To you 9/11 conspiracy theorists.

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: confused1234

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb

Originally posted by: confused1234

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb

Originally posted by: confused1234
well another thing. what about all the grass infront of the pentagon that was undisterb right after the crash? no dirt was dug up or anything from the plane. also why would the pentagon go and take of the videos cameras that had a view of the pentagon like 5 minutes after it happened. i mean were not talking like 5 tapes they had to get it was alot more then that.

also there were no wings recovered at the site of the pentagon

READ THE FVCKING POPULAR MECHANICS ARTICLE.

The plane was disentegrated, but they found PLENTY of debris, parts, the black box, body parts of crew members, etc.

planes dont just disentegrate. but lets say it did. how come NONE of the lawn infront of the crash site was disturbed?

Because the plane hit the building, and not the lawn?

Besides, how do you KNOW nothing was disturbed? Did you go out there and take pictures?

i saw pictures

MANY people SAW the plane hit the Pentagon. There was a big ass hole, a fire, the black box from the plane, body parts of the crew members, etc, etc, etc.

It is not even an issue about the lawn. The plane was pretty much contained inside a very strong building.
Some people even want to make an issue about all the windows nearby not being blown out....they are blast-proof.

 

[confused1234]

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb

Originally posted by: confused1234

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb

Originally posted by: confused1234

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb

Originally posted by: confused1234
well another thing. what about all the grass infront of the pentagon that was undisterb right after the crash? no dirt was dug up or anything from the plane. also why would the pentagon go and take of the videos cameras that had a view of the pentagon like 5 minutes after it happened. i mean were not talking like 5 tapes they had to get it was alot more then that.

also there were no wings recovered at the site of the pentagon

READ THE FVCKING POPULAR MECHANICS ARTICLE.

The plane was disentegrated, but they found PLENTY of debris, parts, the black box, body parts of crew members, etc.

planes dont just disentegrate. but lets say it did. how come NONE of the lawn infront of the crash site was disturbed?

Because the plane hit the building, and not the lawn?

Besides, how do you KNOW nothing was disturbed? Did you go out there and take pictures?

i saw pictures

MANY people SAW the plane hit the Pentagon. There was a big ass hole, a fire, the black box from the plane, body parts of the crew members, etc, etc, etc.

It is not even an issue about the lawn. The plane was pretty much contained inside a very strong building.
Some people even want to make an issue about all the windows nearby not being blown out....they are blast-proof.

THEN HOW COME THERE WHERE NO WINGMARKS ON THE PENTAGON

 

[Powermoloch]

Originally posted by: adairusmc
I think the only solution for the people that think ANYTHING about 9/11 is a conspiracy is for them to commit seppuku. People who dontiue to perpetuate that BS have are beyond retarded.

not retarded...only ignorace.

 

[Powermoloch]

Originally posted by: confused1234

THEN HOW COME THERE WHERE NO WINGMARKS ON THE PENTAGON[/quote]



hollow wing + filled with fuel = boom .

 

[confused1234]

Originally posted by: Powermoloch

Originally posted by: confused1234

THEN HOW COME THERE WHERE NO WINGMARKS ON THE PENTAGON

hollow wing + filled with fuel = boom .[/quote]

that would still leave a mark on the building

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: confused1234

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb

Originally posted by: confused1234

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb

Originally posted by: confused1234

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb

Originally posted by: confused1234
well another thing. what about all the grass infront of the pentagon that was undisterb right after the crash? no dirt was dug up or anything from the plane. also why would the pentagon go and take of the videos cameras that had a view of the pentagon like 5 minutes after it happened. i mean were not talking like 5 tapes they had to get it was alot more then that.

also there were no wings recovered at the site of the pentagon

READ THE FVCKING POPULAR MECHANICS ARTICLE.

The plane was disentegrated, but they found PLENTY of debris, parts, the black box, body parts of crew members, etc.

planes dont just disentegrate. but lets say it did. how come NONE of the lawn infront of the crash site was disturbed?

Because the plane hit the building, and not the lawn?

Besides, how do you KNOW nothing was disturbed? Did you go out there and take pictures?

i saw pictures

MANY people SAW the plane hit the Pentagon. There was a big ass hole, a fire, the black box from the plane, body parts of the crew members, etc, etc, etc.

It is not even an issue about the lawn. The plane was pretty much contained inside a very strong building.
Some people even want to make an issue about all the windows nearby not being blown out....they are blast-proof.

