# So no plane hit the Pentagon?



## RetiredGySgt (Dec 20, 2009)

Ok Sunniman and Huggy explain where flight 77 went? How all the aircraft debris body parts and material got in the pentagon. Don't expect any help from troofers like Eots cause he has no idea according to him. Terrel will just make the claim there was never a flight to begin with.

If that is your claim explain how all the crew and passengers died and parts and bodies appeared in the Pentagon.


----------



## eots (Dec 20, 2009)

no actually my obsessive friend I said calming claimed dna samples as remains is misleading and the parts are again just a claim where are they ? who has seen them ? where is this 95 % of the aircraft ?..disposed of like the wtc steel ?..and the FAA tapes


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Dec 20, 2009)

eots said:


> no actually my obsessive friend I said calming claimed dna samples as remains is misleading and the parts are again just a claim where are they ? who has seen them ? where is this 95 % of the aircraft ?..disposed of like the wtc steel ?..and the FAA tapes



You keep claiming you don't know but keep saying it didn't happen. Which is it Eots? Show some balls get off the fence.

So you are on record now as saying plane parts were not found at the site nor body parts.


----------



## Sodafin (Dec 20, 2009)

FACT: Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?" 

Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report - Popular Mechanics


----------



## eots (Dec 20, 2009)

popular mechanics give it up already,,,he held a tail section in his hand ? tail sections are huge..bodies ..well yes something just hit the pentagon so there are bodies..wing imprints...give me a break were are the wings then what about mike Walters report he saw the wings fold back and follow the plane in ...lol..popular mechanics


----------



## eots (Dec 20, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > no actually my obsessive friend I said calming claimed dna samples as remains is misleading and the parts are again just a claim where are they ? who has seen them ? where is this 95 % of the aircraft ?..disposed of like the wtc steel ?..and the FAA tapes
> ...



no I am recorded saying there is too much conflicting testimony on all aspects of the pentagon attack and the need to be clarified and answered ..a proper investigation needs to be done and what that will revel I am not sure but  I would not be surprised if it lead to no plane hit the pentagon..or a different plan hit the pentagon or it was not under the control of a pilot and loaded with explosives...I don't know for sure on the pentagon..I'm only sure they are hiding something


----------



## Sodafin (Dec 20, 2009)

eots said:


> popular mechanics give it up already,,,he held a tail section in his hand ? tail sections are huge..bodies ..well yes something just hit the pentagon so there are bodies..wing imprints...give me a break were are the wings then what about mike Walters report he saw the wings fold back and follow the plane in ...lol..popular mechanics



He had a piece of the tail section in his hand - not the whole tail section.


----------



## eots (Dec 20, 2009)

exactly and this non-aircraft parts expert identified a piece of wreckage that fit in his hand as a tail section of a 757...hes in the wrong business then


----------



## Sodafin (Dec 20, 2009)

eots said:


> exactly and this non-aircraft parts expert identified a piece of wreckage that fit in his hand as a tail section of a 757...hes in the wrong business then



Not too difficult, I would have thought. The shape and markings on the tail section (i.e. national flag, airline logo and aircraft call sign) are fairly distinctive. 

Why is that difficult to believe?


----------



## xotoxi (Dec 20, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Terrel will just make the claim there was never a flight to begin with.


 
If that is the case, then we now have to include Travelocity, Expedia, and Orbitz in on the conspiracy, as they advertised AA Flight 77 and people purchased tickets for their trip to Los Angeles, only to find themselves being executed in a remote hanger on Sept 11.


----------



## RadiomanATL (Dec 20, 2009)

xotoxi said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Terrel will just make the claim there was never a flight to begin with.
> ...



How in the hell could you forget Priceline and William Shatner!?!


----------



## roomy (Dec 20, 2009)

Is it possible that the plane was shot down just prior to hitting the Pentagon and a further errant missile hit the pentagon by mistake? 
Just saying.


----------



## Sodafin (Dec 20, 2009)

roomy said:


> Is it possible that the plane was shot down just prior to hitting the Pentagon and a further errant missile hit the pentagon by mistake?
> Just saying.



No, it isn't. 

At least, not unless the missile arrived carrying a tail section from a plane, crew uniforms and body parts.


----------



## roomy (Dec 20, 2009)

Is it possible that a big lump of cheese fell off the Moon and landed on the Pentagon?

Just saying.


----------



## Toro (Dec 20, 2009)

Sodafin said:


> FACT: Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"
> 
> Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report - Popular Mechanics



Good find, Sodafin.  Popular Mechanics is one of the best debunking sources out there.  It demolishes all the 9/11 conspiracy theories.


----------



## Toro (Dec 20, 2009)

roomy said:


> Is it possible that a big lump of cheese fell off the Moon and landed on the Pentagon?
> 
> Just saying.



Sure, why not?  That's just as good as any of the other conspiracy theories.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 20, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Ok Sunniman and Huggy explain where flight 77 went? How all the aircraft debris body parts and material got in the pentagon. Don't expect any help from troofers like Eots cause he has no idea according to him. Terrel will just make the claim there was never a flight to begin with.
> 
> If that is your claim explain how all the crew and passengers died and parts and bodies appeared in the Pentagon.




As for your constant dna whining, do you know how many times debris was moved from the Pentagon prior to the announcement the victims were identified?  You act like the dna match was done on site.  Do you know how the dna matches were done?  By whom?  By jurisdiction it should have only been the FBI.  The hijackers were never identified by dna even though the fbi had access to their dna.


----------



## Big Black Dog (Dec 20, 2009)

Anybody that cannot believe that the plane crash into the Pentagon was a terrorist activity, or claim that this event never happened, is full of something and it isn't canned spam.  How can you be so silly as to not believe this event happened just as reported?  Giving in to the theory that a missile shot down the plane explain how a plane headed for California got so far off track as to be near the Pentagon?  Then explain how a missile just happened to be in that area all ready to shoot this "off course and doomed" aircraft down to fulfill the rest of somebody's fantasy idea of what really happened.  Come on, people.  As hard as it is, try to use a bit of reason.


----------



## HUGGY (Dec 20, 2009)

roomy said:


> Is it possible that the plane was shot down just prior to hitting the Pentagon and a further errant missile hit the pentagon by mistake?
> Just saying.



That would be a "best case" from what I believe.  My whole problem with the pentagon site is that there is no way in my knowledge base that a 757 hit that building.  In the aftermath of whatever did hit the pentagon there would have been plenty of time to transfer a few plane scraps and a few buckets of human tidbits to that location.  

Whatever happened ...the hole in the building was too small for it to be caused by a 757....and I don't mean a little too small.  If you need scale...look at the holes punched in the trade centers.  Then look at the hole in the pentagon.  A side of a trade center is a couple of hundred plus feet accross.  The holes in them are about 150 feet accross.  The pentagon hole is about 18 feet accross.  Where is the missing 120 feet of hole if the pentagon was hit by a 757?  That question as obvious as it is has never been even remotely answered.


----------



## candycorn (Dec 20, 2009)

HUGGY said:


> roomy said:
> 
> 
> > Is it possible that the plane was shot down just prior to hitting the Pentagon and a further errant missile hit the pentagon by mistake?
> ...



Which hole are you talking about that is 18 feet across.  The entry hole is much, much larger than 18 feet.






You probably also should take into account the buildings themselves (glass and steel of a skyscrpaer versus the fortified masonry of the Pentagon) when wondering aloud about the type of damage a plane would do to a structure.


----------



## strollingbones (Dec 20, 2009)

okay lets go with they killed them all in a hanger somewhere....who killed them...come on ...where you gonna find find young men or women willing to kill innocent civilians....women children small pets....come on people...who killed them?  and how have the killers been silenced....


----------



## HUGGY (Dec 20, 2009)

candycorn said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > roomy said:
> ...



The picture you have shown is not what I saw in he first moments of the pentagon shots.  The picture you have displayed has a major portion of the upper floors collapsed.  That did not occur in the initial damage.  I do not know your purpose but it is obviously not truth.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 20, 2009)

Big Black Dog said:


> Anybody that cannot believe that the plane crash into the Pentagon was a terrorist activity, or claim that this event never happened, is full of something and it isn't canned spam.  How can you be so silly as to not believe this event happened just as reported?  Giving in to the theory that a missile shot down the plane explain how a plane headed for California got so far off track as to be near the Pentagon?  Then explain how a missile just happened to be in that area all ready to shoot this "off course and doomed" aircraft down to fulfill the rest of somebody's fantasy idea of what really happened.  Come on, people.  As hard as it is, try to use a bit of reason.




That is the common sense fallacy.  You're skipping over all fundamental forensics and trying to claim anyone who simply does not accept the OCT is lacking common sense.  ( I have no idea if that is an actually fallacy.....I just made up the term and am too lazy to google it.)

Point is, there are a multitude of aviation experts both military and civilian that present solid reasons why it was not a 757.  Are they 100% correct? I don't know but in the very least they present information that is hard to reconcile with the OCT.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 20, 2009)

HUGGY said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...




The pattern of OCTAs
 constantly presenting misleading information is one reason I question it all.  If it was the simple truth why do they dance like a used car salesperson?


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 20, 2009)

strollingbones said:


> okay lets go with they killed them all in a hanger somewhere....who killed them...come on ...where you gonna find find young men or women willing to kill innocent civilians....women children small pets....come on people...who killed them?  and how have the killers been silenced....




ROTFL!  Where are you going to find people to kill innocent civilians?  

Step 1
Unfold an atlas and tape it to the wall.

Step 2
Face the atlas with a dart in one hand.

Step 3
Put on a blindfold.

Step 4
Throw the dart.

Then you ask how have the killers been silenced? R u fo reel?  What makes you think they would have to silenced?  What could they possibly gain by going public?  OCTAs
 would call them liars and claim Truthers paid someone to admit to something that never happened.  They would be public enemy number one and be sentenced to the death penalty.  IF there were ANY behind the scenes moves the killers could:

Choose to live out their lives in a tropical climate from the money they made.

Or

Come to america and be put to death.  

Yep! Makes perfect sense why the "nobody has come forward" strawman is evidence the OCT is true.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 20, 2009)

HUGGY said:


> roomy said:
> 
> 
> > Is it possible that the plane was shot down just prior to hitting the Pentagon and a further errant missile hit the pentagon by mistake?
> ...




Gotta disagree with the "best case" claim.  If a 757 was shot down anywhere near the Pentagon it would have been impossible to conceal.  I've made many road trips between VA Beach and DC and am familiar with the traffic areas surrounding the Pentagon.


----------



## HUGGY (Dec 20, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > roomy said:
> ...



You missundergot what I meant by "best case".  Open ocean is within 80 miles of the pentagon.  That is where I guess the real flight 77 was shot down.  At 500 mph it is less than ten minutes from the pentagon.  By "best case" I meant that it was a real AA flight and we shot it down over the water to prevent more harm than the loss of the passengers.  I could see a crazy person like the "DICK CHENEY" ordering a missle attack on an unimportant part of the pentagon to cover the discision to down a passenger plane.


----------



## Terral (Dec 20, 2009)

Hi Retired:



RetiredGySgt said:


> *So No Plane Hit The Pentagon?*



Yes. 'A plane' *did hit the Pentagon* (my recent post),  but NOT any 100-ton Jetliner. The plane to hit the Pentagon was a Retrofitted A-3 Skywarrior that struck the Pentagon at exactly *9:36:27 AM* (my "What Happened" Topic).

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzxhRGevzEg"]Don Wright Witnessed The 9:36:27 AM A-3 Skywarrior Attack[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SU2SSTNIds4]Michael Kelly Also Witnessed The 9:36:27 AM A-3 Skywarrior Attack[/ame]

GL,

Terral


----------



## Toro (Dec 20, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



Here is a computer simulation on how the plane crashed into the Pentagon and left the damage that it did.  

LS-DYNA Runs
CGVLAB @ Purdue University

It's funny because when the scientists first released this, they had all sorts of twoofers screaming at them that they were part of the conspiracy.

But that's what twoofers do.


----------



## Toro (Dec 20, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> strollingbones said:
> 
> 
> > okay lets go with they killed them all in a hanger somewhere....who killed them...come on ...where you gonna find find young men or women willing to kill innocent civilians....women children small pets....come on people...who killed them?  and how have the killers been silenced....
> ...



Better question is what happened to all the people on the plane, and how did personal effects and their body parts wind up at the Pentagon?

