Moussaoui Trial Images - Please help to establish the facts.

Originally posted by bing0
as far as i know, there is only some video, showing an (small) impact, while a Boeing is wayyyy larger

I posted this in that other thread the OP started, and since the OP is avoiding addressing this as well, perhaps you can- here is an animation showing how the attack most likely proceeded. Not only does it answer most of the questions of the Pentagon attack naysayers, it likewise is backed up by photographic evidence. Plus, it effectively debunks YOUR video. Your thoughts?

second, the black box of flight 77 was released by the government. Has been decoded by pilots who wants to know the real facts, and the pilots claim the flight of the airplane is impossible...but that video i don't find atm.....they had done a whole simulation.

I know of it. It was done by that con artist Ron Balsamo. He has zero experience in interpreting flight recorder data so he's introducing all manners of mistakes. For one thing, he's the one who attempted to claim the cockpit doors were closed the entire time, and when it was pointed out that the flight recorder didn't record that data (meaning that specific data would be all zeros or null, which he falsely interpreted to be constantly closed), he backpeddled and is now pretending he never made the claim. Every OTHER institute that reviewed the data other than him says it is consistant with the crash. His bickering over whether novice pilots were able to fly the plane in a circle doesn't help his position either.

The fact of the matter is, if it can be proven that it legitimately was flight 77 that hit the Pentagon, then all these side games of arguing over passenger remains, whether the cockpit door was opened or closed, the taxi cab damage, eyewitness credibility, whether novice polits can fly planes in circles, and all that, are entirely moot. So far, nothing the conspiracy theorists have put forward has contradicted even one microbe of the mountains of proof that it genuinely was flight 77.

You dont have to have a shread of experience with flying to realise a plane that big flying that fast couldnt possibly hit 5 light poles and not cartwheel to the ground The government would have us believe the wings cut threw the poles like a hot knife threw butter. Even my 2 year year old could comprehend that.

So far, nothing the conspiracy theorists have put forward has contradicted even one microbe of the mountains of proof that it genuinely was flight 77.

As an example, does this mountain of proof include:

1) irrefutable video/photographic evidence of Flight 77 striking the Pentagon?
2) an entry hole to the Pentagon consistent with a large commercial airliner?
3) video/photographic evidence of all passenger remains, personal belongings, aircraft parts, etc.?
4) video/photographic evidence of the passengers and hijackers boarding Flight 77 at the airport?
5) a thorough and unbiased investigation by authorities?

Or does your mountain of evidence consist of the cartoon you posted above? The only thing missing in that cartoon was a cut scene of Bugs Bunny and Elmer Fudd in the cockpit.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


nice shiny gfx, nothing else. And much debris, isn't it? Not much shown about the hole impact either. And those amateur pilots were very lucky to fly so fast and so low, don't you think, to hit the building on the 'right' spot?

and, as far as i know, the black box was released years later after the impact


also, you never wondered why mister Cheney didn't want to give the command to intercept that flight, while it was reported several times?? While it was clear for others what (partly?) was going on?

for such an important building, isn't it weird there is only 1 camera with footage of that area?

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
As an example, does this mountain of proof include:

1) irrefutable video/photographic evidence of Flight 77 striking the Pentagon?

There isn't any - and you know it, so it's a null argument.

2) an entry hole to the Pentagon consistent with a large commercial airliner?

The entry hole *is* consistent with this -show me how it isn't.

3) video/photographic evidence of all passenger remains, personal belongings, aircraft parts, etc.?

Why? The event was obvious - what more is actually needed?

4) video/photographic evidence of the passengers and hijackers boarding Flight 77 at the airport?

Do they do this at all airports? Did they do this specifically at Dulles? Do you know? No - you do NOT - so quit insisting on a scenario you have absolutely no proof *ever* existed.

5) a thorough and unbiased investigation by authorities?

What "authorities" did you have in mind? Is there a more qualified authority in the US than the NTSB for air disasters? Who might that be? What's your PROOF (note the use of that word) that this wasn't unbiased. You make the claim by inference it's biased - you supply the proof of the allegation - or drop it.

