Interesting #2

Discussion in 'More Serious Topics' started by Nursey, Mar 12, 2006.

  1. Nursey

    Nursey Super Moderator

    Messages:
    7,378
    This is the clearest, most concise explanation i've read yet as to why the official version of events regarding the Pentagon crash don't add up.

    http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/ArticlesMeyer3March2006.html
     
  2. XerxesX

    XerxesX New Member

    Messages:
    745
    Could it have been a tin-jumbo ? Do all presume that NY-constructors allways fulfill the quality-checks on their constructions ? Someone had orders to shoot at the pentagon as well. T.Blair will be judged by G-d. And so what !
     
  3. Nursey

    Nursey Super Moderator

    Messages:
    7,378
    Could it have been a tin-jumbo ? Do all presume that NY-constructors allways fulfill the quality-checks on their constructions ? Someone had orders to shoot at the pentagon as well. T.Blair will be judged by G-d. And so what !


    Or could it have been a mumbo-jumbo? Do all presume boing-constrictors fill themselves with quail-chicks in their constrictions? Surely not!?
     
  4. Nursey

    Nursey Super Moderator

    Messages:
    7,378
    *boeing
     
  5. phatboy

    phatboy New Member

    Messages:
    6,956
    There is a site dedicated to this. I saw it a while back, lots of pictures and over shadowing with the planes and the holes they caused. Of course they say thet the wings didnt make indentions when it hit the building. Well most jets store their fuel in their wings. That jet just took off and was presumably full of fuel. So the slightest spark and boom, no more wings. Now I cant say that I dont think Flight 93 wasnt shot down. But I cant say I would blame the military for shooting it down over rural PA as apposed to it crashing in a more heavily populated area. Where the death toll may have been a lot higher.

    Plus I think there was enough eye witnesses that would have spoken up if a missle had hit the pentagon.
     
  6. Nursey

    Nursey Super Moderator

    Messages:
    7,378
    Well it seems there is a commonly made error in the information the author based their conclusion on. From above article:

    It turns out it wasn't 6 walls...

     
  7. smurfslappa

    smurfslappa New Member

    Messages:
    1,361
    Don't even bother Nursey. You can't dazzle them with your brilliance, and they've already been baffled by all the bullshit.
     
  8. chester grape

    chester grape New Member

    Messages:
    2,784
    Is the theory that it was a truck still current? Or has that been comprehensively disproven?
     
  9. Conor

    Conor New Member

    Messages:
    2
  10. dingleberry

    dingleberry New Member

    Messages:
    166
    Can someone find the actual pictures of the damage created by the impact?
     
  11. dingleberry

    dingleberry New Member

    Messages:
    166
    and post them here i mean : )
     
  12. Conor

    Conor New Member

    Messages:
    2


    You can see that the damage with the building is horribly inconsistant with a boeing 757.

    Intact windows, and no debris of the plane. And for people who said that the plane hit the ground first, well, It didn't, and the fires couldn't discintegrate the amount of titanium be cause the fires were simply not hot enough.
     
  13. DrBungle

    DrBungle New Member

    Messages:
    3,147
    It was Ferine (I think) who posted a really good article about all this in Popular Science in one of the other CS threads.

    Either way, most people decide they are right and then argue emotionaly, which messes up the entire process.
     
  14. phatboy

    phatboy New Member

    Messages:
    6,956
    If the plane hit the ground before reaching the wall, which is highly probable, then there wouldnt be a defined hole. Now should the wheels, tailfin and other miscelaneous shit be lying all over the place? Yeah I would say you would think that it would. But With all the fuel that thing had in the wings, I wouldnt be suprised if all the fragments werent the size of golf balls.

    Plus that bitch burnt for quite a while.

    Are there any witnesses that say it wasnt a plane? If it wasnt the plane, then where is the plane?
     
  15. phatboy

    phatboy New Member

    Messages:
    6,956
  16. phatboy

    phatboy New Member

    Messages:
    6,956
  17. XerxesX

    XerxesX New Member

    Messages:
    745
    Hypotheses:

    1 The rocketattack was staged to make it a clear case of military targeting.
    ( As opposed to civilian juridistiction ).
    2 There was a mole high enough to srew up some of the milex giong on at the time
    3 Together with the two other attacks, it was all staged by a rightwing conspiracy, with the goal of rewriting their checks and balances.
    Blaming it in somebody bearded , and start next developemental stage of weaponstech.
    4 It was a tin-hatted mumbo jumbo indeed. Cthulu guards the gate. The psyckological tool of neccessity obfuscates more than onedimensional. Post-mechanical.
     
  18. phatboy

    phatboy New Member

    Messages:
    6,956
    If you look at the photo it is pretty clear where the wings hit and where the fuselage hit.

    [Image]http://www.tfeagle.army.mil/tfetalon/PhotoGallery/15TalonPhotos/Nov12/Images/Pic18-Pentagon-9-11.gif [/Image]

    This is a test. Im hoping it works.
     

Share This Page