Of course, that is just a "straw man," and diverts attention from highly important information about flight data recorders and cockpit doors.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 20, 2009)

HUGGY said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...




Gotcha. Thanks for clarifying but I don't see that as a top possibility.  One aspect of 77 is it was hijacked precisely in one of the Primary radar deadzones.  That is one hell of a coincidence.  By the OCT the attack had been meticulously planned yet they risked utter failure by taking 77 so far west.  In taking off from Dulles they could have hit the Pentagon even before the first tower was struck.  They were flying into the most guarded airspace in the world with a huge fucking neon sign.

As for a shoot down order, from mineta's testimony it sounded like a stand down order.  Once an order to engage is given Soldiers, especially in the stratosphere circles of the WH, do not hesitate to do so.  The Soldier repeatedly asking indicates a stand down order because he probably couldn't believe the VP was purposefully permitting an unauthorized aircraft to enter DC airspace while a military response was readily available.  I wonder if anyone has ever identified that person.  Last I checked they hadn't. 

Another timeline issue is a statement attributed to Ted Olson on the 9/11myths site.  Apparently when he learned of the 2nd tower strike he expressed relief on the basis it could not have been his wife's plane.  That makes no sense.  77 was scheduled to take off at 8:10.  That leaves about an hour and a hijacked plane could have made it to NYC within the hour.  At the very least the distance was not so great as to warrant a complete dismissal of the possibility.  But, the strangest statement by him is saying his wife called via her cell phone.  A secretary took the office call so how would he know either way?  Plus, didn't his wife have his cell or direct line number?  His appearances on CNN, Fox, etc, were a foundation for saying 77 was hijacked.  IF he played a false flag role it would make sense he would specifically say she called from her cell because he would have been anticipating people questioning how he knew for sure it was her.  Saying the call was from her cell sounds more credible than an unknown device.


----------



## Liability (Dec 20, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Ok Sunniman and Huggy explain where flight 77 went? How all the aircraft debris body parts and material got in the pentagon. Don't expect any help from troofers like Eots cause he has no idea according to him. Terrel will just make the claim there was never a flight to begin with.
> 
> If that is your claim explain how all the crew and passengers died and parts and bodies appeared in the Pentagon.



9/11/2001 never even happened.

Well, the day happened, but nothing actually happened on that day.

It was all psy op stuff.

None of us really saw what we all thought we saw.

In fact, the Twin Towers are still standing.


----------



## eots (Dec 20, 2009)

Toro said:


> roomy said:
> 
> 
> > Is it possible that a big lump of cheese fell off the Moon and landed on the Pentagon?
> ...



especially the one Bush/Cheney offered up


----------



## roomy (Dec 20, 2009)

Is it possible that an aeroplane was hijacked by some murderous terrorists and deliberately flown into the Pentagon as part of a plan by terrorists involving hijacking aeroplanes and deliberately crashing them into pre planned targets including the Twin Towers, the White House and indeed the Pentagon?

Just saying.


----------



## candycorn (Dec 20, 2009)

HUGGY said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...



Do you think the entire section of the Pentagon would have collapsed had there been only an 18 foot hole as what you speak of?  Basically the size of 4-6 entry doors?  Sheez...some people.


----------



## Fizz (Dec 20, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Point is, there are a multitude of aviation experts both military and civilian that present solid reasons why it was not a 757.  Are they 100% correct? I don't know but in the very least they present information that is hard to reconcile with the OCT.



we already went over this. at no point was the 757 (flight 77) ever not covered by radar. we know where it was the entire time.

anybody that thinks something other than a 757 hit the pentagon is a complete ass.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 20, 2009)

Mary Ann Owens, a journalist with Gannett News Service . . . was driving along by the side of the Pentagon, on September 11, 2001, when a hijacked jet screamed overhead and ploughed into it. . . .
          Looking up didn't tell me what type of plane it was because it was so close I could only see the bottom. Realising the Pentagon was its target, I didn't think the careering, full-throttled craft would get that far. Its downward angle was too sharp, its elevation of maybe 50 feet, too low. Street lights toppled as the plane barely cleared the Interstate 395 overpass. . . .
          Gripping the steering wheel of my vibrating car, I involuntarily ducked as the wobbling plane thundered over my head. Once it passed, I raised slightly and grimaced as the left wing dipped and scraped the helicopter area just before the nose crashed into the southwest wall of the Pentagon. 

Frank Probst . . . [a] Pentagon renovation worker and retired Army officer . . . was inspecting newly installed telecommunications wiring inside the five-story, 6.5-million-square-foot building.
          . . . at about 9:35 a.m., he saw the airliner in the cloudless September sky.
          American Airlines Flight 77 approached from the west, coming in low over the nearby five-story Navy Annex on a hill overlooking the Pentagon.
          "He has lights off, wheels up, nose down," Probst recalled. The plane seemed to be accelerating directly toward him. He froze.
          He dove to his right. He recalls the engine passing on one side of him, about six feet away.
          The plane's right wing went through a generator trailer "like butter," Probst said. The starboard engine hit a low cement wall and blew apart.
          He still can't remember the sound of the explosion . . .
          "It was pretty horrible," he said of the noiseless images he carries inside him, of the jet vanishing in a cloud of smoke and dust, and bits of metal and concrete drifting down like confetti.
          On either side of him, three streetlights had been sheared in half by the airliner's wings at 12 to 15 feet above the ground. An engine had clipped the antenna off a Jeep Grand Cherokee stalled in traffic not far away. 

EVEY: Actually, there's considerable evidence of the aircraft outside the E ring. It's just not very visible. When you get up close -- actually, one of my people happened to be walking on this sidewalk and was right about here as the aircraft approached. It came in. It clipped a couple of light poles on the way in. He happened to hear this terrible noise behind him, looked back, and he actually -- he's a Vietnam veteran -- jumped prone onto the ground so the aircraft would not actually -- he thinks it (would have) hit him; it was that low.
          On its way in, the wing clipped. Our guess is an engine clipped a generator. We had an emergency temporary generator to provide life-safety emergency electrical power, should the power go off in the building. The wing actually clipped that generator, and portions of it broke off. There are other parts of the plane that are scattered about outside the building. None of those parts are very large, however. You don't see big pieces of the airplane sitting there extending up into the air. But there are many small pieces. And the few larger pieces there look like they are veins out of the aircraft engine. They're circular. 

Former ammunition plant official . . . Col. Bruce Elliott . . . watched . . . as a hijacked 757 airliner crashed into the nerve center of the U.S. military command.
          Elliott, . . . said he had just left the Pentagon and was about to board a shuttle van in a south parking lot when he saw the plane approach and slam into the west side of the structure.
          "I looked to my left and saw the plane coming in. . . .
          "It was like a kamikaze pilot." . . .
          He said the craft clipped a utility pole guide wire, which may have slowed it down a bit before it crashed into the building and burst into flames. . . .
          Elliott said the rubble was still smoldering Wednesday morning. 

Father Stephen McGraw . . . mistakenly took the Pentagon exit onto Washington Boulevard, putting him in a position to witness American Airlines Flight 77 crash into the Pentagon.
          "The traffic was very slow moving . . . I was in the left hand lane with my windows closed. I did not hear anything at all until the plane was just right above our cars." McGraw estimates that the plane passed about 20 feet over his car, as he waited in the left hand lane of the road, on the side closest to the Pentagon.
          "The plane clipped the top of a light pole just before it got to us, injuring a taxi driver, whose taxi was just a few feet away from my car.
          "I saw it crash into the building . . . it looked like a plane coming in for a landing. I mean in the sense that it was controlled and sort of straight. . . .
          "There was an explosion and a loud noise and I felt the impact. I remember seeing a fireball come out of two windows (of the Pentagon). I saw an explosion of fire billowing through those two windows." 

Witnesses all over the place..........


----------



## Fizz (Dec 20, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> One aspect of 77 is it was hijacked precisely in one of the Primary radar deadzones.


bullshit. prove it.



CurveLight said:


> That is one hell of a coincidence.  By the OCT the attack had been meticulously planned yet they risked utter failure by taking 77 so far west.  In taking off from Dulles they could have hit the Pentagon even before the first tower was struck.  They were flying into the most guarded airspace in the world with a huge fucking neon sign.


bullshit. prove it.


----------



## eots (Dec 20, 2009)

conflicting testimony can be posted all day..the point is there has been no real investigation no testimony under oath..no cross examination ..no full disclosure of evidence and evidenced disposed of illegally


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 20, 2009)

eots said:


> conflicting testimony can be posted all day..the point is there has been no real investigation no testimony under oath..no cross examination ..no full disclosure of evidence and evidenced disposed of illegally




Why oh why must we teach you guys over and over?


> Director Tenet, Deputy Director McLaughlin, I would like to ask you to raise your right hands. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
> 
> TENET: I do.
> 
> ...



Transcript: Wednesday's 9/11 Commission Hearings (washingtonpost.com)

Looks like testimony under oath to me.


----------



## Liability (Dec 20, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > conflicting testimony can be posted all day..the point is there has been no real investigation no testimony under oath..no cross examination ..no full disclosure of evidence and evidenced disposed of illegally
> ...



When id-eots said "no testimony under oath" he meant, "sure *some* testimony has been given under oath!"   Id-eots is not familiar with the meaning of words -- or with the notion of "truth" having any meaning.

Id-eots is, afterall, just a fucking Troofer lying idiot.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 20, 2009)

Liability said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Of course. I forgot.


----------



## HUGGY (Dec 20, 2009)

So what is the problem Ollie?  You can't stand anyone that questions authority and has doubts about the "official story?  I find those that intentionally obscure truth to be loathsome even if it is in an effort to be "patriotic".  You can question any number of eyewitnesses to any "crime" and come up with any number of descriptions.  I remember clearly what I saw that morning on the TV and much of what comes to this MB is an obvious attempt to willfully deny what really happened.  I don't have a scrap of evidense of any conspiracy but no one will *EVER* convince me that a 757 made the hole I saw in the first tv coverage. * no one!...ever!*


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 20, 2009)

HUGGY said:


> So what is the problem Ollie?  You can't stand anyone that questions authority and has doubts about the "official story?  I find those that intentionally obscure truth to be loathsome even if it is in an effort to be "patriotic".  You can question any number of eyewitnesses to any "crime" and come up with any number of descriptions.  I remember clearly what I saw that morning on the TV and much of what comes to this MB is an obvious attempt to willfully deny what really happened.  I don't have a scrap of evidense of any conspiracy but no one will *EVER* convince me that a 757 made the hole I saw in the first tv coverage. * no one!...ever!*



You didn't see what I've seen then. which is fine.

And only a fool stops questioning their government.


----------



## eots (Dec 20, 2009)

don't pretend your spin is teaching anything little Ollie.. first there is no real cross examinaton of the testimony  the commission was not independent as labeled and what troubles me is not the people selected to give sworn statements...but the ones selected not to...not that ones that agreed to give testimony under oath but those that would not.. not the evidence they will dysplay but the evidence they will not ...or is this concept to complicated for you


----------



## Fizz (Dec 20, 2009)

the right wingtip is about even with the fireman on the right of the picture. the center of the aircraft is near the fireman pulling the hose. take notice of how large the damage is to the first floor and how high the "small hole" is up into the second floor of the building.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 20, 2009)

eots said:


> don't pretend your spin is teaching anything little Ollie.. first there is no real cross examinaton of the testimony  the commission was not independent as labeled and what troubles me is not the people selected to give sworn statements...but the ones selected not to...not that ones that agreed to give testimony under oath but those that would not.. not the evidence they will dysplay but the evidence they will not ...or is this concept to complicated for you



No, it does seem to be much too complicated for you though. I understand you believe the commission was told what to say, so were all those witnesses, even the ones that agreed with the commission but didn't testify. thousands of people who worked on the recovery. They were all in on it. Wake up fool. I hope that some day they do get a new investigation. And I hope I can still find you somewhere on the boards. That should be hilarious......