THEN HOW COME THERE WHERE NO WINGMARKS ON THE PENTAGON

IT IS A HOLE, DUMBASS. Do you think the plane would have just hit and bounced off, leaving some paint marks?
My guess is, you dummies are thinking the plane hit while diving horizontally. My guess is it was sort of banking, with the wings up and down (or close to it) when it hit.
Look at the pictures. There was massive damage.

Plus, there was no lawn at the part where the plane hit the Pentagon.

 

[Powermoloch]

Originally posted by: confused1234

Originally posted by: Powermoloch

Originally posted by: confused1234

THEN HOW COME THERE WHERE NO WINGMARKS ON THE PENTAGON

hollow wing + filled with fuel = boom .

that would still leave a mark on the building[/quote]


but not in a wing shape

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: confused1234

that would still leave a mark on the building

What do you call this?

 

[confused1234]

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb

Originally posted by: confused1234

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb

Originally posted by: confused1234

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb

Originally posted by: confused1234

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb

Originally posted by: confused1234
well another thing. what about all the grass infront of the pentagon that was undisterb right after the crash? no dirt was dug up or anything from the plane. also why would the pentagon go and take of the videos cameras that had a view of the pentagon like 5 minutes after it happened. i mean were not talking like 5 tapes they had to get it was alot more then that.

also there were no wings recovered at the site of the pentagon

READ THE FVCKING POPULAR MECHANICS ARTICLE.

The plane was disentegrated, but they found PLENTY of debris, parts, the black box, body parts of crew members, etc.

planes dont just disentegrate. but lets say it did. how come NONE of the lawn infront of the crash site was disturbed?

Because the plane hit the building, and not the lawn?

Besides, how do you KNOW nothing was disturbed? Did you go out there and take pictures?

i saw pictures

MANY people SAW the plane hit the Pentagon. There was a big ass hole, a fire, the black box from the plane, body parts of the crew members, etc, etc, etc.

It is not even an issue about the lawn. The plane was pretty much contained inside a very strong building.
Some people even want to make an issue about all the windows nearby not being blown out....they are blast-proof.

THEN HOW COME THERE WHERE NO WINGMARKS ON THE PENTAGON

IT IS A HOLE, DUMBASS. Do you think the plane would have just hit and bounced off, leaving some paint marks?
My guess is, you dummies are thinking the plane hit while diving horizontally. My guess is it was sort of banking, with the wings up and down (or close to it) when it hit.
Look at the pictures. There was massive damage.

Plus, there was no lawn at the part where the plane hit the Pentagon.

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/photos/blue.html

sure looks like a lawn to me

anyway like ive said before i 50/50 on this subject and only believe that the govt didnt tell us EVERYTHING that happened truthfully.

 

[Ken90630]

Originally posted by: confused1234

i remember the controversy with that video. i forgot which hand bin laden uses as his domminant one but in the video it showed he was using his other hand as the domminant one.

also this if the government was willing to kill 2000+ people(which im not saying they are) wouldnt you think it would be really easy just to fly that jet down to cuba and improsin them for the rest of their lives?

I remember zero controversy over that video, and I watched CNN, Fox and MSNBC non-stop for a looooong time after 9/11. The only "controversy" was brewed up by, well, you know ....

Re the government flying them down to Cuba [and you're really serious, aren't you? ] and imprisoning them for the rest of their lives, I guess the air traffic controllers are in on the conspiracy too, huh? They watched that plane veer off course for thousands of miles and didn't say a word 'cuz GW and Darth Cheney got to 'em too! Dang -- the Bush administration is even more thorough than even I realized!

And I guess they're all being "tortured" at Guantanamo too :roll:, along with all the other poor chaps who were innocently on their way to a barber shop in Kandahar when the mean, evil U.S. military just arbitrarily scooped them up and imprisoned them. Yeah, that sounds plausible. 'Cuz after all, Bush and Cheney are just evil. Evil, I tell you, evil! :laugh:

And none of the other pilots in the air at the time, on other airlines, saw that plane heading to Cuba and reported it. So those pilots & co-pilots were all in on this too! Oh, and the Cubans at Havana Airport knew an American airliner would be arriving too. Dang! Is there anyone who's not in on this vast conspiracy? Does it ever end?!

:laugh:

 

[confused1234]

Originally posted by: Ken90630

Originally posted by: confused1234

i remember the controversy with that video. i forgot which hand bin laden uses as his domminant one but in the video it showed he was using his other hand as the domminant one.

also this if the government was willing to kill 2000+ people(which im not saying they are) wouldnt you think it would be really easy just to fly that jet down to cuba and improsin them for the rest of their lives?

