Another 9/11 conspiracy..

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Flight 77 not hitting Pentagon = it did not exist ? Just who are the people saying this and what is their logic? It's a big planet; the flight could have went down in many other places.

I'd like to see you try your sense of humor out on victim's family members such as Ellen Mariani or Elaine Teague. They are some of many family members who want people to be aware of the questions surrounding the official story on the Pentagon, so it is baffling how anyone could disrespect them by doing what they want. It is foolish to think a victim's family wouldn't want the right to view the videotapes.

 

Hi, you're a retard. Those comments were simply to confirm that you're a retard; it's called sarcasm, you twit.

 

They have radar screens showing flight 77 taking off from Dulles and disappearing from its radar contact with the tower. They picked it up off of physical radar and watched it disappear right over the Pentagon. What do you think it did, activate its secret 757 cloaking device and fly another 400 miles and crashed in an undetermined location? Sometimes, common sense is the best option here. YOU'RE the one defaming the memories of those who died by trying to convince everyone that it never happened, not me.

[Guest Doyo]

If it were a missile, hitting an incredibly reinforced building on the outside of it, it couldn't have done nearly as much damage as it did. Of course you have explosive force, but against something that is reinforced as the Pentagon is, it wouldn't work; We don't build missiles to just collide and blow shit up, we build them to penetrate and explode in the soft core. That obviously didn't happen in the video: The explosion certainly happened on the outside, which reduces the effectiveness of the missile's blast GREATLY. This is much unlike a plane, where it would just hurtle through because it's just a great big ball of metal. It's like throwing a water balloon at a window and throwing a rock at a window: A water balloon will explode on the outside and discharge all it's force there, while the rock goes straight through it, still keeping some of the force while it hurtles through.

 

exploding missile = water balloon

exploding plane = big ball of metal or rock

Pentagon = window

 

umm OK

 

I think I understand what you mean though, but on one hand you keep talking about how reinforced the Pentagon is and then on the other you are talking about how a plane explodes on the outside of this mighty building and is still able to deeply penetrate it because once a plane explodes it turns into a rock or something.

 

Do you have an extensive background in physics or anything related, or are you just basing everything off of what you think should happen?

 

JESUS, JUST READ THE BOTTOM COMMENTS. The posters pick up on some very important details that these guys

 

A few comments about possible errors doesn't all the sudden make all their observations wrong. It says they are planning a response to the Purdue study.

 

saying "It sounded like a missile" isn't at all definitive proof. That's just like saying "A car sped past me on the street and it sounded like an F-1 racer". That doesn't mean it's true, it's just a comparison, but you just can't seem to grasp that; you take everything that shouldn't be taken at literal value and everything that probably should be taken literally in other new and interesting directions.

 

Oh, and for the Rumsfeld one:

 

mis·sile ( P ) (msl, -l)

n.

1) An object or weapon that is fired, thrown, dropped, or otherwise projected at a target; a projectile.

 

Wow, a jetliner sure sounds like a projectile to me.

 

Now you are even trying to argue with me on things that we agree with.

I had said:

"I've never said any of the quotes are definite proof of anything, ....

If I was really out to make quotes SEEM MORE THAN WHAT THEY WERE then I would have used the one where Rumsfeld actually called it a "missile." "

 

You post a picture of a small hole which, for all intents and purposes, holds no value to us. Explain why this proves it was a missile.

 

I think someone had called it a huge hole, so I offered up a picture of it. I never said it proved anything, the only point I was trying to make was something like "hmm, I wonder why the hole is so small and those windows are unbroken?" Some of us like to keep open minds and not turn everything is a battle where everyone has to choose one side. It's possible to look at a subject without pretending you are captain of debate club.

 

If a husband is accused of killing his wife and someone points out that the couple hadn't been getting along - everyone else will realise that this is not proof that he killed her, but yet they will see why it is relevant observation. It proves absolutely nothing, but it is just something that they would want to be aware of.

 

Edit: And address the "It could be dust" defense that I ripped apart. You seemed to abandon that one...

 

If I felt like spending the time to find it, there is a picture that zooms in on the white object and its outline is that of a Global Hawk aircraft.

 

I will admit you have made a lot of good points and helped me get more perspectives on this event.