----------



## eots (Dec 20, 2009)

> thousands of people who worked on the recovery. They were all in on it. Wake up fool. I hope that some day they do get a new investigation. And I hope I can still find you somewhere on the boards. That should be hilarious......




its a completely flawed belief that those working on the recovery needed to be in in anything ..and I would welcome a re-investigation under the terms stated by the family steering committee it is not so called truther that fear that or block attempts at a proper fact driven investigation


----------



## Fizz (Dec 20, 2009)

eots said:


> its a completely flawed belief that those working on the recovery needed to be in in anything ..and I would welcome a re-investigation under the terms stated by the family steering committee it is not so called truther that fear that or block attempts at a proper fact driven investigation



holy crap.... you are talking about "flawed beliefs"?!!! 

thats fucking funny!!!


----------



## eots (Dec 20, 2009)

not as funny as _the man that met Atta_...and perhaps even some inside leads on the bomb laden van...nothing is funnier than that...agent fuzznuts


----------



## Fizz (Dec 20, 2009)

eots said:


> not as funny as _the man that met Atta_...and perhaps even some inside leads on the bomb laden van...nothing is funnier than that...agent fuzznuts



i've met lots of people. he was one of them. i dont care if you believe it or not. i probably wouldnt believe it if you claimed it either. 

i dont have any "inside info" on the van and never said i did. i probably know more than you do but thats not difficult.


----------



## WillowTree (Dec 20, 2009)

eots said:


> not as funny as _the man that met Atta_...and perhaps even some inside leads on the bomb laden van...nothing is funnier than that...agent fuzznuts



Did you ever find out where the plane, the pilot the co pilot and the passenger are! Are they alive and well? conducting normal lives.. how about the flight attendants? Can't wait to see them, to hear from them. Think they are lonely for us after all this time?


----------



## sealybobo (Dec 20, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Ok Sunniman and Huggy explain where flight 77 went? How all the aircraft debris body parts and material got in the pentagon. Don't expect any help from troofers like Eots cause he has no idea according to him. Terrel will just make the claim there was never a flight to begin with.
> 
> If that is your claim explain how all the crew and passengers died and parts and bodies appeared in the Pentagon.



Did they?  Did you see it yourself?  Sheeple.


----------



## Fizz (Dec 20, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> Did they?  Did you see it yourself?  Sheeple.



no, the world trade center and the pentagon dont really exist. they are all a zionist plot and images are entirely manufactured in hollywood.

in fact, 9-11-2001 never happened. people were secretly gassed by airplanes with chemtrails and given hypnotic suggestions of the events that day. when they awakened they thought they skipped a day and it was now 9-12-2001 but in reality it was only 9/11 and they had dreamed an extra day had happened.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Dec 20, 2009)

roomy said:


> Is it possible that the plane was shot down just prior to hitting the Pentagon and a further errant missile hit the pentagon by mistake?
> Just saying.



No military aircraft was launched in time to do that, further where is the debris field from the wrecked air craft shot down? You do know that no missile we have will vaporize a 757?


----------



## Trojan (Dec 20, 2009)

roomy said:


> Is it possible that the plane was shot down just prior to hitting the Pentagon and a further errant missile hit the pentagon by mistake?
> Just saying.



No its not possible


----------



## roomy (Dec 21, 2009)

Is it possible that a Klingon war ship attacked the USA at the exact same time as the terrorist attacks were happening resulting in the vapourising of flight 77 and a hit on the Pentagon?

Just saying.


----------



## sealybobo (Dec 21, 2009)

Fizz said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Did they?  Did you see it yourself?  Sheeple.
> ...



You say a lot of silly things but ignore all the real interesting questions.

Like, how did NORAD allow a plane to hit the Pentagon?  

Why did Chaney have control of NORAD on 9-11?  They were performing "war games"?  You buy that?  Sucker.

I don't know about what hit the Pentagon, but I suspect you don't know any more than I do.


----------



## sealybobo (Dec 21, 2009)

Fizz said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Did they?  Did you see it yourself?  Sheeple.
> ...



And there wasn't one person in the Pentagon that wasn't a loyal Bushy.  They got rid of any Democrats that worked at the Pentagon just like they appointed only wacko's to the Justice Department.

A bunch of Alberto Gonzales who recalled nothing.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 21, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > don't pretend your spin is teaching anything little Ollie.. first there is no real cross examinaton of the testimony  the commission was not independent as labeled and what troubles me is not the people selected to give sworn statements...but the ones selected not to...not that ones that agreed to give testimony under oath but those that would not.. not the evidence they will dysplay but the evidence they will not ...or is this concept to complicated for you
> ...




Typical strawman.  Why do you jokers keep claiming there had to be "thousands" involved?  Is that just another way of ignoring an honest examination? Make it look impossible so you don't have to consider the possibility?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Dec 21, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Do us all a favor, go post your IGNORANT pap somewhere else. You are so fucking stupid there isn't even a word to describe your ignorance.

Where did the plane go? Where did the passengers and crew go? Please provide us with the type of missile that could do the damamge done to the Pentagon on 9/11.

By the way you dumb ass fuck, using the excuse " you did not see it" applies to your ignorant claim a missile hit the Pentagon.

THOUSANDS of people were involved in the clean up and investigation. Most of the aircraft including parts with SERIAL numbers on them were recovered at the site. Using your ignorant " you did not see it" also applies to EVERY accident or crime ever committed.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 21, 2009)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > not as funny as _the man that met Atta_...and perhaps even some inside leads on the bomb laden van...nothing is funnier than that...agent fuzznuts
> ...



Can't keep your lies straight eh?  First you met him then you didn't then you did....blah blah.


----------



## dickjose (Dec 21, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Ok Sunniman and Huggy explain where flight 77 went? How all the aircraft debris body parts and material got in the pentagon. Don't expect any help from troofers like Eots cause he has no idea according to him. Terrel will just make the claim there was never a flight to begin with.
> 
> If that is your claim explain how all the crew and passengers died and parts and bodies appeared in the Pentagon.



if you dint know, a UFO fell on pentagon. top secret.


----------



## sealybobo (Dec 21, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



I'll conceed those points that you made.  I'm not married to the idea.  So how the fuck did NORAD let a plane hit the Pentagon?  Oh yea, Chaney was in control of NORAD.  Never before has a US VP been in control of NORAD.  Coincidence?  Yea right.  

I still say PNAC, a neo con group knew 9-11 was going to happen and allowed it because it would make Bush a wartime president and that was the only way they were going to push thru their very radical agenda.  War for profit and massive outsourcing and tax breaks to the rich, deregulations, offshore tax havens, high gas prices, bankruptsies, renigging on pensions, breaking unions, healthcare goes up 191%, everything they wanted

They simply let it happen.  Bush and Chaney and Rumsfeld planned all this out before 2000.  Stole the election.

You don't even have to be a conspiracy theorist to know they are traitors.  The rest of the world knows this.  They lied.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 21, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> roomy said:
> 
> 
> > Is it possible that the plane was shot down just prior to hitting the Pentagon and a further errant missile hit the pentagon by mistake?
> ...




Yet another classic example of OCTA ignorance.  Jets were airborne BEFORE 77 was even hijacked.

"Two Air Force F-15s were dispatched from an Air Force base in Massachusetts, but they were not airborne until 8:53 a.m."
CNN.com - 'Stay quiet and you'll be OK,' Atta told passengers - Jun 18, 2004


Stuff like this is evidence the OCT is believed more on emotions than facts.  It's clear most OCTAs are pretty ill informed and if they haven't researched the information their position cannot be based on fact.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Dec 21, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Your ignorance showing again. There were no Air support missions before 9-11 . No ready aircraft on the line with pilots to man them in case a plane flew to close to the white House. The air force could not have done anything and were even unable to scramble ARMED aircraft against the plane that went down in Pennsylvania.

It does not matter if mickey Mouse or John Wayne were running NORAD on 9-11 there were no assets anywhere to launch an aircraft to stop flight 77. They had a hard time arming a plane to go against the Pennsylvania flight. That is why I get such a chuckle out of the ignorant claims that an armed airforce jet shot that flight down. They were still arming aircraft at that time, they launched unarmed jets. The only thing those jets could have done is RAM the plane.

NORAD is DESIGNED to detect aircraft OUTSIDE the US border and provide intercept routes to stop them. Until 9-11 no one dreamed we would need anything like that INSIDE our own air space. With the wall going down 11 years earlier there were not even armed flights ready for outside attack either. No one dreamed they would need them.

I ask again, you have claimed no plane hit the Pentagon, lets play along and assume you are like Terrel and support the idea no plane was ever flying. Where did the dead passengers and crew come from we now claim were on flight 77? Why do their families believe they were all aboard that aircraft that never took off? Why were there radar tracks of said flight and of said flight after it turned off its transponder?

Who secreted massive amounts of a 757 wreckage into the pentagon blast site? Why did no fire and rescue people see this happening? Why did none of the investigators that FOUND the debris not notice it was not consistent with the plane hitting a reinforced BRICK wall?

You have said NO PLANE hit the Pentagon, you did not say you did not know, you said YOU KNOW no plane hit the Pentagon. Explain away all the facts that support the contention that the flight DID hit the building.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Dec 21, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > roomy said:
> ...



Without armaments. The dumb ass is you.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 21, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...




Where is a link on exactly which confirmed 77 parts were recovered?

Why do you keep practicing intellectual dishonesty by demanding to know where the people are if it wasn't 77 that hit the pent?   Nobody needs to show what happened to them to show the official story is not true.  There are several plausible scenarios of disposal but you want to use that to distract from the center issues.  People have been convicted of murder when the body of the victim has never been recovered.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 21, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...




I love it when jackasses like you call others a dumb ass when you clearly are so damn clueless.


"That morning NEADS could call on two alert sites, each with one pair of ready fighters: Otis Air National Guard Base in Cape Cod, Massachusetts, and Langley Air Force Base in Hampton, Virginia. Other facilities, not on "alert," would need time to arm the fighters and organize crews."
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States

Pay attention to the last line sherlock.   If non-alert locations needed time to arm that means the "alert" planes were already armed.  Want more links?  Would you like one that emphasizes the importance of being informed on an issue prior to speaking?


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 21, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...




Wanted to also point out the painful ignorance behind the whole "NORAD didn't anticipate the need to detect aircraft inside the US" bullshit.  That very morning one of the training exercises was to respond to a commercial jet hijacked in the US.

There is also another scenario that was proposed and it's quite freaky.  

"Five months before Sept. 11, 2001, an air defense planner proposed an exercise scenario in which military officials would have to deal with foreign terrorists who were threatening to crash a hijacked foreign commercial plane into the Pentagon, according to a North American Aerospace Defense Command spokesman."
Air Force News, news from Iraq - Air Force Times


Here's some more neat stuff.

"John Arquilla, an associate professor of defense analysis at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California, later says that while &#8220;No one knew specifically that 20 people would hijack four airliners and use them for suicide attacks against major buildings&#8230; the idea of such an attack was well known, [and] had been war gamed as a possibility in exercises before Sept. 11.&#8221;


"Similarly, NORAD will state that before 9/11, it normally conducts four major exercises each year at headquarters level. Most of them include a hijack scenario, and some of them are apparently quite similar to the 9/11 attacks (see Between 1991 and 2001 and Between September 1999 and September 10, 2001)."
Complete 911 Timeline: Military Exercises Up to 9/11


----------



## Fizz (Dec 21, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



i was in a bar at the same time as him. i already said that to eots. he seems to consider that "meeting him" although i dont. my comment was to him. i dont really feel like arguing over the semantics of the situation with him, or you. it is what it is and has always been the same.


----------



## eots (Dec 21, 2009)

tells us the one about how the how he was harassing stripper and how the FBI  interviewed you...twice !..that's my fave !...there must be more to the story if they interview you twice !...please share...


----------



## Liability (Dec 21, 2009)

eots said:


> tells us the one about how the how he was harassing stripper and how the FBI  interviewed you...twice !..that's my fave !...there must be more to the story if they interview you twice !...please share...



Oh, that's rich.  An id-eot with zero credibility trying to mock somebody else for something he has said!

Once again, Id-eots has no fucking clue; but since he has an agenda, he thinks HIS own simplistic and bombastic disbelief somehow qualifies as a good basis to doubt Fizz.  

Just another example of why id-eots is an idiot.


----------



## Fizz (Dec 21, 2009)

eots said:


> tells us the one about how the how he was harassing stripper and how the FBI  interviewed you...twice !..that's my fave !...there must be more to the story if they interview you twice !...please share...



stripper is your word, not mine. public nudity is illegal in the philippines therefore so is stripping.

they interviewed lots of people twice. the second time seemed mostly to see if we recognized other people they had photos of. i didnt recognize anyone else.

you can always contact the FBI at the manila embassy if you want more info. here's the number 011-63-2-523-10010.


