Another 9/11 conspiracy..

[Justice 0]

Who said anything about Bush? Instead of just looking at facts people try and turn everything into some weird political debate. If terrorists had somehow found a way to shoot a missile into the Pentagon, do you really think the government would want the people to know that?

Do you really think that the terrorists would hide the fact that they can launch missiles like this? I mean, that by definition is a HUGE terror weapon. Why do you think they wouldn't let us know about it if their objective is to terrify us?

 

And it is fairly hard to believe that they have enough hardward to launch a Tomahawk missile and safely guide it in. It's just not hardware you can find lying around.

[Styles 0]

Who said anything about Bush?  Instead of just looking at facts people try and turn everything into some weird political debate.  If terrorists had somehow found a way to shoot a missile into the Pentagon, do you really think the government would want the people to know that?

Do you really think that the terrorists would hide the fact that they can launch missiles like this? I mean, that by definition is a HUGE terror weapon. Why do you think they wouldn't let us know about it if their objective is to terrify us?

 

And it is fairly hard to believe that they have enough hardward to launch a Tomahawk missile and safely guide it in. It's just not hardware you can find lying around.

Right, which means they had the cooperation of some country's government (Iraq?), which means, not only would our government want us to know about it, they'd damn sure use it as a slam dunk case for that nation posing a threat on and declaring war on the United States and use it as hard evidence to justify an invasion.

 

So, no that doesn't make any sense either. Try again...

[Guest MikeSC]

Who said anything about Bush? Instead of just looking at facts people try and turn everything into some weird political debate. If terrorists had somehow found a way to shoot a missile into the Pentagon, do you really think the government would want the people to know that?

Do you think they could keep it quiet, considering that they can't keep shit quiet?

-=Mike

[Justice 0]

And, frankly, there would be a LOT more debris if a Tomahawk missile hit. These missiles are designed to demolish strongpoints; a much larger chunk of the Pentagon would be missing if that had hit. You'd DEFINITELY see a lot more debris out on the lawn because it would have likely detonated inside the building. Instead, you see that there is very little debris anywhere, which is more consistant with something just ramming into it rather than something exploding inside it. If you watch the planes hitting the Twin Towers, you'll notice that there's a lot more of an explosion on the other side of the tower rather than where it actually hits.

 

Not only this, but when you are acting as though the wings couldn't have been crunched in. The swept-wing design of the plane makes it very easy to believe that when the plane hit, the wings crunched in towards the fuselage because they would snap inwards when it impacted because of where the base of the wings are in comparison to the end of the wings. Your pictures are more accurate for a straight-winged aircraft, where it would all hit at the same time. That clearly wouldn't happen with a swept-wing aircraft.

 

Thirdly, your quotes are meaningless.

Michael DiPaula 41, project coordinator Pentagon Renovation Team: "It sounded like a missile."

 

That means shit. A jet engine sounds very much alike when rushing at you just below the speed of sound, whether from a missile or a jet liner because both were subsonic.

 

Mike Walter, eyewitness: "I mean it was like a cruise missile with wings, went right there and slammed into the Pentagon."

 

Is useless. He's making a comparison, not an eyewitness account, nimrod.

 

Tom Seibert, Pentagon network engineer: "We heard what sounded like a missile, then we heard a loud boom..."

 

Because, well, planes don't go boom. I mean, no boom on the ones that hit the towers... Oh, wait...

 

"The plane was about 150 yards away, approaching from the west about 20 feet off the ground, Patterson said. He said the plane, which sounded like the high-pitched squeal of a fighter jet, flew over Arlington cemetary so low that he thought it was going to land on I-395. He said it was flying so fast that he couldn't read any writing on the side. The plane, which appeared to hold about eight to 12 people, headed straight for the Pentagon"

 

I'd like to see the actual context of this quote, since you so conviently missed that.

 

And since when do missiles hold 8-12 people? Perhaps that's all he could see inside of it and it actually was the plane in question.