 

I don't really have the time and I'm not really able to give any better analysis than the Purdue study, physics911.org or some of the other sources, so people can just check them out on their own.

[Guest Doyo]

Research, tee hee. It's a shame when there's no proof of their theories, yet they

That snopes debunking is the worst I've seen. They offer two sources when there is plenty of other stuff for them to work with. Then near the bottom they talk about how hard it is to know where the plane impacted and they say:

 

"Immediately after Flight 77 smashed into the Pentagon, the impact was obscured by a huge fireball, explosions, fire, smoke, and water from firefighting efforts. Within a half hour, the upper stories of the building collapsed, thereby permanently obscuring the impact site. It simply wasn't possible for photographs to capture a clear view of the impact site during that brief interval between the crash and the collapse."

 

This is obviously wrong as the pictures I posted and others clearly show the hole where it went in and the government even claims this is the spot where it went in. There is no mystery where it entered the building.

 

And doyo, just because your...sources have a lot of 'credentials' as far as this shit goes, doesn't automatically mean they speak the gospel.

 

Of course, but those of us with open minds will at least give them a little more consideration.

[Guest MikeSC]

Doyo, you've gone from "open-minded" to "empty-headed"

-=Mike

[Red Hot Thumbtack In The Eye 0]

Of course, but those of us with open minds will at least give them a little more consideration.

 

Oh believe you me, I went through my super anti america "OMG they deserved it phase" But then I realized I was just having a bad day and i thought about that shit.

 

The way you're responding here, it looks like you're going through something like the above phase i mentioned. Now you need to relax, drink a Coke, have a turkey sammich and smile. Then think this shit over, leave your bias at the door, and then if you've got any brain in your head, you'll start to see that this isn't a big cover up or whatever.

 

I have no doubt that there is info that we don't know about it. No doubt in my mind at all, but don't you think it's a little silly to imply that the whole thing is the way they claim in that swf file? Don't you see the inherent retardedness of making such claims?

 

I don't know how you CE cats can handle this place man.

[Guest Doyo]

Hi, you're a retard. Those comments were simply to confirm that you're a retard

thanks for the confirmation, sexy!

 

They have radar screens showing flight 77 taking off from Dulles and disappearing from its radar contact with the tower. They picked it up off of physical radar and watched it disappear right over the Pentagon. What do you think it did, activate its secret 757 cloaking device and fly another 400 miles and crashed in an undetermined location?

 

The transponder (which transmits a unique signal so radar knows which plane it is) was turned off hundreds of miles away from the Pentagon and it was never turned back on. A dot of an unknown aircraft was picked up on radar near the Pentagon and until it crashed. It wasn't until after the Pentagon hit that all flying planes in the country were ordered to land.

 

Sometimes, common sense is the best option here. YOU'RE the one defaming the memories of those who died by trying to convince everyone that it never happened, not me.

 

If you could use your common sense when reading my posts you will see that I'm not trying to convince anyone of that. I'm presenting info that is the same stuff that is found in pamphlets that some of the victim's families have been handing out at ground zero on Saturdays. If that bothers you so much, why don't you travel there and discuss it with them?

[Guest Doyo]

Doyo, you've gone from "open-minded" to "empty-headed"

-=Mike

for paying attention to military people and scientists instead of just the government line?

 

My interest in this has more to do with being pro USA than anything. There are plenty of quotes from the Founding Fathers saying things about how the government will only work if the people watch over it and question their actions. I'm not burning flags, just pointing out things I find weird.

[Guest MikeSC]

Doyo, you've gone from "open-minded" to "empty-headed"

            -=Mike

for paying attention to military people and scientists instead of just the government line?

 

My interest in this has more to do with being pro USA than anything. There are plenty of quotes from the Founding Fathers saying things about how the government will only work if the people watch over it and question their actions. I'm not burning flags, just pointing out things I find weird.

No, you've decided that whackjob conspiracy nuts whose points are patently false with minimal understanding have some level of legitimacy.

-=Mike

[Dr. Tom 0]

Then you certainly disagree with all versions of the story on this, including the government's.  Some of you don't even know basic facts like this about the crash site, yet you have all these strong opinions.