BTW - just wanted to thank you for the following comment - it was the best laugh of this thread:

Instead, the Government provides the malleable unwashed masses with a nice little photo of an engine part propped up neatly against some unrecognizable debris. Why is that engine part on display after such a devastating explosion?

How would *you* know what is considered "normal" for an airplane crash and what isn't. Since no one is going to buy that you work for an aircraft disaster organization - what are you basing this on? You're "common sense" - please someone with "common sense" would say to themselves, I don't know enough about the subject.

reply to post by kaya82

The government would have us believe the wings cut threw the poles like a hot knife threw butter. Even my 2 year year old could comprehend that.

I suspectg that when your 2 year old gets through their high school physics class they will disagree with you.

Try Googling 'straw through potato'. You will find several videos of paper straws being pushed completely through a potato. It's the simple physics errors that trip up many of the conspiracy believers.

reply to post by bing0

also, you never wondered why mister Cheney didn't want to give the command to intercept that flight, while it was reported several times?? While it was clear for others what (partly?) was going on?

Do you mean that every plane that is off course and not responding to radio is on an attack mission?
By those standards the White House was under attack three times in the last month. Using the same standards that plane that over shot it's city by an hour a few months ago should have been shot down. If you were on the trigger we would be scraping up bodies on a daily basis.

It's easy to be a Monday morning quaterback. But on that day at that point in time only 2 planes had hit their mark and they were in a different city hundreds on miles away. Would you want to be responsible for the wrongfull deaths of a couple of hundred inocent people? Who would ever hire you for any job anywhere ever again.

Look up the second by second time line of events and see if you would have pulled the trigger.

reply to post by GoodOlDave

The fact of the matter is, if it can be proven that it legitimately was flight 77 that hit the Pentagon, then all these side games of arguing over passenger remains, whether the cockpit door was opened or closed, the taxi cab damage, eyewitness credibility, whether novice polits can fly planes in circles, and all that, are entirely moot.

Wow Dave, that is low. After you say "truthers" always change the subject when confronted with the Pentagon, I post a response over the Pentagon that took like an hour to put together, and you just give me an indirect acknowledgement in a response to somebody else. Awesome!

So I take it you're not going to try and debunk everything I posted? How about that video at the bottom? You were the one mocking us saying we really have the "cold hard facts", so it's only fair that you take the time to either debunk that post, or that video at the bottom, preferably both.

So far, nothing the conspiracy theorists have put forward has contradicted even one microbe of the mountains of proof that it genuinely was flight 77.

If that's true, than debunk my post and tell us all what's wrong with the evidence I put forward.

We're waiting....

interesting :

so, if the heat after the airplane was so high, that the plane vapourized, why were several objects close to it totally untouched by that heat and fire?

Originally posted by bing0
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

nice shiny gfx, nothing else. And much debris, isn't it? Not much shown about the hole impact either. And those amateur pilots were very lucky to fly so fast and so low, don't you think, to hit the building on the 'right' spot?

Luck, my dog's butt! The whole reason why the attack even succeeded was because of monumental failures on the part of of a lot of people. All it was needed to foil the plot was a computer terminal at the airports for TSA personnel to find out the people boarding the planes were on the gov'ts terrorist watch list, but because of asenine touchy feely "we don't want to offend anyone" political correctness hamstringing everything they didn't let that information out to anyone. In fact it was you conspiracy people who told me that back in 1993 FBI agents wanted to give the WTC bombers a fake bomb so that they could collar them in a sting, until some dingbat supervisor in the FBI decided to pull the plug because he didn't think their informant was telling the truth.

Any administration that can't even hand out bottles of water to hurricane survivors in New Orleans without slipping on banana peels certainly isn't going to handle a major terrorist attack with any better efficiency.

also, you never wondered why mister Cheney didn't want to give the command to intercept that flight, while it was reported several times?? While it was clear for others what (partly?) was going on?