 

The witness reports are pretty varied and go from stuff like above to people who say they could see faces in the plane as it went by. The object was travelling at around 450 mph, so I doubt too many are really 100% sure.

 

See, this is hilarious. How could so many people say they saw a plane actually hit the Pentagon be overruled with a very few (I think the small commercial aircraft one is the only real deviant here, and I wonder if he was far enough away that he just thought it was a DC-10; the Pentagon is very deceptive when it comes to size.

 

Of course the most likely thing was a plane hit the Pentagon, but the

government refuses to release any of the videos that would clearly show

whatever hit the Pentagon. The theories aren't going to go away unless

they release these videos.

 

As though incredibly overwhelming eyewitness reports weren't enough to debunk your theory...

[Justice 0]

A video you should look at.

[Guest Doyo]

As though incredibly overwhelming eyewitness reports weren't enough to debunk your theory...

 

I don't have a theory, just looking for more proof. It was flying at near ground level at 450 mph when it hit the Pentagon. Under those circumstances a cruise missile or a jet are going to look pretty much the same to most people. Who could be positive of anything from the one video they did release:

 

Incredibly overwhelming would be if the government released more clear videos. It is as simple as that.

[Guest MikeSC]

If they release it, they'd get ripped to shreds. Why bother?

-=Mike

[Justice 0]

I don't have a theory, just looking for more proof. It was flying at near ground level at 450 mph when it hit the Pentagon. Under those circumstances a cruise missile or a jet are going to look pretty much the same to most people. Who could be positive of anything from the one video they did release:

No. That's utter bullshit. To compare a Jetliner to a cruise missile is like comparing a Jetski to a Ferry boat. There is a huge, noticable difference in their size and overall look, even if going at 450 mph. The size and wingspan difference would be enough, even at that speed. That's like saying a fighter jet doing a flyby and a 757 doing a flyby look the same because they are going at 500 mph. No, there's too much of a structural difference to mistake the two.

 

Secondly, it's pretty obvious (Especially from the explosion; a tomahawk wouldn't have exploded nearly as much on the outside of the building as it would on the inside, because that's where it's designed to hit; through windows and such) that the craft there is much longer than any conventional missile we field today. Look at the first and second frames: It's exploding and it's fuselage is STILL almost past the guardhouse. That's WAY too long to be a Tomahawk.

 

Is there any proof the government has more video that has more definitive resolution to show us that something other than a plane could have hit? Simplying saying "WE NEED A CLEARER PICTURE" isn't an argument when much of the evidence is already against you. The blast isn't consistant with what a Tomahawk is designed to do, the object in that video is obviously longer than a Tomahawk, the computer anaylsis of the crash shows why more windows weren't blown out, and your eyewitnesses are often taken completely out of context. And we haven't even gone into the whole "Flight 77 was shot down" theory.

 

Yes, this is a theory, because it bases much of its "facts" on circumstantial evidence and hersay. And it's a very shitty one at that.

[Red Baron 0]

Isn't a 757 Boeing, bigger than the Pentagon?

[Guest MikeSC]

Isn't a 757 Boeing, bigger than the Pentagon?

No.

-=Mike

[Dr. Tom 0]

Isn't a 757 Boeing, bigger than the Pentagon?

...

 

Have you ever seen the Pentagon? Trust me, it seats more than a few hundred in a cylindrical chamber.

[Justice 0]

Isn't a 757 Boeing, bigger than the Pentagon?

The Pentagon is deceptively huge. It might look smaller from all those aerial photos, but if I remember correctly it is the largest administrative building ever built in terms of footage. They go down a few stories and I believe the underground place extends under the parking lots.

[Guest Doyo]

No. That's utter bullshit. To compare a Jetliner to a cruise missile is like comparing a Jetski to a Ferry boat. There is a huge, noticable difference in their size and overall look, even if going at 450 mph. The size and wingspan difference would be enough, even at that speed. That's like saying a fighter jet doing a flyby and a 757 doing a flyby look the same because they are going at 500 mph. No, there's too much of a structural difference to mistake the two.