Look at the picture again:

It's obvious the point of entry was at the top, where the debris is scattered outside and the building is scorched from the fireball. The larger picture you posted (the wedge one) later confirms this very obvious fact. For that circled hole to be the point of entry, the plane (OR MISSILE OMG) would have to be able to stop and turn on a dime to get between rings like that.

 

BTW, I've been to the Pentagon, several times.

 

And two words for you: Occam's Razor. It's not just for shaving anymore.

[Justice 0]

If it were a missile, hitting an incredibly reinforced building on the outside of it, it couldn't have done nearly as much damage as it did. Of course you have explosive force, but against something that is reinforced as the Pentagon is, it wouldn't work; We don't build missiles to just collide and blow shit up, we build them to penetrate and explode in the soft core. That obviously didn't happen in the video: The explosion certainly happened on the outside, which reduces the effectiveness of the missile's blast GREATLY. This is much unlike a plane, where it would just hurtle through because it's just a great big ball of metal. It's like throwing a water balloon at a window and throwing a rock at a window: A water balloon will explode on the outside and discharge all it's force there, while the rock goes straight through it, still keeping some of the force while it hurtles through.

 

exploding missile = water balloon

exploding plane = big ball of metal or rock

Pentagon = window

 

umm OK

 

I think I understand what you mean though, but on one hand you keep talking about how reinforced the Pentagon is and then on the other you are talking about how a plane explodes on the outside of this mighty building and is still able to deeply penetrate it because once a plane explodes it turns into a rock or something.

 

Do you have an extensive background in physics or anything related, or are you just basing everything off of what you think should happen?

*Sigh*

 

I study military systems for a hobby. I was going to go to the Naval Academy had some things not come up in my life. I know how missiles work, and the damage is not consistant with a missile.

 

I've told you this again and again, but you don't listen. You stupidly put your hands over your ears and say "LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA (INSERT RANDOM PIC OF HOLE IN WALL THAT DOESN'T FURTHER ARGUMENT) LA LA LA LA LA LA".

 

Listen. A missile, when it explodes, uses all of it's force up on the explosion. This is a fact; there isn't a second stage where some big object suddenly hurtles forth or something. Therefore, the damage would be contained only to the outer wall and slightly beyond that, considering the reinforced nature of the Pentagon: It was designed to withstand explosive blasts.

 

It was not designed to have huge objects hurtled at it. The plane, despite the explosion, retains its mass and momentum, allowing it to carry through and skid, which is consistant with what Purdue found, and consistant with what my general physics knowledge.

 

Explain to me how a Tomahakw Missile could explode on the outside and somehow carry through to cause that much damage. I dare you.

 

A few comments about possible errors doesn't all the sudden make all their observations wrong. It says they are planning a response to the Purdue study.

 

They disprove the "missing wings" problem easily. They disprove the "The Hole Wasn't Big Enough" claim. They disprove the "It was the wrong turbine" claim. Those are BIG parts in the argument. There are other things brought to the table, but those are the big three.

 

The Purdue study trumps all. They show you why and how everything ended up the way it did, the reason you can't find the wings, all of that. There hasn't been a rebuttal brought up. Until it is, you have no legs to stand on in the argument.

 

Now you are even trying to argue with me on things that we agree with.

I had said:

"I've never said any of the quotes are definite proof of anything, ....

If I was really out to make quotes SEEM MORE THAN WHAT THEY WERE then I would have used the one where Rumsfeld actually called it a "missile." "

 

...

 

You're an idiot. If you can't see that half your quotes already ARE making something more than what it really is, you're just moronic. Would you like me to bring up all the eyewitnesses that said it was the Jetliner, or will you just dismiss those and listen to the 3 or 4 that say what you want them to say?

 

I think someone had called it a huge hole, so I offered up a picture of it. I never said it proved anything, the only point I was trying to make was something like "hmm, I wonder why the hole is so small and those windows are unbroken?" Some of us like to keep open minds and not turn everything is a battle where everyone has to choose one side. It's possible to look at a subject without pretending you are captain of debate club.

 

The bolded part is disproved in the comments below your article more than once, actually. Stop using it as a defense.

