this, in itself, should implicate the neocons. i don't know how you fail to see the connection. it leaves me to believe you're actually that dumb.
that in mind, i'm assuming you watched the video above at this point, George Bush's behaviour when caught off guard with an intelligent question during a press meeting is extremely telling. he gets slapped in the face and the fucking idiot can't even brush it off.. he looks like he saw a ghost. it takes him 10 seconds to even deny it.
what else do you need? lol. the commission was a group of ex military officers and senators, lawyers and friends of the elite. wrought with conflicts of interest, ranging from representing American Airlines to oil ties to the saudis.
thomas kean, the fucking chairmain of the commission, was part owner of a company that maintained a partnership with delta oil of saudia arabia.
the white house has admitted that documents placed on Bush�s desk on Sept. 9, 2001 detailed a plan for attacking Afghanistan by mid-Oct. 2001.
why do you think max cleland quit the commission, stating, "bush is scamming america."
i'm just going to throw out some key things to think about while you're surfing for porn.
this is what a building looks like when a plane collides with it.
this is not what a building looks like after a plane collides with it. 12 ft. laugh out loud
what say you?
Posted by pkcRAISTLIN on Sep-18-2008 05:31:
quote:
Originally posted by {b.s.e.}
Like someone who thinks a prescription drug is a decent user name clearly has no bearing on reality, and shouldn't be taken seriously on any level.
if youre talking about me, my user name has nothing to do with any drug, prescription or otherwise. you fucking moron.
10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists
A useful guide by Donna Ferentes
8. Leaping to conclusions. Conspiracy theorists are very keen indeed to declare the "official" account totally discredited without having remotely enough cause so to do. Of course this enables them to wheel on the Conan Doyle quote as in 4. above. Small inconsistencies in the account of an event, small unanswered questions, small problems in timing of differences in procedure from previous events of the same kind are all more than adequate to declare the "official" account clearly and definitively discredited. It goes without saying that it is not necessary to prove that these inconsistencies are either relevant, or that they even definitely exist.
Posted by pkcRAISTLIN on Sep-18-2008 05:34:
quote:
Originally posted by {b.s.e.}
this is not what a building looks like after a plane collides with it. 12 ft. laugh out loud
what say you?
oh, i forgot you were a no-planer!
that's still the dumbest thing any of your ilk have come up with. and yet not a single one of you has explained how the passengers from flight 77 ended up in the pentagon:
10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists
A useful guide by Donna Ferentes
3. Inability to answer questions. For people who loudly advertise their determination to the principle of questioning everything, they're pretty poor at answering direct questions from sceptics about the claims that they make.
5. Inability to employ or understand Occam's Razor. Aided by the principle in 4. above, conspiracy theorists never notice that the small inconsistencies in the accounts which they reject are dwarfed by the enormous, gaping holes in logic, likelihood and evidence in any alternative account.
Posted by {b.s.e.} on Sep-18-2008 05:36:
quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
if youre talking about me, my user name has nothing to do with any drug, prescription or otherwise. you fucking moron.
are you xanax? you aren't, are you? lol, if you can't figure out such a simple thing as that...
Posted by pkcRAISTLIN on Sep-18-2008 05:45:
quote:
Originally posted by {b.s.e.}
are you xanax? you aren't, are you? lol, if you can't figure out such a simple thing as that...
fair enough, my mistake. i really had thought you'd lost all touch with reality there.
Posted by XaNaX on Sep-18-2008 12:29:
quote:
Originally posted by {b.s.e.}
Like someone who thinks a prescription drug is a decent user name clearly has no bearing on reality, and shouldn't be taken seriously on any level.
what the fuck does my username have to do with your inability to grasp reality or present clear, factual, legitimate evidence? How about a clown that uses truther web sites as his sole source for information shouldn't be taken seriously on any level. Let me guess, you believe everything you read in tabloid newspapers too, right?
quote:
Originally posted by {b.s.e.}
this is not what a building looks like after a plane collides with it. 12 ft. laugh out loud
what say you?
You are really not traveling down that road again are you? wtf is that even a picture of?
Posted by pkcRAISTLIN on Sep-18-2008 13:05:
quote:
Originally posted by XaNaX
wtf is that even a picture of?
its a photo of a hole that the missile fired at the pentagon left. you know, the missile that contained all the dead passengers from flight 77, and also managed to fool hundreds and hundreds of people into thinking it was a plane.
but lets just ignore him.