----------



## Bern80 (Dec 21, 2009)

eots said:


> popular mechanics give it up already,,,he held a tail section in his hand ? tail sections are huge..bodies ..well yes something just hit the pentagon so there are bodies..wing imprints...give me a break were are the wings then what about mike Walters report he saw the wings fold back and follow the plane in ...lol..popular mechanics



So the man is lieing? Do you not get yet what a ridiculous counter argument it is to attack the messenger rather than the message?


----------



## Bern80 (Dec 21, 2009)

eots said:


> popular mechanics give it up already,,,he held a tail section in his hand ? tail sections are huge..bodies ..well yes something just hit the pentagon so there are bodies..wing imprints...give me a break were are the wings then what about mike Walters report he saw the wings fold back and follow the plane in ...lol..popular mechanics



So the man is lieing? Do you not get yet what a ridiculous counter argument it is to attack the messenger rather than the message? I'll give you some options to pick from to make it easy, You're contention is what:

Mr. Killsheimer is lieing?

Mr. Killsheimer doesn't know what he's talking about?

Mr. Killsheimer was coerced into saying what he said?

Popular mechanics made up what Mr. Kilsheimer said?

Those are your options. Pick one.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 21, 2009)

Bern80 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > popular mechanics give it up already,,,he held a tail section in his hand ? tail sections are huge..bodies ..well yes something just hit the pentagon so there are bodies..wing imprints...give me a break were are the wings then what about mike Walters report he saw the wings fold back and follow the plane in ...lol..popular mechanics
> ...




PM is trustworthy like britney spears is the modern American Bach.  The tail section is 44 feet tall.  If this guy held it in one hand then I need to find him asap for a contract with the highest bidding NBA team.  


Kilsheimer is a liar or ignorant or both.  PM doesn't care about fact checking, as proven with this one example of claiming he found the black box.

Carlton Burkhammer


----------



## Toro (Dec 21, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Where is a link on exactly which confirmed 77 parts were recovered?
> 
> Why do you keep practicing intellectual dishonesty by demanding to know where the people are if it wasn't 77 that hit the pent?   Nobody needs to show what happened to them to show the official story is not true.  There are several plausible scenarios of disposal but you want to use that to distract from the center issues.  People have been convicted of murder when the body of the victim has never been recovered.



Yeah, but any defense lawyer will tell you that it is much harder to try a case without a body.  When someone is convicted of murder when the body of the victim has never been recovered, there has to be a plausible explanation of what happened on the night of the murder.  There has to be some plausible explanation of what happened to the body, even if it is not found.  You have to have a plausible explanation of what happened to all those passengers on the plane, and how personal effects were found at the Pentagon?

You want to tell us what such a plausible scenario might be?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 21, 2009)

Toro said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Where is a link on exactly which confirmed 77 parts were recovered?
> ...



In addition to the numerous eyewitness accounts, the remains of the passengers and crew on board American Airlines flight 77 were recovered from the Pentagon crash site.  A team of more than 100 forensic specialists and others identified 184 of the 189 people who died in the Pentagon attack (125 from the Pentagon and 64 onboard American Airlines flight 77).  All but one of the passengers on board American Airlines flight 77 was positively identified as a match with DNA samples provided by the families of the crash victims.  These positive forensic identifications provide irrefutable proof that American Airlines flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon on September 11.  In addition, rescue and recovery personnel at the Pentagon reported seeing the bodies of airline passengers.  The September 14, 2001, edition of USA Today reported, When [Army Sergeant Mark] Williams discovered the scorched bodies of several airline passengers, they were still strapped in their seats. 

Plane Debris Found at Pentagon Crash Site

People who went to the Pentagon crash site reported seeing parts of an airplane, including the nose cone, landing gear, an airplane tire, the fuselage, an intact cockpit seat, and the tail number of the airplane, as reported in an e-mail to a conspiracy theory Web site that debunks the conspiracy theory claims.  The e-mail also contains photographs of airplane landing gear, tires, and fuselage fragments, which were taken at the Pentagon crash site.  Moreover, the black boxes  the cockpit voice recorder and the flight data recorder  for American Airlines flight 77 were found at the Pentagon crash site.  For more photographs of debris from the airliner, including the crumpled "C" from "American Airlines," see portions 4:57 to 6:00 of the "911 Case Study: Pentagon Flight 77" video.

Read more: Did a Plane Hit the Pentagon?


----------



## Toro (Dec 21, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



So CurveLight

What is the plausible explanation for this?  Are all the eyewitnesses lying?  I can provide a list of a few hundred documented eyewitnesses.  There were over 100 forensic scientists.  Are they all lying?  Rescuers saw the bodies.  How did the bodies get there?  Were those not parts of the airline on the ground?


----------



## Liability (Dec 21, 2009)

No plane crashed into the Pentagon.

No plane crashed in that field in PA (and the plane parts which were recovered from that hole in the ground, where the plane did_n't_ crash, weren't actually there).

And not only did no planes crash into the Twin Towers in Manhattan, but both Towers are still standing perfectly intact.

No lives were lost, either, on 9/11/2001.

There.  That settles that.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 22, 2009)

Toro said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...




The first step is separate the bullshit from the actual facts.  Example: eyewitnesses of the plane.  The OCT said it hit the Pent at 500+ miles per hour.  How reliable can eyewitness testimony be on an object moving that fast that low to the ground?  Why is it eyewitness testimony on the Pentagon is acceptable as proof it was 77 but eyewitness testimony for explosions in NY is disregarded?  I'm not saying explosives were used.....I'm only pointing out the double standards for examining evidence.


----------



## Liability (Dec 22, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



Bullshit, bent tight.

There are videotapes of the first Tower to fall on 9/11/2001 taken from a fucking close distance and with sound.  They have been shared right here, already, on this very Board.  There is no evidence of the use of explosives in that video.  None.  It was even juxtaposed with a tape of another tall building which had been explosively imploded.  The series of detonations were fucking totally clear both visually AND aurally in the example of the latter building being taken down.  Not a HINT of explosives is found in the former videotape, however.

You are pretending that you are only "asking questions," but everybody and his Dutch uncle knows what you are really saying.  Yes, you are just that transparent.

As to the "question" of eyewitnesses at the Pentagon observing a plane moving at 500 mph (estimated speed), SOME of the witnesses are experienced with planes and jets.  And if you view a videotape of the side of the Pentagon at the intant just before it was struck and the instant when it was struck, the plane cannot actually be made out -- not even in a single frame.  But so what?  If you were there and looking in the general area and heard the plane coming in, you would have more time to make out what the "object" was.  In light of the fact that the parts of the hijacked plane were recoverd and identified from that crash site, the eyewitness accounts are more than sufficiently corroborated.  In fact, there is no rational basis to even be "asking" your faux "questions."


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 22, 2009)

Liability said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...




You're a fucking idiot.  Did you not see where I clearly said I don't claim explosives were used?  I've even posted videos arguing against an OP that stated it had evidence explosives were used you useless cry baby.  I was simply pointing out how OCTAs will use one set of evidence (eyewitnesses) in one case and ignore them altogether depending on the issue.   Goodness you have to be one of the dumbest fucks with internet access.


----------



## Liability (Dec 22, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



You are a fucking idiot and dissembler.  As I clearly stated, we all see that YOU are "just" supposedly "asking questions."  

Your questions are fraudulent as are you.

You fucking imbecile liar.

My post disproved YOUR moronic contention.

Sometimes (and under some circumstances, you retard) it is perfectly legitimate to rely on eyewitness observations.

At other times (and under other circumstances) it isn't a good idea at all.  It all depends on the circumstances, really.l

You can pretend otherwise, but that's only becausee you are incredibly stupid and wholly dishonest, ya shithead.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 22, 2009)

Liability said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



I see the season has impacted you.  It was very generous of you to further reinforce the last line of my last post.


----------



## Liability (Dec 22, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Nah.  You are merely persisting in proving that my assessment of you is entirely correct. You are nothing but a liar and a fucking imbecile.

And you are far too stupid and dishonest to see it or admit it.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 22, 2009)

Liability said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...




Hahahahahahaha.........fucking turds like you truly believe your personal views about others carry weight.  Wake up you fucking ****.


----------



## Liability (Dec 22, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



But smelly assholes like you don't believe your personal views about others carry weight?    You just write asshole posts (like the quoted one) for no particular reason whatsoever? 



You truly are one of the dumbest pieces of lying shit to infest the USMB, you lying rancid diseased twat.

Go visit Contumacious or Yukon and claim to be 12 years old.  They'll be more than happy to satisfy your urge to have some more dick crammed up your asshole, you pathetic fucktard.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 22, 2009)

Liability said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...




Do you have flood insurance or are you confident of always having enough kleenex on hand to mop your crying tears?


----------



## rdean (Dec 22, 2009)

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xM8E-CogkYE[/ame]

You see, people keep wondering why there are no pieces of plane visible.


----------



## Liability (Dec 22, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Awww.  Poor widdle poo poo.  Now you are reduced to projecting.  Dry your eyes, ya ignorant, arrogant, dishonest, stupid candyass pussy-boi.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 22, 2009)

rdean said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xM8E-CogkYE
> 
> You see, people keep wondering why there are no pieces of plane visible.




Are you serious?  Do you know what the size differences are between an F4 and 757?  The tail section of a 757 is about three times higher than the F4.  The wingspan of an F4 is 38 feet.  The length of an F4 is 63 feet.  The F4 seats 2 people.  The 757 seats about TWO HUNDRED people.  The wingspan of the 757 is about 125 feet.  The length is about 155 feet.  You just tried to compare a BB to the moon as evidence the OCT is true.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 22, 2009)

Liability said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



Wow.  ***** like you do repeat whatever you hear.  Why don't you impress us all again with your investigative skills like you did with Operation Northwoods?  You know, explain how four words were sufficient evidence the whole thing was bogus and how conspirators inside the Pentagon planted all the documents to try and give the Truther movement a boost.  It must have really embarrassed the hell out of you when it was shown the ON documents were declassified long before 9E happened.  Oh yes, using ON as an example, it's perfectly clear where your expertise and keen mind play vital roles in assessing information. 

ROTFL!   Fucking ***** like you forget you make dumbass claims like that then call others wacko?  ROTFL!


----------



## rdean (Dec 22, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xM8E-CogkYE
> ...



Not only was the 757 going hundreds of miles per hour, but it was going down, meaning it was going even faster.  The F4 is build to handle 10 times the stress because of it's speed and manuverability meaning it would be a much more difficult plane to smash into tiny pieces.  Just because a 757 is "bigger" doesn't mean the pieces would be "bigger"?
Think about it.


----------



## Toro (Dec 22, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> The first step is separate the bullshit from the actual facts.  Example: eyewitnesses of the plane.  The OCT said it hit the Pent at 500+ miles per hour.  How reliable can eyewitness testimony be on an object moving that fast that low to the ground?  Why is it eyewitness testimony on the Pentagon is acceptable as proof it was 77 but eyewitness testimony for explosions in NY is disregarded?  I'm not saying explosives were used.....I'm only pointing out the double standards for examining evidence.



We all saw the planes fly in the WTC.  Many people in the vicinity saw the planes fly into the Pentagon.  Why wouldn't people see planes flying into the Pentagon?  At a distance, it is not difficult to see a fast moving object.

There are hundreds of people who saw a plane flying low and into the Pentagon.  Not 10 or 20.  Hundreds.


----------



## Liability (Dec 22, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> * * * *
> 
> Wow.  ***** like you do repeat whatever you hear.



Twat did you say, assbite?  You **** be understood.  You must have an infuckshun in your vocal cords.   Probably comes from sucking too much Yukon dick.

Try again to say something intelligent -- for once.



CurveLight said:


> * * * *



I took the liberty of snipping the balance of your irrational vile blathering banter.


----------



## HUGGY (Dec 22, 2009)

Toro said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > The first step is separate the bullshit from the actual facts.  Example: eyewitnesses of the plane.  The OCT said it hit the Pent at 500+ miles per hour.  How reliable can eyewitness testimony be on an object moving that fast that low to the ground?  Why is it eyewitness testimony on the Pentagon is acceptable as proof it was 77 but eyewitness testimony for explosions in NY is disregarded?  I'm not saying explosives were used.....I'm only pointing out the double standards for examining evidence.
> ...