 

I did look at your side of it. It's through my own experience that I dismissed it. The "You aren't being open-minded" is the last defense of tools whose beliefs are so beyond reason that they can't possibly justify any other reason why people don't agree with them. I'm open-minded; I'm sure most people on this board are more open-minded than they let on. There's a difference between being open-minded and just dumb, and you have proven yourself to be quite stupid.

 

If a husband is accused of killing his wife and someone points out that the couple hadn't been getting along - everyone else will realise that this is not proof that he killed her, but yet they will see why it is relevant observation. It proves absolutely nothing, but it is just something that they would want to be aware of.

 

But when he's proven overwhelmingly innocent of the crime (thank you, Purdue), do you still suspect him of murder?

 

If I felt like spending the time to find it, there is a picture that zooms in on the white object and its outline is that of a Global Hawk aircraft.

 

BWUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

Knowing what that is, you've definitely lost ALL credibility in my eyes. Please, do, because it seems like you have been trolling the internet for these wacky claims for a long time, haven't you? The Global Hawk is 13.4m long. You can't possibly tell me that that thing is only 13.4m long. The dimensions don't add up, or maybe you didn't notice that.

 

Seriously, if you put credibility into the claim that it was a USAF Drone, you have my best wishes. That just made my day...

 

This is obviously wrong as the pictures I posted and others clearly show the hole where it went in and the government even claims this is the spot where it went in. There is no mystery where it entered the building.

 

That's not true. They are fairly obscured, and if you bothered to read the comments at the bottom of your article, you'd understand why that assumption is wrong.

 

If you could use your common sense when reading my posts you will see that I'm not trying to convince anyone of that. I'm presenting info that is the same stuff that is found in pamphlets that some of the victim's families have been handing out at ground zero on Saturdays. If that bothers you so much, why don't you travel there and discuss it with them?

 

Just because a few of the families do it doesn't mean it gains any credibility. How many families, to be exact?

 

for paying attention to military people and scientists instead of just the government line?

 

My interest in this has more to do with being pro USA than anything. There are plenty of quotes from the Founding Fathers saying things about how the government will only work if the people watch over it and question their actions. I'm not burning flags, just pointing out things I find weird.

 

Government line... brought to you by military people and scientists! Seriously, that doesn't impress me much. The fact that their article was flawed in large parts of their argument speaks enough of their credentials to me.

 

And since Tom brings up the picture, explain to me, please, how that fits in. Seriously, how does it?

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

I hate you for stretching out the thread. I'm going to shoot you in the leg.

[Justice 0]

I hate you for stretching out the thread. I'm going to shoot you in the leg.

Go ahead and try it. I'll just bleed all over your lawn.

 

And I'm NOT letting him try to get the last word in with things like "Well, I have proof it was a Global Hawk!!!!11! LOLYNDONLAROUCHEIN2004!!!!1"

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

I meant with the "hahahahahaha" you lamer!

[Red Baron 0]

Debris?

 

Of a plane?

 

Near the Pentagon?

 

I must have missed something.

[Justice 0]

I meant with the "hahahahahaha" you lamer!

...

 

"The Seven Sins" sucked, you bastard.

[Justice 0]

Debris?

 

Of a plane?

 

Near the Pentagon?

 

I must have missed something.

You tend to. You'd better just sit back and suck on a lollipop while the big boys discuss this.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

I meant with the "hahahahahaha" you lamer!

...

 

"The Seven Sins" sucked, you bastard.

Yes, yes they did.

[Red Baron 0]

Thats the compelling thing, usually a plane wreck, there's evidence. A whole plane shattering to millions of pieces and vaproize everything is hard to believe.

 

Like I said earlier, have they at least found the black box, that we know of, or any pieces of the plane at all, or is this just the Avro Arrow with tons of casualties missing.

[Slayer 0]

So, where are the people who died in the plane hiding?

With the people from KAL 007

[2GOLD 0]

The plane, was carrying a FULL fuel load from the airport IN WASHINGTON. Jet fuel.

Full speed. Wall made of steel and concrete, triple reinforced. Jet Fuel. Impact. Explosion.

 

Frankly, I am shocked they found even the smallest part.

Again, this wasn't the Towers. This jet was filled to the max, it struck a harder surface at a high rate of speed and basically it did vaporize. Remember the damage done by the planes to the Towers, those were not filled to the max by the time they reached New York City and look how much damage they did. And I don't even remember how much was left of those planes.