Posted by XaNaX on Sep-18-2008 14:47:
quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
its a photo of a hole that the missile fired at the pentagon left. you know, the missile that contained all the dead passengers from flight 77, and also managed to fool hundreds and hundreds of people into thinking it was a plane.
lol no shit fucking idiots. Honestly I'm surprised they haven't thrown that out as a theory yet.
quote:
Paranoid Delusion of some Idiot Truther
"you know what that Cheney did, he got him a missile and had it filled with seats and people and airplane parts and put wings on it and had it painted just like a commercial airliner to fool people, but it damn sure was a missile"
To me that picture he posted didn't look much like the outside of the Pentagon after the attack. From what I remember the outside of the Pentagon where the plane hit looked more like this:
And since he posted a picture of the outside of the WTC showing the plane impact, surely he would make his comparison to the Pentagon using a similar point of impact photo right? (never mind that the WTC and the Pentagon are two different buildings and two different scenarios and cannot be compared in that way, but then truthers don't have much need for verifiable evidence, logic, scientific method, legitimate comparisons, etc). Wrong, what did he post? A photo of the outside of the WTC to compare with the inside of the Pentagon. Hmmmmm.
Donna needs to add an 11th characteristic of conspiracy theorists to her guide to cover one of their favorites, the old apples to oranges comparison. Only a truther assclown would compare the entry hole of a plane in building A and the exit hole of the remains of a plane in building B which is a building of completely different construction than building A and think they can draw a conclusion from that.
And it amuses me to no end that someone who is a no-planer would even think of questioning someone else's grasp on reality. I'll ask you again, since you are so grounded in reality b.s.e, since a plane didn't hit the Pentagon what did hit it and where is Flight 77, its passengers, and its crew?
Posted by Moongoose on Sep-18-2008 14:50:
How has this thread not died yet, ffs one would think that after 7 years people would realise that they are searching for something that isnt there and continue with their lives.
Posted by XaNaX on Sep-18-2008 14:58:
quote:
Originally posted by Moongoose
How has this thread not died yet, ffs one would think that after 7 years people would realise that they are searching for something that isnt there and continue with their lives.
you would think, but apparently most truthers have no lives so they are still beating this dead horse. This thread should be closed and linked in PDD Classic Threads to serve as a lasting monument to their collective stupidity
Posted by dcougar99 on Sep-19-2008 11:57:
quote:
Originally posted by XaNaX
To me that picture he posted didn't look much like the outside of the Pentagon after the attack. From what I remember the outside of the Pentagon where the plane hit looked more like this:
that was after the collapse, this is before...
Posted by XaNaX on Sep-19-2008 12:25:
We've been through this many times before. Look at the picture of the WTC after the plane hit it. The hole is much smaller than what people "thought" an airliner would cause hitting a building, that is why initial reports were that a small plane had hit the WTC. Now you compare the hole created by a plane that was traveling 400mph and hit the aluminum and glass facade of the WTC with what happened at the Pentagon. The plane at the Pentagon was traveling 350mph when it slammed into the ground and slid into the Pentagon. The Pentagon's outer wall was newly renovated and is a two foot think reinforced limestone, concrete and steel wall. Still, the damage from the aircraft managed to penetrate all the way into the 3rd ring of the Pentagon.
This is not a cartoon show, airplanes don't punch perfect airplane sized holes in the side of a 24" concrete and steel wall. An airplane is not a solid steel battering ram. It is mostly made of aluminum and other very light materials that don't have the mass required to punch a hole in a reinforced wall like that.
Get over yourselves morons, where is the plane and its passengers if it didn't hit the Pentagon.
Posted by dcougar99 on Sep-19-2008 13:20:
quote:
Originally posted by XaNaX
This is not a cartoon show, airplanes don't punch perfect airplane sized holes in the side of a 24" concrete and steel wall. An airplane is not a solid steel battering ram. It is mostly made of aluminum and other very light materials that don't have the mass required to punch a hole in a reinforced wall like that.
Get over yourselves morons, where is the plane and its passengers if it didn't hit the Pentagon.
the what the fuk did this to the 3rd inner ring (C)??? something had the mass now didnt it!?!?