Was this one of your witnesses?

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFK1rvL2NoQ[/ame]


----------



## Fizz (Dec 22, 2009)

this guy did

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_H8CinIWltY&feature=related[/ame]

and this one...

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmMBS9xoctQ&NR=1[/ame]

and this guy

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjJxxrCxMpk&feature=related[/ame]


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 22, 2009)

rdean said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...




Okay.  Clearly you are special.  Go to any aviation site or anywhere else where pilots and experts talk about plane crashes.  I'm not capable of the patience necessary for explaining why it's ridiculous to compare an f4 to a fucking 757 crash.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 22, 2009)

Liability said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > * * * *
> ...




Wow.  ***** like you do repeat whatever you hear.  Why don't you impress us all again with your investigative skills like you did with Operation Northwoods?  You know, explain how four words were sufficient evidence the whole thing was bogus and how conspirators inside the Pentagon planted all the documents to try and give the Truther movement a boost.  It must have really embarrassed the hell out of you when it was shown the ON documents were declassified long before 9E happened.  Oh yes, using ON as an example, it's perfectly clear where your expertise and keen mind play vital roles in assessing information. 

ROTFL!   Fucking ***** like you forget you make dumbass claims like that then call others wacko?  ROTFL!


----------



## Liability (Dec 22, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Since the fucktardedly insipid and unoriginal cumsucking shitstain, bent tight, merely repeated itself, I took the liberty of snipping the shit-sucker's latest responsive bleatings.

It is still too moronic for words.  That's why it **** be understood.  It should just get back to sucking Yukon's dick.


----------



## rdean (Dec 22, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



I know that when some people are proven wrong, they swear and rant, as if that could suddenly make them right.  Well, it doesn't.  It demonstrates that they understand they have lost the debate.

Generally, at a plane crash, whoever was flying the plane was trying to "land the plane" with as little damage as possible.  

Much different than dive bombing the plane, going hundreds of miles per hour, directly into a building.  Can you understand the difference?


----------



## eots (Dec 22, 2009)

rdean said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xM8E-CogkYE
> 
> You see, people keep wondering why there are no pieces of plane visible.



well monkeyboy for one thing that is a small fighter...not a jumbo jet and for another where is the hole in the concrete...where is even a partial hole in the concrete....and these [people you speak of that wonder why they are so little pieces visible include military and commercial crash investigators


----------



## candycorn (Dec 22, 2009)

rdean said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xM8E-CogkYE
> 
> You see, people keep wondering why there are no pieces of plane visible.



That video shows the impact of a very sturdy plane hitting a hardened target.  9/11/01 in VA shows a less sturdy plane hitting a somewhat-hardened-target.  The results were the same.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 22, 2009)

Liability said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



Wow.  ***** like you do repeat whatever you hear.  Why don't you impress us all again with your investigative skills like you did with Operation Northwoods?  You know, explain how four words were sufficient evidence the whole thing was bogus and how conspirators inside the Pentagon planted all the documents to try and give the Truther movement a boost.  It must have really embarrassed the hell out of you when it was shown the ON documents were declassified long before 9E happened.  Oh yes, using ON as an example, it's perfectly clear where your expertise and keen mind play vital roles in assessing information. 

ROTFL!   Fucking ***** like you forget you make dumbass claims like that then call others wacko?  ROTFL!


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 22, 2009)

rdean said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...




It's such a stupid fucking comparison.  Can you provide any evidence it is a valid comparison?  No, because it's so fucking dumb.  This is no less idiotic than when some truthers pointed to the b-25 that hit the Empire building as evidence explosives were used in New York.


----------



## Liability (Dec 22, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> * * * *




I took the liberty of snipping the your irrational vile blathering banter when you chose to _again_ just copy and paste your own mindless crap!  

No need to thnk me!


----------



## candycorn (Dec 22, 2009)

Liability said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > * * * *
> ...



You'll note his rhetoric is getting more and more bizarre.

First it was phonecalls and his standard for whether they took place or not is whether he was conferenced in on it. 

Now he is mentioning northwoods and all of the other twoofer greatest hits.

He's only 2 degrees away from blaming the Jews.  Watch, he'll get there.


----------



## Liability (Dec 22, 2009)

candycorn said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



For a guy so in love with all manner of conspiracy nonsense, he sure gets *set OFF* when I suggest that the Op'n Northwoods document is a fraud.



He keeps coming back to that one!

He's all obsessed and shit!


----------



## eots (Dec 22, 2009)

candycorn said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



*cuntycorn*


----------



## eots (Dec 22, 2009)

Liability said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



kind of like you with all you talk of donkeys male ejaculation ect,,,talk about obsessed...whats up with that ??


----------



## Liability (Dec 22, 2009)

eots said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



Why do you prattle on so?  We can all see that you are unable to make a convincing case concerning your lunatic conspiracy theories.  

So, trying to deflect attention is not gonna help you.

You suck dead donkey dick.  That's all.


----------



## rdean (Dec 22, 2009)

candycorn said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xM8E-CogkYE
> ...



Thank you.


----------



## rdean (Dec 22, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



I'm sorry, I should have translated into a language you could understand.  A language more "simple".  Ok, let me try.

Listen the f*ck up sh*t for brains, scientists use small f*cking pools to study big *ss waves.  Looking at the f*cking crash sh*thead of a much smaller plane d*mb*ss can make a very good f*cking comparison to a big *ss crash of a huge f*cking plane toadstool.

Could you understand that?  It was more "simple".  Perfect for a "simpleton".


----------



## eots (Dec 22, 2009)

rdean said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



your ludicrous example is completely flawed and proves nothing except maybe a plane wont punch a hole through thick concrete


----------



## rdean (Dec 22, 2009)

eots said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



You are wrong.  

Picture this.

Big plane flying hundreds of miles per hour into huge concrete and brick building.  Not much debris left larger than an apple.The jet didn't go just into the wall, it was at an angle.  It went into the ground.  The ground that didn't move.  Get this, much like a concrete wall.  Think "FOUNDATION".

Plane a quarter the size going hundreds of miles per hour into a concrete wall.  Not much debris left larger than an apple.  
Now get this.  The smaller plane was a fighter jet.  That means that it was actually many times stronger.  Yes, the materials that make up the smaller jet were many times stronger.  Because it's faster, has more g-force applied to it when turning and diving.

It's so simple to understand.

Funny how the ignorant protect their ignorance.  I guess it's all they have to hold on to.


----------



## Fizz (Dec 22, 2009)

eots said:


> your ludicrous example is completely flawed and proves nothing except maybe a plane wont punch a hole through thick concrete



its ludicrous because YOU say it is?

well there's proof. no need to discuss it any further. eots says it is ludicrous so therefore it must be.


(you are a jackass)


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 23, 2009)

Liability said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > * * * *
> ...




Why don't you impress us all again with your investigative skills like you did with Operation Northwoods?  You know, explain how four words were sufficient evidence the whole thing was bogus and how conspirators inside the Pentagon planted all the documents to try and give the Truther movement a boost.  It must have really embarrassed the hell out of you when it was shown the ON documents were declassified long before 9E happened.  Oh yes, using ON as an example, it's perfectly clear where your expertise and keen mind play vital roles in assessing information.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 23, 2009)

candycorn said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...




I didn't bring up Operation Northwoods.  Great job on ignoring liability's wacked conspiracy theory the ON documents were planted inside the Pentagon.  Got any other genius observations?


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 23, 2009)

Liability said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



You have absolutely no legitimate reason to claim the ON docs are frauds.  I'm posting what you said to remind everyone you are not exactly capable of simple critical thinking and when you have nothing to offer you'll say anything regardless of how fucking dumb it is......like saying 4 little words is enough to create a whole fucking conspiracy of planted docs inside the pentagon.  Lol


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 23, 2009)

rdean said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...




So your comparison to an F4 is apparently based on your own ignorance.  I take that back.  You probably got the idea from another website and without checking it out, decided to repeat the dumb shit.  You aren't the first moron who's tried to pass off that childish game.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 23, 2009)

rdean said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...




You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about and you prove this every time you simply say others are dumb if they don't understand your attempted comparison.  I've asked for evidence to validate the comparison but you provided none and I suspect you will not provide any now, or ever.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 23, 2009)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > your ludicrous example is completely flawed and proves nothing except maybe a plane wont punch a hole through thick concrete
> ...




Common sense shows why it's a stupid comparison.  The F4 weighs about 15 tons.  The 757-200 is almost 100 tons.  Only fucking OCTA assholes could try and claim that is a legitimate comparison.


----------



## Fizz (Dec 23, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



whose common sense did you borrow?? because we all know that you dont have any of your own. 

why dont you give us all a better comparison? 

so basically your claim is that an F4 weighs 15 tons and a 757 weighs 100 tons... therefore more energy is released by the F4 upon crashing?


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 23, 2009)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...




You idiotic dumb fucking ****.  You aren't even worth the energy.


----------



## Liability (Dec 23, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Are you ducking that post because somebody clued you in on the importance of mass and speed in this equation?   Or are you merely reverting to your standard form of being a pussy?


----------



## candycorn (Dec 23, 2009)

Liability said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



I forget the term but wouldn't "negative space" in a structure account of how much of it is left?  For example, if you take a large object like a 757 with all of the open air space ofr passengers, crew, luggage, etc... it will disintegrate to a greater degree than something like an F4 that has less negative space for such things?  

In other words, in terms of impact, the more negative space the object has, the less likely it is to remain intact because, well, the space between structural enhancements for one thing.?  Maybe, kinda, sorta.  

I confess I slept through more than one science class in college.


----------



## Liability (Dec 23, 2009)

candycorn said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



There are all kinds of factors, no doubt.

If I jump off a diving board into a pool, I don't "splatter."

But if a plane goes down (more or less vertically) at 500+ mph into the water, it does splatter and shatter and disintegrate pretty much in the same way that it would had it hit a reinforced concrete wall.  So yes, I think you might be on to something.

This will all sail right the fuck over _bent tight's_ pin head.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 23, 2009)

Liability said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...




Lol....you stupid bitch.  Why don't you tell us how hearsay evidence being put on record means it is no longer hearsay evidence?  You can't even understand that and you want to dabble in physics?  Rotfl!  Nobody here has shown any evidence a fucking 200 passenger almost 100 ton airliner would disintegrate on impact.  There are many aviation experts.....you know.....qualified....who have explained why it's ridiculous to say 77 basically vaporized.  It's so fucking dumb to compare an f4 to a 757 I'm embarrassed to have discussed it even this much.  Why don't you impress all some more with your theory of how the Northwoods documents were planted inside the Pentagon?  Lol....you dumb fuck.


----------



## candycorn (Dec 23, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> I'm embarrassed



You should be.  I imagine your parents aren't proud of you either.
Sorry you have to work Christmas.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 23, 2009)

Liability said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...




"More or less vertically".   ROTFL!  You don't even know the flight path for 77!  Not.  Surprised.


----------



## Liability (Dec 23, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



Yes.  I do.

That ridiculous phrase "on a holiday" is a fucking good clue that something is rotten in Denmark.

In fact, that phrase standing alone is a better reason to suspect that something might be fraudulent about that Op'n Northwoods document than every other thing you and your stupid ilk comes up with to argue that the 9/11/2001 atrocities "may have been" caused by elements within the U.S. Government.

Countdown to the lying scum-bag _bent' tight's_ familiar dishonest refrain, "I'm only asking questions . . ." in 5

4

3

2 . . .


----------



## Liability (Dec 23, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...




It taint my fault that you are too ignorant to discuss the term "hearsay" with ANY grasp of what it means.


You ignorance and arrogance are boundless.


----------



## Fizz (Dec 23, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> You idiotic dumb fucking ****.  You aren't even worth the energy.



too chickenshit to answer the question!!


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 23, 2009)

candycorn said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > I'm embarrassed
> ...




Thank you for showing you're so pathetic you have re-write posts just to have something to say.  ****.


----------



## Liability (Dec 23, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



I wasn't even talking about Flt. 77, you fucktarded moron.  (Did you think that Flt. 77 crashed into a body of water?)  

Good God in Heaven!  _Bent tight_ is truly one of the most retarded imbeciles posting at USMB!


----------



## Fizz (Dec 23, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



you thought he was talking about 77!! 

did flight 77 hit a swimming pool at the pentagon or something?!! 

you fucking homo moron!!!!