 

We aren't talking about a plane hitting the ground here, where the bottom half of the plane strikes first. We are talking head on with a structure designed to stop heavy explosives. A building designed to barely stratch if a missile does ever strike it. Odds are extremely high the wall held for a little bit before the part that collapsed did collapse, so the plane kept forcing forward until it did break.

 

I am not shocked they haven't found much of anything because I understand the design of the Pentagon. Knowing that building at all destroys most if not all of the lame theories I've read. When I see one that isn't designed by people who are comparing the Pentagon to any other building then maybe I'll pay attention.

[Red Baron 0]

If it was a plane, why doesn't the government release videos that showed from the highway, office buildings etc.

 

I mean, what is there to hide when it was a plane that actually hit the Pentagon?

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

Like I said earlier, have they at least found the black box, that we know of, or any pieces of the plane at all, or is this just the Avro Arrow with tons of casualties missing.

 

They found the front half and one of the wings of the Arrow in Lake Ontario near Kingston. Just saying...

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Aw, I feel warm and fuzzy all over -- liberals/conservatives/others all uniting to make fun of the stupid.

 

Now let's get back to business.

 

Fuck you Tyler...

[Stephen Joseph 0]

we need to close this thread

[Dr. Tom 0]

Like I said earlier, have they at least found the black box, that we know of, or any pieces of the plane at all, or is this just the Avro Arrow with tons of casualties missing.

Check the Snopes link; they mention the debris and show at least one picture of it.

 

If it was a plane, why doesn't the government release videos that showed from the highway, office buildings etc.

Why should they? To quiet a bunch of conspiracy nuts on the internet? Considering an attack on the Pentagon is an attack on national security, I'm sure whatever footage they have isn't exactly available to the public.

 

BTW, I've never understood conspiracy theories for one reason. Ok, two reasons. One, they're patently absurd, and two, how is it that the government is DIABOLICAL~! enough to pull off these grand conspiracies without a word leaked beforehand, but stupid enough to leave "details" of it all over the place afterwards? Can one of you nutjobs who think a plane didn't hit the Pentagon explain that one to me, if you're not too busy reading the latest issue of Crackpot Monthly?

[Guest Doyo]

Look at the picture again:

It's obvious the point of entry was at the top, where the debris is scattered outside and the building is scorched from the fireball.

Oh, you thought I was talking about the ENTRY hole. If you go back and read I was talking about the inner EXIT hole, which is the circled part. I was questioning how the aluminum cone was able to end up that far in.

[Guest Doyo]

considering the reinforced nature of the Pentagon: It was designed to withstand explosive blasts.

It was not designed to have huge objects hurtled at it. The plane, despite the explosion, retains its mass and momentum,

Pieces of a plane have the same momentum as a whole plane? I should email 10 random physics professors of the net and see what they have to say about that one.

 

Explain to me how a Tomahakw Missile could explode on the outside and somehow carry through to cause that much damage. I dare you.

 

I can't and never said I could. Your explaining on why a plane could do that isn't that perfect either... Exploding planes are like a big rock and the Pentagon is like a big sheet of glass so therefore that proves I am right!

 

Until it is, you have no legs to stand on in the argument.

 

You're still having your fantasies about some argument. The only thing I would really argue for is that the videos be released to at least the victim's families.

 

You're an idiot. If you can't see that half your quotes already ARE making something more than what it really is, you're just moronic. Would you like me to bring up all the eyewitnesses that said it was the Jetliner, or will you just dismiss those and listen to the 3 or 4 that say what you want them to say?

 

You've once again missed the point I was trying to make and am not going to bother explaining it again. Here's a clue: just because a person doesn't understand your logic on some things, doesn't mean that every sentence they make to you is an argument against you. Sometimes, if you look closely, they may be *GASP* agreeing with you.

 

If you are really this into arguing about this stuff go over to forums such as those at www.letsroll911.org

That is the biggest 911 conspiracy message board I have seen.

You will find people that are quite a bit more crazy than me. Seriously, it would be pretty entertaining if you went over and did that.

 

The bolded part is disproved in the comments below your article more than once, actually. Stop using it as a defense.