Posted by XaNaX on Sep-19-2008 16:42:
quote:
Originally posted by dcougar99
the what the fuk did this to the 3rd inner ring (C)??? something had the mass now didnt it!?!?
I guess I should have worded my response better. What I was trying to say was that there is not enough mass in the wings of the airplane for you to see a nice neat outline of an airplane punched into the building. The majority of the damage was created by the mass of the fuselage, or rather what was left of it when the plane slammed into the ground and burst into flames. That is why you see that small hole in C ring rather than a massive hole the size of a plane. Obviously the further in the building you go, the smaller the hole is going to be because mass from the plane is lost as it comes into contact with parts of the building.
Posted by dcougar99 on Sep-19-2008 17:04:
quote:
Originally posted by XaNaX
I guess I should have worded my response better. What I was trying to say was that there is not enough mass in the wings of the airplane for you to see a nice neat outline of an airplane punched into the building. The majority of the damage was created by the mass of the fuselage, or rather what was left of it when the plane slammed into the ground and burst into flames. That is why you see that small hole in C ring rather than a massive hole the size of a plane. Obviously the further in the building you go, the smaller the hole is going to be because mass from the plane is lost as it comes into contact with parts of the building.
And what about the mass of the engines??? They didn�t create a hole in the outer wall... that�s a hell of a lot off mass not to create even a fraction of the damage of what you say went all the way to ring C.
they must have had airbags installed on them� or something???
Posted by XaNaX on Sep-19-2008 18:13:
quote:
Originally posted by dcougar99
And what about the mass of the engines??? They didn�t create a hole in the outer wall... that�s a hell of a lot off mass not to create even a fraction of the damage of what you say went all the way to ring C.
they must have had airbags installed on them� or something???
If Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon where is the plane, all its passengers, and its crew? And how did the remains of the passengers and crew + airplane parts end up in the Pentagon wreckage?
When you have an answer for that with solid evidence to back it up come back and we'll talk.
Posted by dcougar99 on Sep-19-2008 18:35:
quote:
Originally posted by XaNaX
If Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon where is the plane, all its passengers, and its crew? And how did the remains of the passengers and crew + airplane parts end up in the Pentagon wreckage?
When you have an answer for that with solid evidence to back it up come back and we'll talk.
you didn�t answer me...
on another note..
What proof can you show me that they actually recovered the bodies, and plane!!! they found a few parts... and they don�t add up if you look at them...
Every plane that crashed in the past has been put back together in a hanger for investigation!!! Swamp, ocean, land... doesn�t matter where it crashed... they had been PUT BACK TOGETHER FOR INVESTIGATION!!! What about the 4 planes on 911???????
You think they would have done a proper investigation and put them back together!!! at least for the DC and PA planes!!!
Found the back boxes!!! Maybe� I guess I ask to many questions��
Posted by dcougar99 on Sep-19-2008 18:50:
quote:
Originally posted by XaNaX
If Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon where is the plane, all its passengers, and its crew? And how did the remains of the passengers and crew + airplane parts end up in the Pentagon wreckage?
When you have an answer for that with solid evidence to back it up come back and we'll talk.
some interesting points also...
At a September 12th Pentagon press conference, Ed Plaugher, fire chief of Arlington County, who had responsibility for the fire-fighting operations at the site, said in a news briefing: DoD
Question: Can you give us any sense of the area that was destroyed, how wide it is? How many feet? And did it break through to all five rings of the Pentagon?
Plaugher: It did not break through to all five rings, and I do not know the measurements.
Question: Is there anything left of the aircraft at all?
Plaugher: First all, the question about the aircraft, there are some small pieces of aircraft visible from the interior during this fire-fighting operation I'm talking about, but not large sections. In other words, there's no fuselage sections and that sort of thing.
He is also very vague about the recovery of bodies, usually a prime concern:
Question: Have you removed the bodies?
Question: Could you tell me how many bodies have been removed?
Plaugher: We have no information on any type of casualty or body counts at this time.
Question: By that you mean you haven't removed any bodies yet?
Plaugher: I will not say that, okay? But that whole process is being set up and is going to take some time. So again, that's not part of this briefing.
At the September 14th Pentagon press conference, James Schwartz, assistant chief, of the Arlington County Fire Department states: DoD
Question: Have they been able to tell you, when they got to that part, whether or not there were any, you know, recognizable elements that an aircraft itself had crashed into the building, or is it all pretty much vaporized? Are there are any -- is there a tail, is there a wing, is there anything there?
