Absolute proof: A Pentagon picture montage from start to finish

reply to post by weedwhacker

You can envision any number of variables, different rates, ways of flying that are "smoother" on the controls, as opposed to being abrupt and sloppy, etc.

I envision clipping light poles without ripping off a wing. How smooth would that be on the controls? "Abrupt and sloppy"?

reply to post by Yankee451
Wow, Yank I just read your signature. Can you elaborate?

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
Since there's no hole... it would be explosion outside, except there's also no wreckage = no airplane.

Translation: I have supernatural eyesight similar to Superman. I can look at a photograph taken by a telephoto lens from hundreds of yards away of a scene which is obscured by smoke, foam, and water spray and am able to reach conclusions only achievable by a supernatural being born on a distant planet that uses Kryptonite for achieving supernatural powers.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


I'm still waiting for you to explain your reasoning for the C ring hole.

reply to post by nwobro


No we don't. We know what the claims are, but their claims are impossible. That's the reason we're here, to try to find the truth.

Originally posted by Reheat

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
Since there's no hole... it would be explosion outside, except there's also no wreckage = no airplane.

Translation: I have supernatural eyesight similar to Superman. I can look at a photograph taken by a telephoto lens from hundreds of yards away of a scene which is obscured by smoke, foam, and water spray and am able to reach conclusions only achievable by a supernatural being born on a distant planet that uses Kryptonite for achieving supernatural powers.

Translation: My government loves me and would never lie to justify wars on brown people and take their stuff.

reply to post by dillweed


It'll come to you. Give it time.

Originally posted by Yankee451

Originally posted by Reheat

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
Since there's no hole... it would be explosion outside, except there's also no wreckage = no airplane.

Translation: I have supernatural eyesight similar to Superman. I can look at a photograph taken by a telephoto lens from hundreds of yards away of a scene which is obscured by smoke, foam, and water spray and am able to reach conclusions only achievable by a supernatural being born on a distant planet that uses Kryptonite for achieving supernatural powers.

Translation: My government loves me and would never lie to justify wars on brown people and take their stuff.

Translation: I don't want to believe anything the government believes, because arguments are invalid if they come from a government. Why on Earth would anyone tell the truth about anything when they can lie?

The point of this debate is that people like you believe that the events according to the official explanation are ALL completely impossible. However, others would think otherwise because some of us feel that there is evidence to support the official explanation. You can't just discount the official explanation just because it was official. It still remains a possibility.

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
a 47-story steel frame building falls universally at freefall rates, the ONLY evidence of damage is a small chunk missing from one corner and a few sporadic fires... then the whole thing collapses at once. Oh, and the owner of the building happened to say "so we decided to pull it" just before it fell.

You think that sounds nothing like a controlled demolition??

ahhhh not this again!
www.911myths.com...
www.911myths.com...

Sylverstein's words were taken OUT OF CONTEXT. He meant Pull the firemen, not the building!

i have watched a documentary about this so-called hole in the pentagon and nothing added up ..... leaving only the imagination to come to its own conclusions.

reply to post by Yankee451

I envision clipping light poles without ripping off a wing. How smooth would that be on the controls...

The mass of the airplane, and its kinetic energy and momentum were no match for the light poles, that were substantially lighter, and more fragile than the airplane, or its wings, overall.

At each impact with a pole, there would likely have been a minor noise heard (assuming that the wind noise wasn't already drowning everything else out.....and also the "MASTER WARNING" audio ("High-Low") siren. (Because of the overspeed, past Vmo).

Sounds and looks like this:

reply to post by weedwhacker


Impervious to light poles. I feel like an ass really, I mean all those old wives' tales about jet wings getting sheared off by tree limbs and stuff...dang...what I used to believe. Thanks for clearing all that up.

Originally posted by nwobro

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
a 47-story steel frame building falls universally at freefall rates, the ONLY evidence of damage is a small chunk missing from one corner and a few sporadic fires... then the whole thing collapses at once. Oh, and the owner of the building happened to say "so we decided to pull it" just before it fell.

You think that sounds nothing like a controlled demolition??

ahhhh not this again!
www.911myths.com...
www.911myths.com...