Rubbish. This whole "Cheney ordered a stand down" bit is coming entirely from those con artists running those conspiracy web sites., They're misquoting Norm Mineta who specifically said that Cheney did in fact authorize a shoot down order, and there's no way anyone can misrepresent "does the order still stand" into "stand down order" unless they're doing it deliberately.

for such an important building, isn't it weird there is only 1 camera with footage of that area?

Not really. Cameras are set up to monitor the high traffic areas like parking lots, entrances, and front gates like this footage was taken from. They don't have ten thousand cameras aimed at every garbage can and blade of grass

Not that it matters, as it's obvious from the nonstop excuses the conspiracy people are posting here that even if there was a crystal clear footage of the plane impact, they'd only be looking for reasons why they shouldn't believe it. This whole "there's no footage" is nothing but a conspiracy mongor red herring to distract everyone from all the other evidence they can't deal with.

reply to post by GoodOlDave

Plus, it effectively debunks YOUR video. Your thoughts?

My thoughts, OK. Well first of all, the flight path of the airplane in that fun little cartoon goes against the witness testimonies who agreed that the airplane passed overhead in a direction that's not consistent with the damage pattern of the light poles and the OS. The taxi-cab being struck was brought up in that video, and it's already been established that Lloyd was involved in 9/11 because he admits to it off camera, his wife is in the FBI, and when he got called out and shown evidence that goes against what he was saying, he couldn't even think of anything to say to defend himself.

So now that it's clear that Lloyd was involved in the planning and executing of 9/11, his taxi-cab being struck by a light-pole can be omitted from your "mountains of proof".

Then the poor quality security cam footage which conveniently obscures the plane with that pole thing is used to back up the theory of a Boeing 757, however there is not a frame in that video where a significant portion of the Boeing is visible for identification, so that video could be used as proof of a missile as much as a Boeing aircraft. But it's cool that the video kept rolling, I'm only used to seeing those five frames or whatever was shown on the MSM over and over again, so that was pretty interesting.

Then I guess the unscathed lawn can be attributed to the expert Boeing 757 piloting of the rookie who could barely handle a single engine aircraft. The damage to that 18 wheeler and that potted plant structure is pretty good stuff, I've never seen that before and I'm pretty dumbfounded. However how can those wire spools possibly be left standing upright after being hit by a massive aircraft moving at hundreds of miles per hour? Did the airplane just pass right over them, and the fiery jet fuel explosion didn't knock them over?

Even if the damage to those things was caused by the engines while the plane luckily passed a few inches above the wire spools, that flight path is inconsistent with the credible witness testimonies account of where the plane flew.

If you don't want to watch the whole thing, skip to 7:23 in the video. However I would recommend watching the whole video because it brings up lots of good points that aren't often considered, and lots of those points address the details brought up in your video that you posted.

Next in your video the photographic evidence of debris is shown, and this is where it gets sketchy. Why is it that some of the debris has caution tape around it, while other debris is being picked up by some dudes? Why were government officials removing evidence from a terrorist attack crime scene?

There is only one way for us to be absolutely 100% sure that a Boeing 757 struck the Pentagon, and that is if the government that you are siding with quits witholding valuable evidence from the public, and shows us all of the 80 videos of the aircraft striking the Pentagon. However it's clear that after 10 years they have no intention of doing that, and the fact that they will not release video evidence that will put the conspiracy theories over the Pentagon to rest is a strong indication that there is something to hide on that video evidence. Would you agree? Or do you think there is a rational reason to hide those videos from the public? The refusal to show us actual video evidence of the Boeing 757 gives us more reason to be skeptical of the official story and believe that 9/11 was a planned event.

Originally posted by samkent
I suspectg that when your 2 year old gets through their high school physics class they will disagree with you.

Try Googling 'straw through potato'. You will find several videos of paper straws being pushed completely through a potato. It's the simple physics errors that trip up many of the conspiracy believers.

You beat me to it. In reality it was more of the case of a potato going through a straw, as the the lamp post was a hollow aluminum tube and the wings stored the incompressable fuel, so for all practical purposes they behaved as a solid object.