 

At least two people did say it looked like a smaller plane, so I guess you are pretending they do not exist.

 

Instead, you see that there is very little debris anywhere, which is more consistant with something just ramming into it rather than something exploding inside it. If you watch the planes hitting the Twin Towers, you'll notice that there's a lot more of an explosion on the other side of the tower rather than where it actually hits.

 

So here you are saying it must be a plane "ramming into it rather than something exploding inside" and that planes hitting buildings = not much explosion on entry ?

 

Secondly, it's pretty obvious (Especially from the explosion; a tomahawk wouldn't have exploded nearly as much on the outside of the building as it would on the inside, because that's where it's designed to hit; through windows and such)

 

But now you are saying it pretty obviously can't be a missile because of the big explosion on entry?

 

So the plane at least partly exploded on the outside and then was able to have penetrated all the way through 3 concrete/steel hardened rings and all the walls contained in them and then punched out a round hole through the inside wall of Ring "C"? Seems like the warhead on a missile would be more able to do that than the aluminum nose of a 757. The point of impact of a missile is still going to cause some type of explosion, even if most of its damage is done on the inside. And we do know that most of the damage ended up being on the inside, as that is where the plane is said to have burned up and because of the lack of debris near the front.

 

http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/200...1_t915evey.html

 

"The plane actually penetrated through the ... E ring, D ring, C ring."

"The nose of the plane just barely broke through the inside of the C ring, so it was extending into A-E Drive a little bit. So that's the extent of penetration of the aircraft." - Mr. Lee Evey, Pentagon Renovation Manager

 

 

the craft there is much longer than any conventional missile we field today. Look at the first and second frames: It's exploding and it's fuselage is STILL almost past the guardhouse. That's WAY too long to be a Tomahawk.

 

Wow, you can identify a full 757 from white blurs? I suppose you are one of the people that looks at blurs in other videos and then positively identifies them as alien spacecraft. Parts of those blurs could easily be dust or smoke trails, making it hard to be sure of the length of any object.

 

Is there any proof the government has more video that has more definitive resolution to show us that something other than a plane could have hit?

 

It is the Pentagon. They are going to have many of the most advanced cameras all over the place. We do know for a fact that area businesses had their tapes seized. Don't you think the victim's families that want to view these videos have a right to do so?

 

Simplying saying "WE NEED A CLEARER PICTURE" isn't an argument when much of the evidence is already against you.

 

If Tom Brokaw presents info on why people think Kobe Bryant did or did not rape a woman, does that mean Mr. Brokaw is against one side or the other? I've mostly copy and pasted stuff and I'm trying to look at this from a different angle. If everyone on here was like "yeah it was a missile" then I would be throwing up reasons why it was probably a plane.

 

The blast isn't consistant with what a Tomahawk is designed to do

 

OK, Mr. expert, but according to what you said before it is not consistant with what a plane does either.

 

your eyewitnesses are often taken completely out of context

 

Huh? So you don't think they were all talking about what hit the Pentagon? Links were provided to all quotes.

 

Yes, this is a theory, because it bases much of its "facts" on circumstantial evidence and hersay. And it's a very shitty one at that.

 

go look at the following

http://physics911.org/net/modules/news/article.php?storyid=3

http://physics911.org/net/modules/news/art....php?storyid=13

It is a site run by Aeronautical Engineers, Physicists and other Scientists. They provide the best detailed analysis I've seen as to why a 757 may not have hit the Pentagon.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

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

[NoCalMike 0]

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

they were at the DNC of course.....

[Guest MikeSC]

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

They come out at night and steal your underpants to create a huge corporation and make tons of money.

-=Mike

[Styles 0]

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

They come out at night and steal your underpants to create a huge corporation and make tons of money.

-=Mike

All to line Bush's pockets...

[Guest INXS]

If you look at the footgage of the plane apparently going into the Pentagon, you dont actually see the plane impacting! Also, a plane would have taken out almost the whole side of the wall - the footage shows a low explosion..it's hard to describe but if anyone has seen the camera footage they'll know what I mean.