----------



## GHook93 (Dec 23, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Ok Sunniman and Huggy explain where flight 77 went? How all the aircraft debris body parts and material got in the pentagon. Don't expect any help from troofers like Eots cause he has no idea according to him. Terrel will just make the claim there was never a flight to begin with.
> 
> If that is your claim explain how all the crew and passengers died and parts and bodies appeared in the Pentagon.



Simple answer- DA JOOOSSSS! 

The Jews first shot a missile from Israel at the Pentagon disguised it as an airplane. Then they immediately scattered airplane remains all over the pentagon. Then they put body parts of all the gentiles they have captured (originally these gentiles were captured so their blood could be squeezed out and used for their Demon Matzoh) all over the Pentagon. 

How were they able to get away with this? Simple answer -DA ZOG!


----------



## Toro (Dec 23, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Lol....you stupid bitch.  Why don't you tell us how hearsay evidence being put on record means it is no longer hearsay evidence?  You can't even understand that and you want to dabble in physics?  Rotfl!  Nobody here has shown any evidence a fucking 200 passenger almost 100 ton airliner would disintegrate on impact.  There are many aviation experts.....you know.....qualified....who have explained why it's ridiculous to say 77 basically vaporized.  It's so fucking dumb to compare an f4 to a 757 I'm embarrassed to have discussed it even this much.  Why don't you impress all some more with your theory of how the Northwoods documents were planted inside the Pentagon?  Lol....you dumb fuck.



Whether or not it "disintegrated," scientists at Purdue created a computer simulation of how the plane crashed and blew up inside the Pentagon.

CGVLAB @ Purdue University


----------



## rdean (Dec 23, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Curvelight is saying, "In other words, I don't know.  Quit challenging me.  You are making me look dumb".


----------



## candycorn (Dec 23, 2009)

rdean said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



He's doing fine by himself.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 23, 2009)

rdean said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



You fucking idiotic ****.  It's your claim and you are the one responsible for supporting it.  You haven't even tried to support it.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 23, 2009)

Liability said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...




You are one pathetic ****.  You responded to rdean's attempted analogy by saying:

(liability)
"But if a plane goes down (more or less vertically) at 500+ mph into the water, it does splatter and shatter and disintegrate pretty much in the same way that it would had it hit a reinforced concrete wall.  So yes, I think you might be on to something."


Yet you want to pretend you weren't talking about flight 77....holy shit you're a fucking stupid ****.


----------



## Fizz (Dec 23, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> You fucking idiotic ****.  It's your claim and you are the one responsible for supporting it.  You haven't even tried to support it.



what does he need to support, jackass? its a plane crashing into a wall and being almost completely disintegrated.

are you challenging that? are you saying its irrelevant? if you are then support YOUR fucking claims!!


----------



## Fizz (Dec 23, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Yet you want to pretend you weren't talking about flight 77....holy shit you're a fucking stupid ****.


the only fucking moron that thinks that a plane crashing into water is describing the pentagon crash is you!! 


had a dick up your ass all night again causing more brain damage?!!


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 23, 2009)

Toro said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Lol....you stupid bitch.  Why don't you tell us how hearsay evidence being put on record means it is no longer hearsay evidence?  You can't even understand that and you want to dabble in physics?  Rotfl!  Nobody here has shown any evidence a fucking 200 passenger almost 100 ton airliner would disintegrate on impact.  There are many aviation experts.....you know.....qualified....who have explained why it's ridiculous to say 77 basically vaporized.  It's so fucking dumb to compare an f4 to a 757 I'm embarrassed to have discussed it even this much.  Why don't you impress all some more with your theory of how the Northwoods documents were planted inside the Pentagon?  Lol....you dumb fuck.
> ...




Lol......try to keep up.  It looks like you haven't read why that purdue simulation is not as accurate as you are hoping.


----------



## Dante (Dec 23, 2009)

eots said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


There is a-l-w-a-y-s conflicting testimony from eyewitnesses, so what? D'oh!

Investigations sort out the conflicting stories. What is true is people saw a plane crash into the building.

too bad you keep playing the fools here.

there is no way you believe a plane did not hit the Pentagon


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 23, 2009)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Yet you want to pretend you weren't talking about flight 77....holy shit you're a fucking stupid ****.
> ...




You stupid cow ass licking ****.  Read again what he said and TRY to pay attention:

(liability)
"But if a plane goes down (more or less vertically) at 500+ mph into the water, it does splatter and shatter and disintegrate pretty much in the same way that it would had it hit a reinforced concrete wall."


Looks like you're back to your habit of only paying attention to PARTS of sentences instead of the whole thing.  You've been pwned so many fucking times you now just say I'm wrong just to say.  You know none of these other ***** have the balls to be honest so why not lie some more?  You fucking shitbag......


----------



## Fizz (Dec 23, 2009)

great video simulation of pentagon crash after the flight 93 communications. 

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ae63iivRHt8[/ame]


----------



## Fizz (Dec 23, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> You stupid cow ass licking ****.  Read again what he said and TRY to pay attention:
> 
> (liability)
> "But if a plane goes down (more or less vertically) at 500+ mph into the water, it does splatter and shatter and disintegrate pretty much in the same way that it would had it hit a reinforced concrete wall."
> ...



HAHAHAHAhaha!!! and you STILL think he is describing the pentagon crash?!!! HAHAHAHAhahahaha 

you want to talk about only paying attention to parts of a post how about reading his entire post. everything he said is 100% correct including the part about it sailing right over your head!!


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 23, 2009)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > You fucking idiotic ****.  It's your claim and you are the one responsible for supporting it.  You haven't even tried to support it.
> ...



He needs to demonstrate it is a respectable analogy and he has not even attempted to do that.  Congratulations, this is one of the few posts where you aren't talking about a dick up a guy's ass.  But I'm sure you'll keep talking about it because you're to dishonest and dumb to discuss 9E on any intelligible level.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 23, 2009)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > You stupid cow ass licking ****.  Read again what he said and TRY to pay attention:
> ...




Like I figured, you completely ignored where he said:

"But if a plane goes down (more or less vertically) at 500+ mph into the water, it does splatter and shatter and disintegrate pretty much in the same way that it would had it hit a reinforced concrete wall."


So what reinforced wall is he talking about being hit by a plane at 500mph?  You fucking stupid ****.


----------



## Toro (Dec 23, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Feel free to post why it is not accurate.


----------



## Fizz (Dec 23, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



NONE you fucking moron!! you really have a reading comprehension problem. he is talking about it hitting WATER!!


----------



## Liability (Dec 23, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



As I have noted, _bent tight_ actually is too fucking severly retarded to grasp any of this. 



A plane crashing straight down into water will pretty much disintierate just as a plane striking a reinforced concrete wall will disintigrate.  And yet water is not as "solid" as a wall.

For those who are not severely retarded (leaving bent tight out), the point was that there ARE a bunch of physical reasons involved in explaining what happened to the planes.

But, I have to admit, it is pretty funny watching _bent tight_ flail around like the severely retarded fucktard he is.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 23, 2009)

Liability said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...




You stupid ****.  You tried to make an argument about what others "think" regarding a large fast moving object hitting a body of water.  Your statement about a plane moving at 500mph into a reinforced concrete wall is clearly a reference to the pentagon but you won't be honest and admit that because you're too much of a cowardly ****.


----------



## Liability (Dec 23, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



You have a terrific point.  

Out of curiosiyt, in your expert opinion, _bent tight_, how fast was the plane that struck the Pentagon moving at the moment of impact?


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 23, 2009)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...




I see you are still ignoring half of his sentence......you know.....the part that mentions a plane hitting a concrete reinforced wall at 500mph.  You will keep ignoring it because you are a useless dirty diaper sucking tampon reject that doesn't have the first clue.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 23, 2009)

Liability said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...




Why don't you tell us all how Operation Northwoods was really nothing but documents planted to boost the truther movement?  C'mon Einstein!  That's always good for a laugh!  You fucking invent that wacked out theory but want to pretend you can speculate on the physics of a commercial plane crash?  Rotfl.


----------



## Terral (Dec 23, 2009)

Greetings to All:

This thread is loaded down with little more than ad hominem BS by a bunch of fools with no more sense than a box of rocks (#7-10). The Topic is *"So No Plane Hit The Pentagon?"* The Retired Guy has no hypothesis to support with any evidence and no conclusions, which is the reason he is ASKING A QUESTION. 







The Official Cover Story Stooges have NO EVIDENCE that AA77 crashed into the Pentagon, which would include a 60-ton Titanium Frame, Two 6-ton Rolls-Royce Engines, more than 200 seats, massive wing sections, indestructible landing gear, hundreds of time-change parts, cargo and a tail section that stands more than 40 feet tall on the tarmac. These IDIOTS try to pass off a few pounds of evidence ...






... as a crashed 100-ton Jetliner, then think shouting names makes a case for the Official Cover Story LIE. 






This is a picture of the E-ring Wall at the Column 14 location (center of this hole) where these Official Cover Story Idiots want you to believe that a real 100-ton Jetliner crashed going 530 miles per hour!!!! Look at the cable spools standing over the heads of the men that stand directly in the flight path of the mythical AA77 that NEVER CRASHED HERE. The Official Cover Story says that AA77 crashed into this wall at a 45-degree angle from your right ...






... BUT, all of these construction trailers are standing directly in the flight path of the starboard wing!!!! 






The distance from the outer E-ring wall to the inner C-ring wall is only 220 feet. At 530 miles per hour, the 100-ton Jetliner would have traveled exactly .39 seconds before the 60-ton frame and those two 6-ton Rolls-Royce Engines came out the rear C-ring wall!






And yet, all we have is a little 8 to 10-feet diameter hole in the rear C-ring wall that says NO 100-TON JETLINER CRASHED HERE. 

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTJehfQkuyE"]Official Cover Story Debunked!!!![/ame]

Yes. These Official Cover Story Stooges 'can' come out to this fine USMB Conspiracy Theories Forum and call people names and act like little children, but how many of them can show you one picture of AA77 or *Flight 93* (my Topic) crashed ANYWHERE? None of them ...

GL,

Terral


----------



## Fizz (Dec 23, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



holy fuck!! you really cant comprehend what you read!! how many fucking planes is he talking about? ONE!!! where is it crashing??? INTO WATER!!!!

and here comes the part you really seem to have trouble with.......

what is the reaction when it hits? AS IF IT HAD HIT CONCRETE.

if i was your high school english teacher i would smack the shit out of you for being such a jackass.


----------



## Liability (Dec 23, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


Zzz.

Whenever you get "stuck," and unable to offer a rational reply, you always deflect.

I have discussed my opinion on the meaningless* Op'n Northwoods shit more than enough.

Now, how fast was the plane that struck the Pentagon on 9/11/2001 moving in your expert opinion?

Or is  that just another question you'd prefer to dodge forever?


_______________________
*  Meaningless for a number of reasons, including the fact that it was rejected and the fact that there is ZERO evidence that it was ever implemented in any way at any later time.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 23, 2009)

Let's watch the hypocrisy of the OCTA *****......oh....I'm sorry......I mean *****!  Rdean and many others find it reasonable to compare an F4 hitting a wall with a 757 doing the same action.  So let's apply that logic to the Towers being hit by planes:



"At 9:49 a.m., the ten-ton, B-25 bomber smashed into the north side of the Empire State Building. The majority of the plane hit the 79th floor, creating a hole in the building eighteen feet wide and twenty feet high. The plane's high-octane fuel exploded, hurtling flames down the side of the building and inside through hallways and stairwells all the way down to the 75th floor."
Plane That Crashed Into the Empire State Building


By OCTA logic, since the Empire building didn't collapse that is proof explosives were used on 9E!  Hey, in both cases planes crashed into skyscrapers at almost the exact same time of day at near the exact say floors.  Have fun you fucking dumbass *****.


----------



## Liability (Dec 23, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Let's watch the hypocrisy of the OCTA *****......oh....I'm sorry......I mean *****!  Rdean and many others find it reasonable to compare an F4 hitting a wall with a 757 doing the same action.  So let's apply that logic to the Towers being hit by planes:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Too many fallacies, too little time.

The plane which struck the Empire State Building did not hit it forcefully enough to (in effect) disintegrate.