Watch, the next thing these conspriacy mongers will be arguing over in desperation is demanding that the gov't release details of the exact amount of fuel the plane had left in the tanks during the time of the attack. They might as well be arguing over what color shoelaces Hani Hanjour had on.

reply to post by GoodOlDave

In fact it was you conspiracy people who told me that back in 1993 FBI agents wanted to give the WTC bombers a fake bomb so that they could collar them in a sting, until some dingbat supervisor in the FBI decided to pull the plug because he didn't think their informant was telling the truth.

Don't know anything about it, and i m not part of any movement....i m not a sheep, have my own intuition and logic

Rubbish. This whole "Cheney ordered a stand down" bit is coming entirely from those con artists running those conspiracy web sites., They're misquoting Norm Mineta who specifically said that Cheney did in fact authorize a shoot down order, and there's no way anyone can misrepresent "does the order still stand" into "stand down order" unless they're doing it deliberately.

can you show that video, please? The one i showed from the 9/11 commision showed something else, but i want to learn, also from you, cause i want to keep a clear mind

Not really. Cameras are set up to monitor the high traffic areas like parking lots, entrances, and front gates like this footage was taken from. They don't have ten thousand cameras aimed at every garbage can and blade of grass

and don't forget the excellent quality of that one and only camera 'videoproof' that doesn't show a Boeing

Not that it matters, as it's obvious from the nonstop excuses the conspiracy people are posting here that even if there was a crystal clear footage of the plane impact, they'd only be looking for reasons why they shouldn't believe it. This whole "there's no footage" is nothing but a conspiracy mongor red herring to distract everyone from all the other evidence they can't deal with

i disagree....if the facts aka no doubt videos were shown the past years, i would start doubting.....but there are too many holes on the whole 9/11 tragedy stories. I m not an American, no clue if you are one, but i would be very angry, mad and pissed off if i was an American. The US government doesn't debunk our conspiracy theories at all (as far as i know)....so, why don't they show more proofs, or debunk our theories?

Originally posted by TupacShakur
My thoughts, OK. Well first of all, the flight path of the airplane in that fun little cartoon goes against the witness testimonies who agreed that the airplane passed overhead in a direction that's not consistent with the damage pattern of the light poles and the OS. The taxi-cab being struck was brought up in that video, and it's already been established that Lloyd was involved in 9/11 because he admits to it off camera, his wife is in the FBI, and when he got called out and shown evidence that goes against what he was saying, he couldn't even think of anything to say to defend himself.

I'm going to have to wait until later to watch this, but claiming Lloyd England was a participant in some massive coverup entirely because "his wife works for the FBI" is absurdity in the extreme.

Then the poor quality security cam footage which conveniently obscures the plane with that pole thing is used to back up the theory of a Boeing 757, however there is not a frame in that video where a significant portion of the Boeing is visible for identification, so that video could be used as proof of a missile as much as a Boeing aircraft. But it's cool that the video kept rolling, I'm only used to seeing those five frames or whatever was shown on the MSM over and over again, so that was pretty interesting.

Bait and switch. I'm not using this as proof that flight 77 hit the Pentagon. YOU are using this as proof there's a coverup. According to you, the Pentagon necessarily has to have crystal clear video of the impact somehow and then you use that bit of make believe to manufacture more make believe that this blurry version was released an some sort of disinformation stunt. Frankly, if there was some orchestrated disinformation stunt the govt' would have manufactured crystal clear images of the impact, not this crummy image with some blurry something way off in the distance. You know that and so do I.

FYI the one thing the video definitely does show is that the craft had a very large tail rudder, as shown by the "there one moment, and gone the next" sillouette as pointed out in the animation. No small craft and certainly no cruise missile would have such a large tail rudder like this.

Even if the damage to those things was caused by the engines while the plane luckily passed a few inches above the wire spools, that flight path is inconsistent with the credible witness testimonies account of where the plane flew.