[2GOLD 0]

Would anyone like to remember this IS the Pentagon?

Hello, the walls are more than triple re-forced in case of attack. Of course the damn hole isn't going to look huge. It's the freakin Pentagon. Was anyone actually LISTENING to news coverage the days of 9/11 and 9/12? Anyone at all?

 

If you had you would have been told by CNN, the Military, ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX NEWS and probably the damn Cartoon Network that the walls of the Pentagon are more than triple reforced with steel, concrete and such and the building gets more reinforced the further you try to go and the plane was still able to make a hole. Had the Pentagon been built exactly like the Towers, then yes there would be a whole wall missing. It's not just any building for crap sake.

 

Course we still have morons claiming that what hit the Towers were radio controlled planes being driven by Republicans in a secret bunker in Utah so I can't put anything past anyone.

 

This "oh it was a missile" and "oh it was a small passage plane" is an insult to the ones who died in the real plane that struck it. If thinking up half assed and stupid theories like this are the most some people have to do in a day then they need a life more than I need one.

[Downhome 0]

CE has hit a new low with this pathetic thread. It's not only an insult to those who died, but to intelligence as well.

[Justice 0]

No. That's utter bullshit. To compare a Jetliner to a cruise missile is like comparing a Jetski to a Ferry boat. There is a huge, noticable difference in their size and overall look, even if going at 450 mph. The size and wingspan difference would be enough, even at that speed. That's like saying a fighter jet doing a flyby and a 757 doing a flyby look the same because they are going at 500 mph. No, there's too much of a structural difference to mistake the two.

 

At least two people did say it looked like a smaller plane, so I guess you are pretending they do not exist.

First off, two people out of...?

 

Secondly, a smaller plane could even be a DC-10, and again, the Pentagon can make things look deceptively smaller than they really are. From a distance, it looks a lot smaller than it really is.

 

So here you are saying it must be a plane "ramming into it rather than something exploding inside" and that planes hitting buildings = not much explosion on entry ?

 

I'm saying the explosion is inconsistant with what a normal missile would do. If it were a Tomahawk and exploded on the outside of the building, there wouldn't be nearly as much damage (all the way to the E ring, as you show us). Tomahawks generally penetrate through a window or such and explode on the inside. If it exploded on the inside, the penatration shown is possible, but there would be more debris thrown outwards from the Pentagon itself. Instead, we have a huge explosion on the outside and what resembles a skid on the inside, which would make you think something hit it, exploded but was big enough to keep travelling through. Either way, it's not at all consistant with what a missile would do.

 

But now you are saying it pretty obviously can't be a missile because of the big explosion on entry?

 

Exactly. There you go.

 

So the plane at least partly exploded on the outside and then was able to have penetrated all the way through 3 concrete/steel hardened rings and all the walls contained in them and then punched out a round hole through the inside wall of Ring "C"? Seems like the warhead on a missile would be more able to do that than the aluminum nose of a 757.

 

Uh, not if it struck the outside, man. Look, you can't have your cake and eat it, too. There are two ways a missile could have done it:

 

1) It struck inside, which is inconsistant with both the explosion and the debris pattern.

 

2) It struck the outside, and is inconsistant with the actual damage to the Pentagon itself. The Pentagon is a highly reinforced building. For a missile to have any chance of causing THAT much damage, it couldn't simply hit the outside and hope for the best.

 

The point of impact of a missile is still going to cause some type of explosion, even if most of its damage is done on the inside.

 

Yes, but it would be impossible for it to be THAT much damage, especially to a reinforced building such as the Pentagon. The damage from the Pentagon is more consistant with something ramming into and skidding through it rather than something exploding on the outside of it (Which, from all visual evidence is, is what must have happened).

 

Wow, you can identify a full 757 from white blurs? I suppose you are one of the people that looks at blurs in other videos and then positively identifies them as alien spacecraft. Parts of those blurs could easily be dust or smoke trails, making it hard to be sure of the length of any object.

