|
^^exactly! wheres the common sense? my problem with too many of the CTs is that they fail this common sense test. just like people pointing at the BBC reporting the collapse of building 7 prematurely- as if someone from the govt let their secret plot slip  for some reason we're meant to believe that the government were able to engineer the top-down collapse of a massive skyscraper without anyone noticing their involvement, but they dont have the presence of mind to alter a black box? please.
and more importantly, no CT has a plausible explanation for what happened to the passengers, crew and plane (or why the hundreds of witnesses that saw the plane hit are somehow incorrect). they don't explain what hit those lamp posts if the plane didnt. but most importantly, they don't explain why on earth the government would bother with a charade at the pentagon when they already had the real deal with the WTCs??
whats really more telling however, is the repitition of known fallacies in that article
| quote: |
(1) The hit point at the Pentagon was too small to accommodate a 100-ton airliner with a 125-foot wingspan and a tail that stands 44 feet above the ground; the kind and quantity of debris was wrong for a Boeing 757: there were no wings, no fuselage, no seats, no bodies, no luggage, no tail! Not even the engines were recovered, and they are practically indestructible.
(2) Of an estimate 84 videotapes of the crash, the three that have been released by the Pentagon do not show a Boeing 757 hitting the building, as even Bill O'Reilly admitted when one was shown on "The Factor". At 155 feet, the plane was more than twice as long as the 77-foot Pentagon is high and should have been visible. There are indications of a much smaller plane, but not a Boeing 757.
(3) Indeed, the aerodynamics of flight would have made the official trajectory--flying more than 500 mph barely above ground level--physically impossible, because of the accumulation of a massive pocket of compressed gas (air) beneath the fuselage; and if it had come it at an angle instead, it would have created a massive crater; but there is no crater and the official trajectory is impossible. |
given how poor the research of the 9/11 movement tends to be, and their complete lack of finishing their theory with a plausible explanation for explaining the bodies, personal effects and plane debris at the crash site, i find their analysis completely dubious and not to be trusted.
___________________
|
I'm trying.