I remember zero controversy over that video, and I watched CNN, Fox and MSNBC non-stop for a looooong time after 9/11. The only "controversy" was brewed up by, well, you know ....

Re the government flying them down to Cuba [and you're really serious, aren't you? ] and imprisoning them for the rest of their lives, I guess the air traffic controllers are in on the conspiracy too, huh? They watched that plane veer off course for thousands of miles and didn't say a word 'cuz GW and Darth Cheney got to 'em too! Dang -- the Bush administration is even more thorough than even I realized!

And I guess they're all being "tortured" at Guantanamo too :roll:, along with all the other poor chaps who were innocently on their way to a barber shop in Kandahar when the mean, evil U.S. military just arbitrarily scooped them up and imprisoned them. Yeah, that sounds plausible. 'Cuz after all, Bush and Cheney are just evil. Evil, I tell you, evil! :laugh:

And none of the other pilots in the air at the time, on other airlines, saw that plane heading to Cuba and reported it. So those pilots & co-pilots were all in on this too! Oh, and the Cubans at Havana Airport knew an American airliner would be arriving too. Dang! Is there anyone who's not in on this vast conspiracy? Does it ever end?!

:laugh:

last thing and im out for tonight. controversy = on loose change

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: confused1234
im torn 50/50 in this subject. for one the world trade towers where the first 2 steel framed building EVER to collapse from fire. yes i read maddox's article but youd think more steel frammed buildings would burn down.

WTC had a completely different type of construction compared to most other steel framed buildings.

For the "you'd need 30 stories of explosives" nutcases... you really think jets are *that* inaccurate?! (30 stories is roughly 300 feet = football field) -> it seems that all the jets I've watched land tend to go right down the center of the runway.

edit: typo

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: confused1234
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/photos/blue.html

sure looks like a lawn to me

anyway like ive said before i 50/50 on this subject and only believe that the govt didnt tell us EVERYTHING that happened truthfully.

First, I'll amend my statement to there wasn't as much lawn as the other sides. There had been construction going on, and the lawn was not right up to the building.

Second, there is PLENTY of damage on the outside of the building. And it was caused by the plane.
You have to remember, that plane was very small compared to how big the Pentagon is.
I think something like 8 or 9 planes would have to be parked wingtip-to-wingtip to just cover ONE side. All the sides are over 900 feet long.

Third, and this completely closes the case, here are the pictures of the damage up close, with PLENTY of plane debris....wheels, landing gear, engine turbines, etc, etc.
The case is closed
One more edit:

# Review the facts
# Size of 757 matches the initial size of hole in the building - somewhere between 13 and 16 feet (757 is 13 feet wide/high)
# Rims found in building match those of a 757
# Small turbine engine outside is an APU
# Same engine has been clearly stated to not match a Global Hawk engine
# Blue seats from 757 laying on ground in photos
# Part of "American" fuselage logo visible in more than 1 photo
# Engine parts photographed inside match a Rolls-Royce RB211
# Structural components photographed in wreckage match Boeing paint primer schemes
# Large deisel generator in front of building hit by a large heavy object
# Large deisel engine outside is spun towards the building - could not be result of bomb blast or missile explosion
# Multiple eye witnesses say they saw an airliner
# Multiple eye witnesses say they saw an airliner hit the Pentagon
# 60+ bodies, matching the passenger list and flight crew roster identified and returned to families from Pentagon wreckage

All this evidence=only dumbasses think a plane didn't hit the Pentagon.

 

[Powermoloch]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: confused1234
im torn 50/50 in this subject. for one the world trade towers where the first 2 steel framed building EVER to collapse from fire. yes i read maddox's article but youd think more steel frammed buildings would burn down.

WTC had a completey different type of construction compared to most other steel framed buildings.

For the "you'd need 30 stories of explosives" nutcases... you really think jets are *that* inaccurate?! (30 stories is roughly 300 feet = football field) -> it seems that all the jets I've watched land tend to go right down the center of the runway.

apparently confused1234 is confused.

 

[confused1234]

Originally posted by: Powermoloch

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: confused1234
im torn 50/50 in this subject. for one the world trade towers where the first 2 steel framed building EVER to collapse from fire. yes i read maddox's article but youd think more steel frammed buildings would burn down.

WTC had a completey different type of construction compared to most other steel framed buildings.