Schwartz: I certainly would not use the term "vaporized," but there's not a lot of the aircraft that is recognizable at all.
These DoD press conferences clearly state that they found no sizeable debris either in or around the point of entry. So the "official" story is that there were no significantly sized portions of the aircraft found such as fuselage sections left after the crash and subsequent fire.
At a September 15th Pentagon press conference, when Terry Mitchell is asked about the depth to which the plane penetrated the Pentagon, he states: DoD
Mitchell: It's more to the right of where we were at. This is the -- this is in a renovated section on the opposite side, if you were facing the opposite side. This is a hole in -- there was a punch-out. They suspect that this was where a part of the aircraft came through this hole, although I didn't see any evidence of the aircraft down there.
Question: Which area is that?
Mitchell: This is right inside the E Ring.
Question: Did you see any evidence of the aircraft anywhere?
Mitchell: Yes, I did. You could see just small pieces of it.
Question: Well, how far in?
Mitchell: Again, we're trying to figure out how it came into the building.
On Friday September 14th, Pentagon officials took about 75 reporters on a tour of the devastation -- and efforts already underway to rebuild it -- for the first time: DoD
"The plane approached the Pentagon about six feet off the ground, clipping a light pole, a car antenna, a construction trailer and an emergency generator before slicing into the building," said Lee Evey, the manager of the Pentagon's ongoing billion-dollar renovation.
The plane penetrated three of the Pentagon's five rings, but was probably stopped from going farther by hundreds of concrete columns. The plane peeled back as it entered, leaving pieces of the front of the plane near the outside of the building and pieces from the rear of the aircraft farther inside, Evey said.
Mr. Lee Evey, Pentagon Renovation Manager, said on Sept. 15:
The nose of the plane just barely broke through the inside of the C ring, so it was extending into A-E Drive a little bit. ... The airplane traveled in a path about like this, and the nose of the aircraft broke through this innermost wall of C ring into A-E Drive.
The problem here is that the nose cone of a Boeing 757 is made of carbon-fibre (like fibreglass); there is no metal nose cone on a 757. An average strength man (or strong woman) could make mincemeat of a 757 nose cone in about 15 minutes with nothing more than a light axe or a sledgehammer - the same cannot be said of the outer wall of the Pentagon. Punching through stone facade and 2 exterior concrete and brick walls, 4 or more interior poured concrete walls, and a poured concrete floor, to conveniently land front-and-center on a piece of board for photographers is out of the question.
In summary, the DoD claims:
the Boeing did a 4.5 g. turn to descend from 7500 feet in 1 1/2 minutes (even though the Boeing flight control software won't allow more than 1.5 g. turn),
hit the side of the Pentagon with pin-point-precision (even though the pilot Hani Hanjour couldn't even fly a Cessna)
where the wings peeled back so it could fit through an 8 m. hole (even though the Boeing is 13.6 m. high, 47.3 m. long, with a wingspan of 38 m. and a cockpit 3.5 m.)
leaving no significant debris outside (not even the 7 tonne engines which are mounted on shear-off bolts, and are largely made of titanium)
where that the entire plane and its contents was consumed by the fire (which would be the first time that has happened in aviation history, and would defy the laws of physics if the fire was caused by jet fuel.)
except for the nose (made of fiberglass) punched through a total of about 3-4 m. of steel reinforced concrete to conveniently land front-and-center on a piece of board for photographers.
Posted by Trancer-X on Sep-19-2008 21:42:
quote:
Originally posted by XaNaX
The plane at the Pentagon was traveling 350mph when it slammed into the ground and slid into the Pentagon. The Pentagon's outer wall was newly renovated and is a two foot think reinforced limestone, concrete and steel wall. Still, the damage from the aircraft managed to penetrate all the way into the 3rd ring of the Pentagon.
This is not a cartoon show, airplanes don't punch perfect airplane sized holes in the side of a 24" concrete and steel wall. An airplane is not a solid steel battering ram. It is mostly made of aluminum and other very light materials that don't have the mass required to punch a hole in a reinforced wall like that.
Get over yourselves morons, where is the plane and its passengers if it didn't hit the Pentagon.
You said that it "slid" into the Pentagon. So why were there no marks on the lawn before they came in and layed down that heavy layer of dirt?