Among other things, this ought to tell even a moron like the severely retarded bent tight that the plane was not travelling at nearly the same speed as the jet plane the struck the Pentagon.

You cannot validly claim to be using the logic of your opponents when YOU have no capacity FOR the use of logic and your would-be analogy is crippled by the differences in the two examples.

But, here's a PARTIAL explanation:



> * * * *
> The B-25 that struck the Empire State Building weighed approximately 21,500 lb (9,760 kg) and was traveling around 200 mph (320 km/h). The *kinetic energy it created in the collision was about 30 million ft-lb (40 million Joules).*
> 
> The twin towers of the World Trade Center, by comparison, were struck by Boeing 767 airliners traveling over twice as fast and weighing nearly 15 times as much as a B-25. *The energy of impact for the two planes ranged from 2 billion ft-lb (2.6 billion Joules) to 3 billion ft-lb (4.1 billion Joules), some 60 to 100 times greater than that absorbed by the Empire State Building.* This estimate is also conservative since it does not account for the energy released by the exploding jet fuel, which greatly exceeded the energy released by the much smaller B-25 fuel supply as well. The greater kinetic energy allowed the 767 aircraft to penetrate much further into the twin towers than the B-25 was able to do at the Empire State Building. Most of the B-25 impact was absorbed by the building's exterior wall leaving very little to damage the interior structure. The 767 impacts, however, not only produced gaping holes in the WTC exterior but also destroyed much of the structural core at the center of each tower.  * * * *


 Aerospaceweb.org | Ask Us - B-25 Empire State Building Collision


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 23, 2009)

Toro said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...





"In this paper it is explained how the authors simulated the performance of WTC-1 during "the impact of American Airlines Flight 77". Quite a feat, one might say, considering that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon."
Letter to Purdue President Córdova


"The animation released by Purdue University actually omits the engines from the airframe and does not continue vertical stabilizer path, most likey due to the fact they cannot account for the lack of damage observed at the pentagon from these heavy airframe structures."
Pentagon Foundation Damage


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 23, 2009)

Liability said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Let's watch the hypocrisy of the OCTA *****......oh....I'm sorry......I mean *****!  Rdean and many others find it reasonable to compare an F4 hitting a wall with a 757 doing the same action.  So let's apply that logic to the Towers being hit by planes:
> ...




You are a sooper stupid mother fucker.  I wasn't literally making the comparison.  That is why I said "according to OCTA logic."  I bring up your ON bullshit to show how much of hypocrite you are......and obvious lack of brain juice.


----------



## Liability (Dec 23, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



And the response was to conclusively demonstrate that your moronic projections about what others claim or believe carry no weight whatsoever, you bombastic retard.

Further, I couldn't give a rat's ass about your view concerning my disbelief in the validity of the Op'n Northfraud document.

It is funny to me that you deride ANYONE'S suspeicion about the autheticity of such a document when YOU engage in virulent conspiracy theorizing on far less information.

Oh wait.  I almost forgot your pathetically transparent lie, "I'm just asking questions!"  

Sure.

You are a complete fraud as well as a fucking retard.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 23, 2009)

Liability said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...




Is this why you love the net? Cause you get to act like a tough guy?  Now do the predictable bullshit and scream projection.  You claim I doubt 9E based on less information that you doubting the ON documents.  You are one stupid fucking ****.  The only reason you have given for doubting the ON documents is because of the phrase "off on a holiday."  That's it!  Rotfl......fucking twat.


----------



## Toro (Dec 23, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> "In this paper it is explained how the authors simulated the performance of WTC-1 during "the impact of American Airlines Flight 77". Quite a feat, one might say, considering that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon."
> Letter to Purdue President Córdova



This guy's argument is that the simulation contradicts the official report, and that is both good and bad to him - it is good when it supports his beliefs that the NIST report is wrong but it is bad when it is not researched in as much detail as the official report. So the simulation is flawed and we can ignore it because it excludes details from the official report (which is also flawed) BUT it isn't so flawed that we can use it to further his belief that it contradicts the official report.  He conveniently uses it when it supports his thesis and dismisses when it does not.

As to how _exactly_ the Pentagon collapsed, I have no idea.  Maybe he is correct that the simulation contradicts the official report.  However, all I care about is whether or not a plane hit the Pentagon.  If people want to pick at the conclusion on how the Pentagon collapsed, fine by me.

However, the guys loses a lot of credibility by making outrageous statements about the author and the wars in Asia.



> You might start with Purdue's Mete Sozen, a long time leader of official investigations for terrorist acts, and a mainstay of "expert" testimony for those supporting Bush's war of terror. Professor Sozen also happens to be the chairman of a US Department of Defense program, which puts him among the least likely people to objectively judge the scientific basis for the origins of this war. *But my guess is that Mete Sozen is more than just a simple war profiteer, and may have more sinister personal reasons for promoting the Bush Administration's genocide for oil program.*



This paragraph pretty much says it all about the author of this piece, Kevin Ryan.  He not only says that the academics' work is tainted because he is a "war profiteer" but then makes sinister accusations about the author.  This is rank speculation and character assassination, and discredits Ryan as his motives are clearly tainted.  He also has made a highly political statement about the reasons for the wars in Asia, demonstrating his extreme political bias.  It is no surprise that he would come to the conclusion to support his pre-conceived worldview.   Thus, while trying to make his case why the authors of the simulation should not be trusted, he exposes himself as  extremely biased and who he himself cannot be trusted.

BTW, the Purdue researchers were subject to threats after they released their video.

The Exponent - Purdue's Student Newspaper



> "The animation released by Purdue University actually omits the engines from the airframe and does not continue vertical stabilizer path, most likey due to the fact they cannot account for the lack of damage observed at the pentagon from these heavy airframe structures."
> Pentagon Foundation Damage



Here is the Purdue video.

Pentagon Crash, Digital Render from Purdue University &bull; videosift.com

As you can see, the simulation does show the engine going into the Pentagon.  Then the video strips away all but the body of the plane and the columns in the Pentagon.  The quote from 9/11 Pilots for Truth is almost certainly wrong, as one can see in the quote from Mozen himself.



> "They think the animation explains the collapse," Sozen said. "Actually it explains how the structure withstood the impact. The fire brought the building down. But that happened after our coverage."



Again, the Pilots for 9/11 Truth make an unsubstantiated claim based on speculation when they misunderstand the motives of the academics.  The reason why they strip out all but the body of the plane and the columns in the Pentagon isn't to obscure information about damage, but instead to show how the Pentagon remained standing.


----------



## Liability (Dec 23, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Hey rancid twat breath (yes, that means you, _bent tight_):
You are indeed a fucking moron imbecile shiotforbrain cockgobbler.  But enough about you.

Yes, shithead, I DO doubt the motherfucking Op' Northfraud document.  

But unlike you, ya diseased pussy stank, I at least have acknowledged that it is within the realm of possibility that the fucking stupid REJECTED document was real.  I deem that unlikely, but it is still possible.  And?  Even if it true, so what?  It was --pssst -- REJECTED.


Now, back ON topic (to your horror).

You are STILL ducking, I see.

Ya wuss.


----------



## eots (Dec 23, 2009)

Liability said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



what a freak...you really need some help...this cant be healthy for you


----------



## Liability (Dec 23, 2009)

eots said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



LOL!  ROFLMFAO!

A "lecture" on mental health from a completely lost conpiracy shithead!  



Too funny!


----------



## eots (Dec 23, 2009)

Liability said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



I'm glad it brought a little ray of sun into your bleakness


----------



## Liability (Dec 23, 2009)

eots said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...





My bleakness?

You poor deluded stupid asslicker.  I'm not the one living in a world of nightmarish paranoia.  That would be you and your fellow urgently-distubed cockgobbler "Troofer" friends.

Bleankness?

You are a laugh a minute, ya loopey shithead.


----------



## rdean (Dec 23, 2009)

Terral said:


> Greetings to All:
> 
> This thread is loaded down with little more than ad hominem BS by a bunch of fools with no more sense than a box of rocks (#7-10). The Topic is *"So No Plane Hit The Pentagon?"* The Retired Guy has no hypothesis to support with any evidence and no conclusions, which is the reason he is ASKING A QUESTION.
> 
> ...



This video goes on and on about pristine grass in front of the building and how the wings missed the windows on either side and the fancy flying needed.  

Well, if the plane came down like in this picture, you wouldn't need fancy flying.  You wouldn't scuff the grass.  And you would most definitly miss the windows.











The plane could have been going sideways.  For sure, it would have left a much smaller footprint.


----------



## eots (Dec 24, 2009)

this is the most profoundly idiotic thing I have ever seen...


----------



## eots (Dec 24, 2009)

Liability said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



paranoia.??..you mean like thinking the islamofascist is lurking around every corner hatin ya for yer freedumbs...LOL..LOL...LOL


----------



## Liability (Dec 24, 2009)

eots said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



No no, stupid.  In the first place, I do not imagine -- much less fear -- Islamoshitfuckers hiding around any corners here.   And I am not especially interested in "why" the Islamoshitfuckers hate us.  I am a bit concerned that they are willing to act on their hate, however.  And thus, unlike morons like you, I *do* urge that we engage in simple, rational courses of action to protect ourselves from their almost random acts of extreme violence.  It is not paranoia to be wary of those who are actually trying to kill you or those you care about, you numbnuts fucktard.

Fuckin' anus lickers like you are just too damn stupid to grasp the obvious.  YOUR paranoia is that "they" didn't attack us.  No no.  In your irrational delusional universe, some of "us" did it to ourselves!  

No evidence needed in your stupid world.  Which works out good for morons like you, since you *have* no such evidence.


----------



## Terral (Dec 24, 2009)

Hi Dean:



rdean said:


> This video goes on and on about pristine grass in front of the building and how the wings missed the windows on either side and the fancy flying needed.
> 
> Well, if the plane came down like in this picture, you wouldn't need fancy flying.  You wouldn't scuff the grass.  And you would most definitly miss the windows ...



[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2THs3oNooM"]... Dean Has No Clue ...[/ame]

GL,

Terral


----------



## 7forever (Apr 16, 2014)

He was on a roof, east and slightly north of the towers. *He saw a white flash and explosion* and failed to mention seeing something on tv, but *stuck to not seeing anything*. 

*Clifton Cloud*: "*I was probably about a mile away *and um, *I didn't, didn't realize that the second explosion *was going on...*it was just just a quick sharp blast of white light, orange and then the sound*, the shockwave hit a few minutes later."

Lauer: "And it was while you were shooting that, that *the second plane came into view, and as you said, you really didn't even realize what you had captured*. What was your response when you went back and looked carefully at the tape?

*Cloud*: "I thought about um, where the plane had hit in the sixties floor where one of my companies largest client's is."

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X09R95S3Jck]2nd plane & 1st "collapse" Clifton Cloud 9/12 11:50 am - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## whitehall (Apr 16, 2014)

Writer and author Barbara Olson was killed on that plane. You don't hear much about it because she criticized the Clintons in her last book "The Final Days".


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 16, 2014)

7forever said:


> He was on a roof, east and slightly north of the towers. *He saw a white flash and explosion* and failed to mention seeing something on tv, but *stuck to not seeing anything*.
> 
> *Clifton Cloud*: "*I was probably about a mile away *and um, *I didn't, didn't realize that the second explosion *was going on...*it was just just a quick sharp blast of white light, orange and then the sound*, the shockwave hit a few minutes later."
> 
> ...




Nuff said.........


----------



## Politico (Apr 16, 2014)

Aww not this shit again.


----------



## 7forever (Apr 17, 2014)

SFC Ollie said:


> 7forever said:
> 
> 
> > He was on a roof, east and slightly north of the towers. *He saw a white flash and explosion* and failed to mention seeing something on tv, but *stuck to not seeing anything*.
> ...



*He never saw a plane while he was watching and filming it on the roof*. That's a fact. TV FICTION got mixed in with the no plane truth.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 17, 2014)

SO he only thought it was a plane?

In his own words, from your own post:

"I thought about um, where the plane had hit in the sixties floor where one of my companies largest client's is."


Major fail.........


----------



## 7forever (Apr 17, 2014)

SFC Ollie said:


> SO he only thought it was a plane?
> 
> In his own words, from your own post:
> 
> ...



"*I just caught the second explosion on videotape*...No, *a bomb*, *I saw it, NO PLANE HIT NOTHIN'*, the building exploded from the other tower floors down."