 

If they were smoke or dust trails, they MAGICALLY disappear in the next frame. There would be some lasting white swirl or something there in the next frame had it been dust or something else (Because, remember, this is happening in a matter half-seconds and such). But since it seems to disappear right into the explosion, I'm fairly certain that the object itself because a dust trail or smoke trails would have lasted at least a second or so longer.

 

And I think identify Alien Spacecraft is more up your alley than mine...

 

OK, Mr. expert, but according to what you said before it is not consistant with what a plane does either.

 

... Uh, where? I've never said it was inconsistant with a plane ramming into it. Of course, I'm sure you'll deduce a way to make it look like that.

 

Huh? So you don't think they were all talking about what hit the Pentagon? Links were provided to all quotes.

 

I did. First off, you links are almost uniformly broken. You obviously didn't copy the entire links because many of them have "..." right in the middle of them. Some of them were comparisons to what it seemed like. Just because someone says "It felt like a missile" doesn't mean that they are saying it was a missile. They are saying that's the best way to describe it. This

 

Mike Walter, eyewitness: "I mean it was like a cruise missile with wings, went right there and slammed into the Pentagon."

 

Doesn't mean that he saw a missile. He means that it looked like a cruise missile on the way in. Hell, by your standards this

 

"We heard a loud crash and the building started shaking, moving like a wave," said Matthew Cornelius, who had just arrived for work at the Port Authority offices when the first tower was hit.

 

means that a tidal wave was what brought down the first tower. Seriously, your quotes give you very little evidence to support your case because it's obvious that they are simply making comparisons to get a better description of the event to others.

 

go look at the following

http://physics911.org/net/modules/news/article.php?storyid=3

http://physics911.org/net/modules/news/art....php?storyid=13

It is a site run by Aeronautical Engineers, Physicists and other Scientists. They provide the best detailed analysis I've seen as to why a 757 may not have hit the Pentagon

 

They still can't explain what happened to Flight 77 and their analysis came out before the Purdue study.

 

Secondly, the article is debunked by many of the commenters below, who cite many inconsistancies and "convenient omissions" from the article. It holds NOTHING with me after reading it and all of the mistakes.

 

So... this was your big comeback? With those websites you managed to dig yourself into a deeper hole than you were in before. Congrats.

[Red Baron 0]

What is this, the Avro Arrow? No pieces can be found? Have they even found the black box at least?

[Dr. Tom 0]

2Gold and Powerplay have it spot-on. This latest conspiracy theory is a load of shit. The Pentagon is a large, very surable building. A plane crashing into it would almost certainly have its wings and outer protrusions shorn off, with the fuselage remaining reasonably intact to skid thru the wings like a missile (OMG I SAID MISSILE IT MUST HAVE BEEN A MISSILE WTF!!!!11)

 

Also, in this picture:

it's obvious where the point of impact and entry was, and it's certainly not the circled hole.

[Justice 0]

Yeah, that sort of confused me. How was that picture supposed to help you, anyways?

[Guest MikeSC]

CE has hit a new low with this pathetic thread. It's not only an insult to those who died, but to intelligence as well.

Well, INXS buys the theory, so that alone shows how fucking idiotic it is.

-=Mike

[2GOLD 0]

Apparently we have missiles so smart they can enter in one part of the building, go down the hallways without touching any walls, through the inner cores and explode on the outer half!

 

So we finally developed those missiles from Hot Shots?

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

I bet the people who didn't die on the flight that didn't hit the Pentagon are chilling with the Jews that didn't die in the Holocaust.

[Guest Doyo]

Secondly, a smaller plane could even be a DC-10, and again, the Pentagon can make things look deceptively smaller than they really are. From a distance, it looks a lot smaller than it really is.

 

Yes, what one thinks they see and what they actually see can be different things depending on the circumstances.

 

Yes, but it would be impossible for it to be THAT much damage, especially to a reinforced building such as the Pentagon.

 

So you are saying a plane would do more damage than a missile? I can't follow you...