 

Just what was I defending? What did I claim to offer proof of? I contributed photos that were about the topic and then just pointed out things that seemed strange about them and then when people offered explanations I just lightly played devil's advocate here and there because I was looking for more proof.

 

BWUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

Knowing what that is, you've definitely lost ALL credibility in my eyes.

 

Once again my point flew over your brain. You were using the white object as proof it was a 757, therefore I pointed out the silly example of the white object outline looking like a global hawk. I did this to show how hard it is to be certain of what the fuzzy white object is.

 

Just because a few of the families do it doesn't mean it gains any credibility. How many families, to be exact?

 

I'm just saying that out of respect for them we should at least take a look at whatever points they are trying to make. Just how many families do you think approve of the decision to not be allowed to see the videos?

 

 

Are you like this in real life?

 

Powerplay pulls up to get gas and the mechanic says "hey man, you got a little bit of smoke coming out of your car. do you have any idea why that is doing that?"

 

Powerplay: "It's obviously just an effect of the weather conditions right now."

Mechanic: "Oh maybe, well what about that weird little noise it is making? Any ideas?"

Powerplay: "Listen up moron! You are a real idiot if you think General Motors sabotaged my car! That's just the normal noise it makes. Any idiot can see that."

Mechanic: "Hey man I just thought it sounded a little weird and sometimes that can mean something..."

Powerplay: "Well that is a poor argument! All you have given me is bullshit here at this gas station! I'm seriously questioning the quality of this gas you are putting in my car right now."

Mechanic: "Well, I did recently read an article that said your type of car often has problems."

Powerplay: "How does that prove my car has problems? I read that article and it is wrong. I read a better article that proves my type of car is great. I've already proven that what you pointed out about my car means nothing and there is no proof of any problems! Your argument is worthless! I dare you to prove my car has problems! You are quite stupid for arguing that my car has problems. To be the man you got to beat the man. Whoooo!!!"

Mechanic: "OK, have a nice day sir."

[Jingus 0]

considering the reinforced nature of the Pentagon: It was designed to withstand explosive blasts.

It was not designed to have huge objects hurtled at it. The plane, despite the explosion, retains its mass and momentum,

Pieces of a plane have the same momentum as a whole plane? I should email 10 random physics professors of the net and see what they have to say about that one.

Where did he mention "pieces of a plane"? He just said "the plane".

 

Explain to me how a Tomahakw Missile could explode on the outside and somehow carry through to cause that much damage. I dare you.

 

I can't and never said I could. Your explaining on why a plane could do that isn't that perfect either... Exploding planes are like a big rock and the Pentagon is like a big sheet of glass so therefore that proves I am right!

 

He is right. A missle is designed to explode on impact. It has no forward momentum once detonation occurs. A plane, on the other hand, weighing a whole hell of a lot, does tend to keep going forward. (Oh, and the plane itself isn't a "solid object". Airplanes are mostly made out of a high-tech equivalent to sheet metal. But the solid steel jet engines are REAL solid, and do tend to keep their mass and shape, even upon impact with another solid surface.)

 

You're still having your fantasies about some argument.  The only thing I would really argue for is that the videos be released to at least the victim's families.

 

About the whole "no video footage of the Pentagon crash" argument:

 

Unlike the WTC, which sits right in the middle of a heavily populated downtown area, the Pentagon is a heavily guarded military facility which generally discourages random civilians from wandering nearby with camcorders. There probably is no civilian footage of the crash simply because there was nobody out there with a camera. Any footage that exists would have been taken by government cameras, and, well, they own it, so they can do whatever they want with it.

 

If you are really this into arguing about this stuff go over to forums such as those at www.letsroll911.org 

That is the biggest 911 conspiracy message board I have seen.

You will find people that are quite a bit more crazy than me.  Seriously, it would be pretty entertaining if you went over and did that.

 

I can only dream of having the kind of free time it would take for me to make a dent in a site like that one. It might be fun to try, but damn, I don't know if I'd want to expend the effort.

 

I'm just saying that out of respect for them we should at least take a look at whatever points they are trying to make.  Just how many families do you think approve of the decision to not be allowed to see the videos?