Sylverstein's words were taken OUT OF CONTEXT. He meant Pull the firemen, not the building!

First denial issues, and now you're a mind reader? Or are you a close friend of Silverstein?

I didn't hear him say "Pull THEM, and then we pulled them and watched them leave".

'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."

sites.google.com...

That's a deep river you're swimming in.

For the very paranoid here who don't and won't accept anything the Gubmint says or won't accept my simplified explanation of why it would not have been extremely difficult to fly a B-757 near the ground for a few seconds, here is an article from a non-Government source which echos EXACTLY what I have posted regarding Ground Effect.

www.aerospaceweb.org...

Anything else to offer besides ignorant speculation and myth from Conspiracy Theory Web Sites?

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by weedwhacker

 

Impervious to light poles. I feel like an ass really, I mean all those old wives' tales about jet wings getting sheared off by tree limbs and stuff...dang...what I used to believe. Thanks for clearing all that up.

You surely should feel like an ass for comparing break away light poles designed to reduce damage to a comparatively slow moving automobile to an impact with trees at speeds exceeding 500 MPH by a large commercial airliner.

reply to post by Yankee451


If you have to resort to the taken out of context and myth of what Silverstein meant by "pull it" anything else you have to say should be recognized as hogwash by even ardent terrorist apologists. I'm not surprised tho' as you seem to have memorized all of the standard truther canards even those which have long been recognized by other truthers and nothing but pure garbage "quote mining" and misinterpretation by "truth drones". You are a true "poster boy" for the TM. Please keep posting because it will likely be on the Interwebz for years to come for all to see.

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by Yankee451

Originally posted by Reheat

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
Since there's no hole... it would be explosion outside, except there's also no wreckage = no airplane.

Translation: I have supernatural eyesight similar to Superman. I can look at a photograph taken by a telephoto lens from hundreds of yards away of a scene which is obscured by smoke, foam, and water spray and am able to reach conclusions only achievable by a supernatural being born on a distant planet that uses Kryptonite for achieving supernatural powers.

Translation: My government loves me and would never lie to justify wars on brown people and take their stuff.

Translation: I don't want to believe anything the government believes, because arguments are invalid if they come from a government. Why on Earth would anyone tell the truth about anything when they can lie?

The point of this debate is that people like you believe that the events according to the official explanation are ALL completely impossible. However, others would think otherwise because some of us feel that there is evidence to support the official explanation. You can't just discount the official explanation just because it was official. It still remains a possibility.

The point of this is not a debate, but to find the truth, which requires evidence to lead us there.

Even if we didn't have historical precedence to distrust the government (USS Maine, Lusitania, Tonkin Gulf, USS Liberty, Operation Mockingbird, etc.), what the government claims occurred on 911 is impossible according to the laws of nature.

Without forensic evidence, we're left with impossible claims backed up by unreliable eyewitnesses and fraudulent photographs.

reply to post by Reheat



I pasted his words and now I'm the bad guy? He mentions a building, not fire fighters, and refers to an "it" not "them", and he watched it fall as if he expected it.

Seems pretty "in context" to me. Why do you think he was talking about fire fighters and not his wee-wee?

Originally posted by Yankee451
The point of this is not a debate, but to find the truth, which requires evidence to lead us there.

You are correct regarding it not being a debate. There truly is no longer a legitimate debate. Since you don't or won't recognize recognize ANY of the evidence it's not surprising that even after 9 years you still haven't figured it out. Furthermore, even after another 100 years you won't have figured it out either.

You obviously are doing the EXACT OPPOSITE of the progression one should use to find the answer, but continue to use a preconceived fallacious opinion and distort every piece of evidence as either wrong (because you are smarter than everyone else) or faked with a ever expanding list of those who are 'in on" the conspiracy to make it fit.. Eventually, everyone to include you will have to be "in on" the conspiracy to continue. That is the eventual conclusion to the Inflationary Model of a false or contrived conspiracy.

Now, hand wave this away again, so that it's preserved for posterity and available for those who might fall into this trap in the future. Continue on......Poster Boy.......

reply to post by Reheat


The way it works is you start with a hypothesis:

Jets dunnit.

Then you find evidence to support the hypothesis.

(drums fingers on desk...)