pentagon video (rp?)

[Maverick2002]

here

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Repost ad-infinitum and universally discredited as being falsified, complete BS without any grasp of reality. You need to be completely braindead to believe a word of that. Since in this life it's obviously too late for you, if you're ever reincarnated next time try to eat fewer paint chips.

 

[IamElectro]

really old..

 

[ShotgunSteven]

BULLSHIT!

 

[MichaelD]

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt
Repost ad-infinitum and universally discredited as being falsified, complete BS without any grasp of reality. You need to be completely braindead to believe a word of that. Since in this life it's obviously too late for you, if you're ever reincarnated next time try to eat fewer paint chips.

OH, that's good. BRB. You did very well!!!

ARGH!! Your put down is too long for my sig! It is indeed sig-quality, however! :beer::wine:

 

[Maverick2002]

A little ot off this film (eh why not we're in ot), do you believe we're really told what happens the majority of the time? Let's not forget the pointless war in Iraq right now, for starters.

 

[AFB]

They could just release the videos and let all this blow over?

 

[loup garou]

Of course it's a major repost. Christ, it happened 3 years ago.

 

[jst0ney]

I hate when people make up contorversey like this. What a waste of time.

 

[SWScorch]

a lot of that information is old news, but it raises some very interesting new ones, to me at least. I never saw photos of the hole in the Penatgon walls, and I agree that they are incredibly small. But I wasn't there, and I don't have the full info, so I can't make an opinion one way or the other. Plus, I generally don't buy into the paranoia conspiracy-theory stuff.

 

[tallest1]

Repost

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Originally posted by: MichaelD

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt
Repost ad-infinitum and universally discredited as being falsified, complete BS without any grasp of reality. You need to be completely braindead to believe a word of that. Since in this life it's obviously too late for you, if you're ever reincarnated next time try to eat fewer paint chips.

OH, that's good. BRB. You did very well!!!

ARGH!! Your put down is too long for my sig! It is indeed sig-quality, however! :beer::wine:

LOL, sorry, next time I'll try for brevity.

 

[loup garou]

Originally posted by: SWScorch
a lot of that information is old news, but it raises some very interesting new ones, to me at least. I never saw photos of the hole in the Penatgon walls, and I agree that they are incredibly small. But I wasn't there, and I don't have the full info, so I can't make an opinion one way or the other. Plus, I generally don't buy into the paranoia conspiracy-theory stuff.

That hole was several levels in and was punched by an engine, not the fuselage. Read the freaking snopes link.

 

[Maverick2002]

After reading that oh so convincing article refuting this "myth", I still have a few questions, and pardon my ignorance if you will. 1) how could most of the plane, especially the metal sections, burn away? I mean, take a look at cars - they too use fuel and a burning/blown up car doesn't just go *poof*. Granted, this is a much larger car moving a lot faster, but still. 2) I would think the lawn, as pointed out in those photographs, would be in a lot worse shape if the plane did indeed shatter into tiny burning fragments - that's a lot of fuel to burn. Just my thoughts. No need to bash *cough* GagHalfrunt *cough* ignorance *cough*.

EDIT: and what about the other engine?

In general, I'm not an conspiracy paranoid type but I certainly don't believe half the stuff I see in the news, at least not to their fullest extent.

 

[sillymofo]

Look... you don't need to defend ok? Airplanes are like freaking water balloons, you throw them at the wall, they burst up like that, OK? Quit trying to believe the crazy conspiracy theorists, your president tells the ultimate truth...

Hmmm... I wonder when someone will do an experiment with just a water balloon that big, launch it that fast, at a building and see what it does. Fcuk fuel or fire... just water.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Originally posted by: Maverick2002
No need to bash *cough* GagHalfrunt *cough* ignorance *cough*.
.

This isn't kindergarten Skippy. If you're in such a big hurry to display your ignorance you're going to get smacked down, don't expect a pat on the head and a cookie.

In the future, when topics are over your head, try asking intelligent questions, people will be happy to provide the knowledge you so clearly lack. Posting such complete BS with a "everyone should watch this" tagline makes you look stupid and paints a giant bullseye on your chest. Don't blame me for taking the shot, it's your own fault for cluelessly providing an unmissable target.

 

[jyates]

Originally posted by: Maverick2002
After reading that oh so convincing article refuting this "myth", I still have a few questions, and pardon my ignorance if you will. 1) how could most of the plane, especially the metal sections, burn away? I mean, take a look at cars - they too use fuel and a burning/blown up car doesn't just go *poof*. Granted, this is a much larger car moving a lot faster, but still. 2) I would think the lawn, as pointed out in those photographs, would be in a lot worse shape if the plane did indeed shatter into tiny burning fragments - that's a lot of fuel to burn. Just my thoughts. No need to bash *cough* GagHalfrunt *cough* ignorance *cough*.

EDIT: and what about the other engine?