 

Here's a question: does anyone KNOW that video footage of the Pentagon crash exists? (And when I say "know", I mean "can provide a link to an AP news story about it" or "have personally seen the footage myself".)

 

Are you like this in real life?

 

Powerplay pulls up to get gas blah blah blah

 

I gotta admit, I just kinda skipped over this. The thread's long enough as it is.

[Justice 0]

considering the reinforced nature of the Pentagon: It was designed to withstand explosive blasts.

It was not designed to have huge objects hurtled at it. The plane, despite the explosion, retains its mass and momentum,

Pieces of a plane have the same momentum as a whole plane? I should email 10 random physics professors of the net and see what they have to say about that one.

Well, the Purdue study shows us that the bulk of the plane stayed together even as the explosion occurred, so I'd think the physics professors would agree with me.

 

I can't and never said I could. Your explaining on why a plane could do that isn't that perfect either... Exploding planes are like a big rock and the Pentagon is like a big sheet of glass so therefore that proves I am right!

 

It's funny how everyone else gets it, but you lack the brain capacity to see where I was getting at. Of course, you also lack the brain capacity to question your conspiracy sources, so I shouldn't be too surprised.

 

And if you can't defend it in any way, they why the hell do you keep bringing it up? Pretty much everyone on the forum but you seems to get what I'm saying. There's a difference between roughly explaining and can't explain at all. You are really getting desperate here.

 

You're still having your fantasies about some argument. The only thing I would really argue for is that the videos be released to at least the victim's families.

 

How much more proof do you need? Everything else has been proven pretty much impossible. To quote Sherlock Holmes, "Eliminate all other factors, and the one which remains must be the truth."

 

We've effectively eliminated all your other ones through major flaws in your argument or being a fantasy land. How much would it be to accept that what the government told us is the truth?

 

You've once again missed the point I was trying to make and am not going to bother explaining it again. Here's a clue: just because a person doesn't understand your logic on some things, doesn't mean that every sentence they make to you is an argument against you. Sometimes, if you look closely, they may be *GASP* agreeing with you.

 

Missed the point? You brought up useless quotes in some sort of effort to legitimize your weird and wacky beliefs about 9/11. I attacked you on them for being completely out of context. What did I miss?

 

If you are really this into arguing about this stuff go over to forums such as those at www.letsroll911.org

That is the biggest 911 conspiracy message board I have seen.

You will find people that are quite a bit more crazy than me. Seriously, it would be pretty entertaining if you went over and did that.

 

I think I'm fine handling idiots like you for the moment. Thank you, though.

 

Just what was I defending? What did I claim to offer proof of? I contributed photos that were about the topic and then just pointed out things that seemed strange about them and then when people offered explanations I just lightly played devil's advocate here and there because I was looking for more proof.

 

You didn't lightly play devil's advocate. You've been posting conspiracy stuff like this for the last few weeks and posting these long conspiratorial responses with random, out-of-context quotes and a picture or two. Either 1) You're a troll looking to stir up controversy the same way Kamui did or 2) You are a full blown idiot.

 

Once again my point flew over your brain. You were using the white object as proof it was a 757, therefore I pointed out the silly example of the white object outline looking like a global hawk. I did this to show how hard it is to be certain of what the fuzzy white object is.

 

Length played a part, as was duration of appearance, approximate size...

 

It's not a dust cloud because it disappears way too fast. Same with a smoke trail. Judging by the trajectory, that obviously leads me to believe that it's the object that hits the Pentagon. Judging by it's size in comparison to the Pentagon, I'd say it's larger than both the GH and the Tomahawk, and the shape isn't right for an F-16 (Way too cylindrical).

 

I'll finish up when I'm out of class.

[Guest Doyo]

Here's a question: does anyone KNOW that video footage of the Pentagon crash exists? (And when I say "know", I mean "can provide a link to an AP news story about it" or "have personally seen the footage myself".)

 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...repentagon.html

"Velasquez says the gas station's security cameras are close enough to the Pentagon to have recorded the moment of impact. "I've never seen what the pictures looked like," he said. "The FBI was here within minutes and took the film."

 

I'm pretty sure it was fact this happened at the Sheraton also, but it is hard to find a legit looking link among the 100s of conspiracy sites that google brings up.