For the "you'd need 30 stories of explosives" nutcases... you really think jets are *that* inaccurate?! (30 stories is roughly 300 feet = football field) -> it seems that all the jets I've watched land tend to go right down the center of the runway.

apparently confused1234 is confused.

i never said anything about 30 stories of explosives

 

[Ken90630]

Most of you on the other side of this argument are deafeningly silent in response to my initial post in this thread. Whatsamatter -- cat got your tongue?

Really, guys, I'm disappointed in you. You are soooo committed to your delusions, so adamant about your silly conspiracy beliefs, so blinded by your neurotic hatred, that I expected you to at least put forth some feeble excuse of a response.

But hey, that would require you to be honest, and that would lead to admitting you're wrong, which would in turn require you to change pretty much all of your misguided and viscerally dishonest views about the United States, the world, geopolitics, and -- most of all -- yourselves. And that would just be too painful, wouldn't it?

Much easier to just hoist another cup o' Kool Aid, isn't it?

Like George Costanza says, "I'm out!" :moon:

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: confused1234

Originally posted by: Powermoloch

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: confused1234
im torn 50/50 in this subject. for one the world trade towers where the first 2 steel framed building EVER to collapse from fire. yes i read maddox's article but youd think more steel frammed buildings would burn down.

WTC had a completey different type of construction compared to most other steel framed buildings.

For the "you'd need 30 stories of explosives" nutcases... you really think jets are *that* inaccurate?! (30 stories is roughly 300 feet = football field) -> it seems that all the jets I've watched land tend to go right down the center of the runway.

apparently confused1234 is confused.

i never said anything about 30 stories of explosives

I didn't say that was you... somewhere above, people were speculating that they'd need explosives on every 5th floor for 50 floors, then lowered that number to 30. I didn't feel like scrolling and quoting those people.

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: Ken90630
Most of you on the other side of this argument are deafeningly silent in response to my initial post in this thread. Whatsamatter -- cat got your tongue?

Really, guys, I'm disappointed in you. You are soooo committed to your delusions, so adamant about your silly conspiracy beliefs, so blinded by your neurotic hatred, that I expected you to at least put forth some feeble excuse of a response.

They were too busy having their asses handed to them by me to respond to yours, or anyone else who actually makes sense.

 

[Ken90630]

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb

Originally posted by: confused1234
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/photos/blue.html

sure looks like a lawn to me

anyway like ive said before i 50/50 on this subject and only believe that the govt didnt tell us EVERYTHING that happened truthfully.

First, I'll amend my statement to there wasn't as much lawn as the other sides. There had been construction going on, and the lawn was not right up to the building.

Second, there is PLENTY of damage on the outside of the building. And it was caused by the plane.
You have to remember, that plane was very small compared to how big the Pentagon is.
I think something like 8 or 9 planes would have to be parked wingtip-to-wingtip to just cover ONE side. All the sides are over 900 feet long.

Third, and this completely closes the case, here are the pictures of the damage up close, with PLENTY of plane debris....wheels, landing gear, engine turbines, etc, etc.
The case is closed
One more edit:

# Review the facts
# Size of 757 matches the initial size of hole in the building - somewhere between 13 and 16 feet (757 is 13 feet wide/high)
# Rims found in building match those of a 757
# Small turbine engine outside is an APU
# Same engine has been clearly stated to not match a Global Hawk engine
# Blue seats from 757 laying on ground in photos
# Part of "American" fuselage logo visible in more than 1 photo
# Engine parts photographed inside match a Rolls-Royce RB211
# Structural components photographed in wreckage match Boeing paint primer schemes
# Large deisel generator in front of building hit by a large heavy object
# Large deisel engine outside is spun towards the building - could not be result of bomb blast or missile explosion
# Multiple eye witnesses say they saw an airliner
# Multiple eye witnesses say they saw an airliner hit the Pentagon
# 60+ bodies, matching the passenger list and flight crew roster identified and returned to families from Pentagon wreckage

All this evidence=only dumbasses think a plane didn't hit the Pentagon.

Awesome link/post. :thumbsup:

Ummm ... no offense (seriously), Galvanized Yankee and the rest of you on the other side of the debate, but what say you?

Like Judge Schmails said in Caddyshack, "Well ... we're waiting!"

Okay, now I'm really done for the night. This was too good to resist. :laugh:

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: Aflac
In general, I think trying to dispute the claims that conspiracy theorists are coming up with is pointless. If you refute one point, they're going to blindly suggest another. It's a battle that you can't win... and there's no way they'll change their minds. The fact that they believe in such an absurd theory is proof enough that they're fanatics. At that point I don't believe there's a turning-back point.

QFT.