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2unTcZnY30]NIST FOIA: Clifton Cloud Clips 1-3 (WTC2 Plane Impact, 9:03am) - YouTube[/ame]

NO PLANE HIT NOTHIN'


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Apr 17, 2014)

7forever said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > SO he only thought it was a plane?
> ...


----------



## Rockland (Apr 17, 2014)

This thread is about a plane hitting *the Pentagon*, 7-Upchuck.  *FOCUS.*


----------



## Freewill (Apr 17, 2014)

Rockland said:


> This thread is about a plane hitting *the Pentagon*, 7-Upchuck.  *FOCUS.*



Greer was flying the plane!


----------



## Rozman (Apr 17, 2014)

If it wasn't a plane that hit the Pentagon then what happened to all those people on that flight?


----------



## daws101 (Apr 17, 2014)

Rozman said:


> If it wasn't a plane that hit the Pentagon then what happened to all those people on that flight?


----------



## 7forever (Apr 18, 2014)

SFC Ollie said:


> SO he only thought it was a plane?
> 
> In his own words, from your own post:
> 
> ...



*He saw NO plane*. He described seeing a chopper disappear. That was the ball.

*I narrowed down the evidence to the lowest common denominator. It cannot be refuted or challenged*, something Rob Balsamo nor Craig Ranke can claim, as their work allows for more excuses. This one eyewitness who would assure us today that there really was a plane, was left for whomever would take the time to listen to what *he ultimately would confirm, that an unknown flying object was called a boeing 767. That is in fact the level of stupidity humanity has been issued by the government and mass media*.

*Clifton Cloud saw the same ball floating toward the south tower that chopper 4 filmed *along with three other broadcasts. All aired live except CBS- NY1, nbc, and wb11. 

*"There was a police copter like near it...(I swear), I don't know what happen to him*," This was Clifton's way of *questioning whether he really saw a chopper*.


"Ya, *the second one* I'm tellin' ya..was...*I didn't see a plane...I was watching it...I didn't see a plane*.

*All I saw was a helicopter and I didn't see the helicopter anymore*. It just looked like it exploded from the inside."

"*Ya, but I don't think it was a plane*. No, because it happened like 20 minutes later.* I think it was a bomb on the second building*. I think they had that bomb in there and they were like alright let's maximize it. *Hit it with a plane, and then hit the bomb*."  

*"There was a police copter like near it...I swear, I don't know what happen to him*, but. But _when the second one exploded *there was a helicopter not too far away*_."

"Ya, I tell you man, I saw it in slow motion, *that second building *just went boom, *just exploded from the inside out*, just like a movie, like a cheap movie which was really weird...it was like a 1970's Charleton Heston movie." 

"It was unbelievable, I mean *it exploded from the inside, that second one*."

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_bttrlyx4k]NIST FOIA: Clifton Cloud Clips 7-9 - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Apr 18, 2014)

7forever said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> > Rockland said:
> ...



Hey Stupid, read the thread title very carefully (or have a grown up read it to you) and you'll realize you're posting Off Topic bullshit.


True story. 









Cleese.


----------



## Rockland (Apr 18, 2014)

Rat in the Hat said:


> Hey Stupid, read the thread title very carefully (or have a grown up read it to you) and you'll realize you're posting Off Topic bullshit.
> 
> 
> True story.



Is this going to be like the time you tried to explain to him how he kept saying *Greer* was the one who got shot?


----------



## 7forever (Apr 19, 2014)

Freewill said:


> Rockland said:
> 
> 
> > This thread is about a plane hitting *the Pentagon*, 7-Upchuck.  *FOCUS.*
> ...



"Ya, *the second one *I'm tellin' ya..was...*I didn't see a plane...I was watching it...I didn't see a plane*."  

*"All I saw was a helicopter and I didn't see the helicopter anymore*. It just looked like it exploded from the inside."



FLYOVER AT THE PENTACON

The Pentacon - Eyewitnesses Speak, Conspiracy Revealed


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Apr 19, 2014)

7forever said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> > Rockland said:
> ...



What the FUCK is a "Pentacon"????


Be specific.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 19, 2014)

LOL It was a missile that hit the pentagon, we all know that,,, There were no witnesses other than maybe 125 or so that saw a plane smash in to it...........


----------



## daws101 (Apr 19, 2014)

SFC Ollie said:


> LOL It was a missile that hit the pentagon, we all know that,,, There were no witnesses other than maybe 125 or so that saw a plane smash in to it...........


----------



## westwall (Apr 19, 2014)

The level of ignorance displayed by believers in this nonsense is unbelievable.


----------



## 7forever (Apr 19, 2014)

westwall said:


> The level of ignorance displayed by believers in this nonsense is unbelievable.



The level of ignorance displayed by fake believers in this nonsense is unbelievable. *BLACK PLANES WILL NEVER BE REAL BOEINGS*.


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Apr 19, 2014)

7forever said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > The level of ignorance displayed by believers in this nonsense is unbelievable.
> ...



So now you're discriminating against black planes??

Fucking racist.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 19, 2014)

Rat in the Hat said:


> 7forever said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



he ignores that we picked this same BS apart over a year ago.....


----------



## SteadyMercury (Apr 22, 2014)

SFC Ollie said:


> he ignores that we picked this same BS apart over a year ago.....


Yep, tin-hatters have an astounding ability to bring back up something as evidence that was previously shredded.

I think I've seen Paulitician go to the "there were web sites and posts about the event before it happened" well at least 3 times for various conspiracy theories, each time it has been explained how google works and demonstrations given that any world event can be shown to have web pages dated before them. Yet he doggedly keeps trying to get back up on that horse. Fucking moron.


-


----------



## SAYIT (Apr 22, 2014)

SteadyMercury said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > he ignores that we picked this same BS apart over a year ago.....
> ...



CTs enjoy self-imposed and rigidly self-enforced ignorance because ignorance is bliss.   
I've noticed lately my 88 year old mama needs to have new info explained to her 4-5 times in 2-3 different ways and rejects it altogether if it doesn't match the voices in her head. This might also explain what is wrong with CTs.


----------



## daws101 (Apr 22, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> SteadyMercury said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...


you might be on to something there professor!


----------



## KokomoJojo (Apr 23, 2014)

SFC Ollie said:


> he ignores that we picked this same BS apart over a year ago.....


yeh and truthers laid your nitpicking to waste with a dose of reality

when they showed you what happens to planes when they hit poles





only a tard would believe the official story, but then thats their target audience LOL


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 23, 2014)

I'm sorry what kind of plane was that? And were those breakaway poles? Please tell us all about the similarities here....


----------



## KokomoJojo (Apr 23, 2014)

SFC Ollie said:


> I'm sorry what kind of plane was that? And were those breakaway poles? Please tell us all about the similarities here....




all poles breakaway, are you saying a roadway class pole is simply going to fall over when force is applied over 12ft above ground level?  you arent really trying to say anything quite that foolish are you?


----------



## daws101 (Apr 23, 2014)

KokomoJojo said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > he ignores that we picked this same BS apart over a year ago.....
> ...


koko is an expert at riding poles ..
on the down low of course...


----------



## KokomoJojo (Apr 23, 2014)

sorry, rock seems interested though!

Ollie you just rooty tootin out your ass again, cant even tell us about those magic get out of the way poles


----------



## SAYIT (Apr 23, 2014)

daws101 said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



Or perhaps the up & in. Just sayin'...


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 23, 2014)

Must we really embarrass you again?

A breakaway base and upper-separation joint for use with highway luminaire supports. The breakaway base, circular in cross section, has a lower-base section with a first rim, an upper-base section with a second rim, a split-ring retainer, and a perimeter band.

Breakaway base and upper-separation joint - Adian Engineering Corporation


----------



## KokomoJojo (Apr 23, 2014)

SFC Ollie said:


> Must we really embarrass you again?
> 
> A breakaway base and upper-separation joint for use with highway luminaire supports. The breakaway base, circular in cross section, has a lower-base section with a first rim, an upper-base section with a second rim, a split-ring retainer, and a perimeter band.
> 
> Breakaway base and upper-separation joint - Adian Engineering Corporation




as usual you embarrass yourself again because as usual you dont fucking know what you are talking about. LMAO

funny!

try these poles LOL


----------



## KokomoJojo (Apr 23, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> Or perhaps the up & in. Just sayin'...



if you kids want to discuss your sexual preferences start your own thread


----------



## n0spam4me (May 8, 2014)

I find it very sad that anybody quotes Popular Mechanics for anything these days.

Look at the big picture, that is 4 airliners as much as disappear,
that is in the crash events, the airliners are so completely destroyed
so as to not have a wing or tail section or any significant bits of aircraft at all.

how is that done?

also, WHY is it  that people will believe total madness such as 
an airliner operated at 590 MPH so close to sea level,
this has been the subject of much debate and I would think that
in the years that have passed, a conclusion would have been reached 
but NO, and though Boeing could have issued a statement on the subject
they refuse to.  My take on it is that logic & reason support the concept that
its impossible to operate an airliner so close to sea level at that speed.
therefore the whole 9/11 story is FRAUD.


----------



## SAYIT (May 8, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> I find it very sad that anybody quotes Popular Mechanics for anything these days.
> 
> Look at the big picture, that is 4 airliners as much as disappear,
> that is in the crash events, the airliners are so completely destroyed
> ...



Parts of the planes were found. Do you deceive yourself or are you just a silly CT liar?

https://www.google.com/search?q=9/1...v&sa=X&ei=Q1BsU7DDGIThsATUt4DABw&ved=0CCUQsAQ

https://www.google.com/search?q=9/1...v&sa=X&ei=Q1BsU7DDGIThsATUt4DABw&ved=0CDEQ7Ak

https://www.google.com/search?q=air...e=univ&ei=AFFsU7brFdPQsQSi1YGwDA&ved=0CCUQsAQ

https://www.google.com/search?q=air...e=univ&ei=AFFsU7brFdPQsQSi1YGwDA&ved=0CC8Q7Ak

https://www.google.com/search?q=9/1...&ei=U1FsU5abLsamyATgl4DoBA&sqi=2&ved=0CDkQsAQ

https://www.google.com/search?q=9/1...&ei=U1FsU5abLsamyATgl4DoBA&sqi=2&ved=0CEUQ7Ak


----------



## n0spam4me (May 8, 2014)

Do you actually believe those pictures constitute proof that there were airliners used as weapons?


----------



## g4racer (May 8, 2014)

Eots, What makes you think an investigation wasn't done?  What makes you think that the government would share the information with you.  You might be surprised to know what the government doesn't want you to know and that has nothing to Rep or Dem


----------



## SAYIT (May 9, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> Do you actually believe those pictures constitute proof that there were airliners used as weapons?



Yup.


----------



## Rat in the Hat (May 9, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> I find it very sad that anybody quotes Popular Mechanics for anything these days.
> 
> Look at the big picture, that is 4 airliners as much as disappear,
> that is in the crash events, the airliners are so completely destroyed
> ...



Boeing airliners (and Airbus airliners also) can be operated at 590 MPH at sea level.

But no pilot will do that due to causing structural damage to the bird.

The 9/11 raghead terrorists didn't think about that. They didn't give a fuck because they knew the planes would never be in service again.

Because their plans were always to use them as murder missiles.


----------



## SFC Ollie (May 9, 2014)

Rat in the Hat said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > I find it very sad that anybody quotes Popular Mechanics for anything these days.
> ...



And that is the rest of the story.


----------



## daws101 (May 9, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> I find it very sad that anybody quotes Popular Mechanics for anything these days.
> 
> Look at the big picture, that is 4 airliners as much as disappear,
> that is in the crash events, the airliners are so completely destroyed
> ...


I also ran into this asshole on another site....running  the same bullshit...


----------



## daws101 (May 9, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> Do you actually believe those pictures constitute proof that there were airliners used as weapons?


golly that's a puzzler....ah.. may be because they were...


----------



## daws101 (May 9, 2014)

g4racer said:


> Eots, What makes you think an investigation wasn't done?  What makes you think that the government would share the information with you.  You might be surprised to know what the government doesn't want you to know and that has nothing to Rep or Dem


hey new guy, eots doesn't live here anymore.
good question though!


----------



## SFC Ollie (May 9, 2014)

Where did Eots go anyway? Must have found some people who believe him......


----------



## kylelavito (May 22, 2014)

conspiracy theories


----------