In general, I'm not an conspiracy paranoid type but I certainly don't believe half the stuff I see in the news, at least not to their fullest extent.

I think it's interesting that these guys who write these conspiracy books
are getting rich by taking a few pictures from certain angles and taking
a few quotes or part of quotes out of context and twisting the story to match
their theories.

Usually for every one of these conspiracy theories the whole truth is shown
and it exposes the theorist as the scam artists they are.

My thoughts are that either the pilot was actually pretty good or pretty lucky
to hit the pentagon as he did.

As far as the question about where did the major metal pieces of the plane go....
how much of the other planes were found at the WTC's?

 

[Maverick2002]

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt

Originally posted by: Maverick2002
No need to bash *cough* GagHalfrunt *cough* ignorance *cough*.
.

This isn't kindergarten Skippy. If you're in such a big hurry to display your ignorance you're going to get smacked down, don't expect a pat on the head and a cookie.

In the future, when topics are over your head, try asking intelligent questions, people will be happy to provide the knowledge you so clearly lack. Posting such complete BS with a "everyone should watch this" tagline makes you look stupid and paints a giant bullseye on your chest. Don't blame me for taking the shot, it's your own fault for cluelessly providing an unmissable target.

So far you have not answered any one of my questions. I posted this as a discussion, not as something I believe to be entirely true. It would be rather intelligent of you to explain why a point or two I raised is false, rather than wasting server resources on a post that doesn't seem to have any relevance to the topic. Then again, this is ot.

 

[fredtam]

Why is this just now getting posted everywhere. Did one of you post this on AOL?

 

[OulOat]

Originally posted by: Maverick2002
1) how could most of the plane, especially the metal sections, burn away? I mean, take a look at cars - they too use fuel and a burning/blown up car doesn't just go *poof*. Granted, this is a much larger car moving a lot faster, but still.

The plane was enclosed inside the building (hit between the first and second floors). The heat can't escape when the plane was burning. The plane wouldn't have lasted long in those conditions, since a) it already exploded, so only small pieces are left, and b) planes are made of aluminum, which is the same stuff that coke cans are made of (ie, not very heat resistant).

2) I would think the lawn, as pointed out in those photographs, would be in a lot worse shape if the plane did indeed shatter into tiny burning fragments - that's a lot of fuel to burn. Just my thoughts. No need to bash *cough* GagHalfrunt *cough* ignorance *cough*.

Momentum. The plane was travelling at several hundred miles per hour. Even though it exploded, most of the fuel and debris would have kept going forward into the building, where it would be trapped and melted by the fire.

I can't believe the guy stole the music from Starcraft's Zerg.

 

[Maverick2002]

That's better, thank you.

 

[fredtam]

Originally posted by: Maverick2002
That's better, thank you.

Your questions were answered in ShotgunSteven's post. Why does there have to be a discusion every time someone post this.

 

[MacBaine]

Originally posted by: Maverick2002
A little ot off this film (eh why not we're in ot), do you believe we're really told what happens the majority of the time? Let's not forget the pointless war in Iraq right now, for starters.

Just because you choose to believe it is pointless does not make it so.

 

[maddogchen]

Originally posted by: Maverick2002
1) how could most of the plane, especially the metal sections, burn away? I mean, take a look at cars - they too use fuel and a burning/blown up car doesn't just go *poof*. Granted, this is a much larger car moving a lot faster, but still. 2) I would think the lawn, as pointed out in those photographs, would be in a lot worse shape if the plane did indeed shatter into tiny burning fragments - that's a lot of fuel to burn. Just my thoughts. No need to bash *cough* GagHalfrunt *cough* ignorance *cough*.

both questions are answered in another thread.
1.

And people do not realize that modern airliners are made from aluminum and plastic. The aluminum tend to get crunched on high speed impacts and high temperature fires can take care of the remaining pieces.

2.

Now, the pentagon has a mass 100 times that of the plane. And is structurally reinforced, unlike a plane which is thin and hollow (allowing it to fly, the pentagon can't fly).

As the plane hits the pentagon, the entire plane wants to keep going into the pentagon, that's called inertia. There won't be much scattering of the pieces of the plane because the plane has a lot of inertia in the direction of the pentagon.

soooooo....the fires go in the direction the airplane was going which was into the pentagon, not bursting backwards onto the lawn.

finally I like this one:

Originally posted by: Chadder007
That video is FULL of lies. It has already been pointed out before on Snopes.com There were many pieces that were recovered. Most of which imploded into the building since it was going so fast. Physics > the person that made that video.

 

[Maverick2002]

Originally posted by: MacBaine

Originally posted by: Maverick2002
A little ot off this film (eh why not we're in ot), do you believe we're really told what happens the majority of the time? Let's not forget the pointless war in Iraq right now, for starters.

Just because you choose to believe it is pointless does not make it so.

Ok I'll revise that statement. One of the two main reasons for going to war has yet to be proven.