Subject: Even yes more 9/11 (old habits die hard)
From: Veronica
Date: 3/3/13 7:34 pm
To: undisclosed-recipients:;

(... and so do old relationships)

(Especially when crackpots like Ian Henshall and Tony Rooke stir up trouble in Horsham ... which gets posted as an "Historic 9/11 Event!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" ... all the way around the Internet)

(I've very recently been accused of not, necessarily, being 'for real' ... when I explained the real truth about what went on)

So ... if you STILL believe in the La-La Land of "hard planes" and "soft buildings" .... take a look at this video:

... and this picture of the same thing ... from another angle:

... and tell me what YOU see?

Oh yes ... and here's yet another "hard ALUMINIUM plane" that smashed it way through a STEEL COLUMNS SUPPORTED AND STEEL FRAMES EDGED, "soft building" ... so that's its fibreglass 'nose' was able to emerge from the other side with it's make-up still intact (obviously used strong hairspray, as well):

<<<<<<<<<<<<< direction of the 'hard plane'
<North Tower     South Tower
right-hand-side  left-hand-side>

Oh ... the camera doesn't lie, does it? That's perfectly correct - IT DOESN'T LIE ... AT ALL ... IT TOLD US EVERYTHING WE NEEDED TO KNOW ... it's those arseholes who believe the Absurd Official Government Conspiracy Theory ... who have to lie ... in order to cover up the truth.

THEY ARE 'CARTOONS'. Computer-generated Images ... 'Photoshopped' on to the videos ... THE PROBLEM WAS THAT THEY HAD TO DO IT SO QUICKLY ... AND IN SUCH QUANTITY ... that they made many, many, 'rendering' mistakes ... which are obvious in 'single-frames' viewing ... but almost impossible to detect when viewed at normal speed.

Why did we do that? Look at single frames? Because the so-called 'flight path' of the so-called 'plane' was different ... between different videos ... so we knew 'something was very wrong with what we'd been told'.