378-6049, (573)378-5998 FAX
During an appearance on The Power Hour radio program today, USAF Col. George Nelson (ret.), a 30 year veteran, aircraft accident investigator and expert in aircraft maintenance and aircraft identification, stunned the Power Hour listeners by stating that in regard to the 911 attack at the Pentagon, “I didn’t see any damage on the sides of that hole, anything that would say that an airplane that size could have gone through a 16 or 18 ft. hole.” He was referring to the hole seen at the Pentagon before the collapse of the e-ring. He went on to say, “There would be large parts of that wing lying on the ground on the outside. It wouldn’t all go through that hole…It is impossible for all of the time change parts that have these serial numbers that are trackable to the specific aircraft,… it is impossible for them to be totally destroyed where these serial numbers could not be read.” Physics911, by Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven, 9/11/2001
When asked to express his opinion in regard to the controversial photographs and video showing an anomaly attached to the belly of the plane that struck the South tower and the mysterious “flash” that occurred as the plane made contact, Col. Nelson said, “There appeared to be something attached to the belly and there definitely appeared to be a flash. What caused that flash? Who knows? I can’t explain it and it’s just a number of these anomalies like that, that just makes the entire picture more suspect.” The video and photographic evidence can be seen in the video ”911 - In Plane Site.” www.911inplanesite.com
The “flash” was seen on four different video angles that captured the plane that struck the South tower. Given that the flash occurred 6 to 10 feet to the right of the point of contact of the fuselage, Col. Nelson stated that it was “highly unlikely” that it was caused by static electricity or an aluminum burn. He also said that aluminum could not have “vaporized” as was asserted by the official story.
Due to the fact that public officials and news networks have refused to honestly address these very serious questions raised by confirmable video and photographic evidence, an increasing number of military personnel and airline pilots are coming forward to challenge the official story of September 11th. More to come.
Press Release
The Power Hour
NEWS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
RETIRED AIR FORCE COLONEL CHALLENGES OFFICIAL REPORTS OF SEPTEMBER 11TH
Dave vonKleist April 27, 2005
P.O. Box 85
Versailles, MO 65084
(573) 378-6049, (573)378-5998 FAX
During an appearance on The Power Hour radio program today, USAF Col. George Nelson (ret.), a 30 year veteran, aircraft accident investigator and expert in aircraft maintenance and aircraft identification, stunned the Power Hour listeners by stating that in regard to the 911 attack at the Pentagon, “I didn’t see any damage on the sides of that hole, anything that would say that an airplane that size could have gone through a 16 or 18 ft. hole.” He was referring to the hole seen at the Pentagon before the collapse of the e-ring. He went on to say, “There would be large parts of that wing lying on the ground on the outside. It wouldn’t all go through that hole…It is impossible for all of the time change parts that have these serial numbers that are trackable to the specific aircraft,… it is impossible for them to be totally destroyed where these serial numbers could not be read.” Physics911, by Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven, 9/11/2001
When asked to express his opinion in regard to the controversial photographs and video showing an anomaly attached to the belly of the plane that struck the South tower and the mysterious “flash” that occurred as the plane made contact, Col. Nelson said, “There appeared to be something attached to the belly and there definitely appeared to be a flash. What caused that flash? Who knows? I can’t explain it and it’s just a number of these anomalies like that, that just makes the entire picture more suspect.” The video and photographic evidence can be seen in the video ”911 - In Plane Site.” www.911inplanesite.com
The “flash” was seen on four different video angles that captured the plane that struck the South tower. Given that the flash occurred 6 to 10 feet to the right of the point of contact of the fuselage, Col. Nelson stated that it was “highly unlikely” that it was caused by static electricity or an aluminum burn. He also said that aluminum could not have “vaporized” as was asserted by the official story.
Due to the fact that public officials and news networks have refused to honestly address these very serious questions raised by confirmable video and photographic evidence, an increasing number of military personnel and airline pilots are coming forward to challenge the official story of September 11th. More to come.
see unlike you and divecon,I am mature enough to admit it when i am wrong.you however CANT realise certain facts.