 

you links are almost uniformly broken. You obviously didn't copy the entire links because many of them have "..." right in the middle of them.

 

Oops, that's what I get for copy/pasting from another message board. I've fixed them now. I've never said any of the quotes are definite proof of anything, but when you have people like the editor of Space News saying "I was convinced it was a missile", it is something to think about. 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."

 

It holds NOTHING with me after reading it and all of the mistakes.

 

Yeah, those wacky Aeronautical Engineers and Scientists with all their figures and stuff - they know NOTHING man! Since you are an expert on missiles, planes and physics, why don't you email them detailed proof on why it must be a 757?

 

----------------

 

it's obvious where the point of impact and entry was, and it's certainly not the circled hole.

 

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.

 

picture from the US Department of Defense site:

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Mar2002/02...70C-003.jpg.JPG

 

 

-----------------

 

Apparently we have missiles so smart they can enter in one part of the building, go down the hallways without touching any walls, through the inner cores and explode on the outer half!

 

What? Are you saying there were no holes in the walls or are you saying a missile with a warhead that is made to penetrate couldn't do that, but an aluminum nose of a plane could?

 

------------------

 

I bet the people who didn't die on the flight that didn't hit the Pentagon are chilling with the Jews that didn't die in the Holocaust.

 

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.

 

Col. Donn de Grand Pre (former top US Pentagon arms salesman under the Ford and Carter administrations) and his research group of other military people including pilots, the Scientists at physics911.org, and Stan Goff (26 year US Army vet, teacher at West Point) - these are some of the people saying that parts of the government's story is wrong. I wouldn't exactly put them in the same league as Holocaust deniers or Dale Gribble.

[Justice 0]

Yes, but it would be impossible for it to be THAT much damage, especially to a reinforced building such as the Pentagon.

 

So you are saying a plane would do more damage than a missile? I can't follow you...

Jesus... this is just too hard to get through to you.

 

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.

 

Yeah, those wacky Aeronautical Engineers and Scientists with all their figures and stuff - they know NOTHING man! Since you are an expert on missiles, planes and physics, why don't you email them detailed proof on why it must be a 757?

 

JESUS, JUST READ THE BOTTOM COMMENTS. The posters pick up on some very important details that these guys obviously missed. Maybe if you'd pull your head away from your Lydon LaRouche Pamphlet and start actually reading what I wrote, we'd get somewhere here.

 

Oops, that's what I get for copy/pasting from another message board. I've fixed them now. I've never said any of the quotes are definite proof of anything, but when you have people like the editor of Space News saying "I was convinced it was a missile", it is something to think about. 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."

 

*Sighs and Shakes head*

 

You don't understand, do you? A few of the quotes are taken right out of context. Like the Steve Patterson one:

 

Steve Patterson, who lives in Pentagon City, said it appeared to him that a commuter jet swooped over Arlington National Cemetery and headed for the Pentagon "at a frightening rate .‚.‚. just slicing into that building."

 

He says it was a Commuter Jet. Just because he didn't know the exact size means nothing, because says, well, it was a friggin jet. You don't mistake a Tomahawk Missile for a commuter Jet. They aren't that similar.

 

Most of these people didn't actually SEE the plane. They just heard it, and 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.

 

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.

 

Excuse me? I've shown you the Purdue study. Show me something to refute it. Your articles were before the Purdue study, so they don't prove anything, especially with all the omissions and "liberties" they take with things...

 

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. Explain the missile's blast, after mostly being let off on the outside, could have caused this hole. Or how an F-16, a much smaller and more fragile plane, could have caused this hole. Or wherever the hell Flight 77 went and where the people are now.

 

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

[Red Hot Thumbtack In The Eye 0]

Research, tee hee. It's a shame when there's no proof of their theories, yet they still feel compelled to jaw jack this into some grand way of crushing the evil americans.

 

And I say this with a healthy disrespect for a lot of thing that go on in that county. I also have the good sense to not make posts like the science wizards here...

 

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.