It's like trying to convince a Christian that ghosts can't get people pregnant. No matter how much logic or reason flies in their face, they're already sold on the idea.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: Aflac
In general, I think trying to dispute the claims that conspiracy theorists are coming up with is pointless. If you refute one point, they're going to blindly suggest another. It's a battle that you can't win... and there's no way they'll change their minds. The fact that they believe in such an absurd theory is proof enough that they're fanatics. At that point I don't believe there's a turning-back point.

QFT.

It's like trying to convince a Christian that ghosts can't get people pregnant. No matter how much logic or reason flies in their face, they're already sold on the idea.

because putting down Christianity is so in right now.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: Aflac
In general, I think trying to dispute the claims that conspiracy theorists are coming up with is pointless. If you refute one point, they're going to blindly suggest another. It's a battle that you can't win... and there's no way they'll change their minds. The fact that they believe in such an absurd theory is proof enough that they're fanatics. At that point I don't believe there's a turning-back point.

QFT.

It's like trying to convince a Christian that ghosts can't get people pregnant. No matter how much logic or reason flies in their face, they're already sold on the idea.

Why single out Christians when all religion is based on myths and blind faith?

 

[SarcasticDwarf]

Originally posted by: confused1234

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb

Originally posted by: confused1234

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb

Originally posted by: confused1234

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb

Originally posted by: confused1234

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb

Originally posted by: confused1234
well another thing. what about all the grass infront of the pentagon that was undisterb right after the crash? no dirt was dug up or anything from the plane. also why would the pentagon go and take of the videos cameras that had a view of the pentagon like 5 minutes after it happened. i mean were not talking like 5 tapes they had to get it was alot more then that.

also there were no wings recovered at the site of the pentagon

READ THE FVCKING POPULAR MECHANICS ARTICLE.

The plane was disentegrated, but they found PLENTY of debris, parts, the black box, body parts of crew members, etc.

planes dont just disentegrate. but lets say it did. how come NONE of the lawn infront of the crash site was disturbed?

Because the plane hit the building, and not the lawn?

Besides, how do you KNOW nothing was disturbed? Did you go out there and take pictures?

i saw pictures

MANY people SAW the plane hit the Pentagon. There was a big ass hole, a fire, the black box from the plane, body parts of the crew members, etc, etc, etc.

It is not even an issue about the lawn. The plane was pretty much contained inside a very strong building.
Some people even want to make an issue about all the windows nearby not being blown out....they are blast-proof.

THEN HOW COME THERE WHERE NO WINGMARKS ON THE PENTAGON

IT IS A HOLE, DUMBASS. Do you think the plane would have just hit and bounced off, leaving some paint marks?
My guess is, you dummies are thinking the plane hit while diving horizontally. My guess is it was sort of banking, with the wings up and down (or close to it) when it hit.
Look at the pictures. There was massive damage.

Plus, there was no lawn at the part where the plane hit the Pentagon.

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/photos/blue.html

sure looks like a lawn to me

anyway like ive said before i 50/50 on this subject and only believe that the govt didnt tell us EVERYTHING that happened truthfully.

IIRC, those photos are not taken at the impact point. The impact point is out of the field of view, meaning the only damage you would logically see is the fire damage.

 

[meltdown75]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: Aflac
In general, I think trying to dispute the claims that conspiracy theorists are coming up with is pointless. If you refute one point, they're going to blindly suggest another. It's a battle that you can't win... and there's no way they'll change their minds. The fact that they believe in such an absurd theory is proof enough that they're fanatics. At that point I don't believe there's a turning-back point.

QFT.

It's like trying to convince a Christian that ghosts can't get people pregnant. No matter how much logic or reason flies in their face, they're already sold on the idea.

Why single out Christians when all religion is based on myths and blind faith?

Pretty "elite" reponse there... :roll:

Had to check to make sure it wasn't a signup from last week.

Try not to threadjack an interesting thread please, thanks.

 

[IronWing]

You want a 9-11 conspiracy to rip apart? Here you go:

Explain how a cell phone stays connected for several minutes travelling 300-400 miles per hour, 5-7 miles high over rural Pennsylvania, inside a metal can. Remember, cell tower antennas are directional, designed to cover horizonal wedges. Yet the magic cell phones on that day merrily hopped from cell to cell under the worst possible reception conditions without dropping the calls.

The conspiracy: The Air Force shot that plane out of the sky and the "hero story" was made up out of whole cloth. No cell calls, no "Let's roll", no passengers retaking the plane, nothing. All made up to cover the shoot down.

Enjoy.