Exsqueeze me? Every witness you're quoting specifically said that it was a plane they saw hit the Pentagon so that destroys your conspiracy claims right there, and these inconsistancies of how far they thought they were from the plane are unrealistic; noone can be expected to reliably judge the distance they were standing from a large object of unknown size with GPS accuracy in the three seconds they saw it. Even then, by your own video their testimony was consistant among each other within a dozen yards or so to the left or right of what the animation showed.

Next in your video the photographic evidence of debris is shown, and this is where it gets sketchy. Why is it that some of the debris has caution tape around it, while other debris is being picked up by some dudes? Why were government officials removing evidence from a terrorist attack crime scene?

I could speculate that the taped off wreckage was thrown out some distance outside from the area they cordoned off (where they didn't need to put tape around it), but frankly this is too silly for either of us to be arguing over. Accept the fact there were cases where they needed to tape off some pieces of wreckage and cases where they didn't.

There is only one way for us to be absolutely 100% sure that a Boeing 757 struck the Pentagon, and that is if the government that you are siding with quits witholding valuable evidence from the public, and shows us all of the 80 videos of the aircraft striking the Pentagon. However it's clear that after 10 years they have no intention of doing that, and the fact that they will not release video evidence that will put the conspiracy theories over the Pentagon to rest is a strong indication that there is something to hide on that video evidence. Would you agree?

As you have never shown that any additional usable video even exists, all you have shown is that you're making up accusations to justify the previous accusations you're making up, which is circular logic in that you're just repeating the original statemnt in different terms in an attempt to explain itself. As you have shown that you...

a) accused a taxi driver of being in collusion to mass murder and treason because "his wife works for the FBI"

b) made up claims that additional impact footage exists, and then make up claims why they're withholding said make believe impact footage

c) Intentionally ignored all the eyewitness accounts specifically saying they saw a passenger jet hit the Pentagon, even when they're specifically saying on camera that they saw a passenger jet hit the Pentagon.

d) dropped innuendo on how "suspicious" it is that a gov't agency would want to collect aircraft wreckage from a crash site.

...would YOU agree that even if they did release any more impact video, that you'd just grasp at any reason you could find, however absurd, to dismiss said video as being staged/faked just like you're doing everything else?

Originally posted by kaya82
You dont have to have a shread of experience with flying to realise a plane that big flying that fast couldnt possibly hit 5 light poles and not cartwheel to the ground The government would have us believe the wings cut threw the poles like a hot knife threw butter. Even my 2 year year old could comprehend that.

Lightpoles are designed to break easily, as a matter of safety.

reply to post by GoodOlDave

I'm going to have to wait until later to watch this, but claiming Lloyd England was a participant in some massive coverup entirely because "his wife works for the FBI" is absurdity in the extreme.

Sure, but I had more than that one reason that you chose to single out.

From that post:

The taxi-cab being struck was brought up in that video, and it's already been established that Lloyd was involved in 9/11 because he admits to it off camera, his wife is in the FBI, and when he got called out and shown evidence that goes against what he was saying, he couldn't even think of anything to say to defend himself.

So I don't think he was a participant "entirely because" his wife works in the FBI, but for those three reasons that are bolded in that quote. In fact his wife being in the FBI is probably the weakest of those there pieces of evidence, however you chose to select just that one detail even though there were clearly three reasons why I concluded that Lloyd was a participant in the planning and executing of the cover-up.

Bait and switch. I'm not using this as proof that flight 77 hit the Pentagon. YOU are using this as proof there's a coverup. According to you, the Pentagon necessarily has to have crystal clear video of the impact somehow and then you use that bit of make believe to manufacture more make believe that this blurry version was released an some sort of disinformation stunt.

Not exactly, I just want a video that actually shows a Boeing 757 to be released to the public. I'm not saying I need an HD video so clear that you can zoom in and see the Turban on the pilots head, I just want to be able to make out a Boeing 757 in the video. I wouldn't say it's part of a "disinformation stunt", but it's just a video that doesn't back up the official story since the aircraft in question cannot be made out.

Frankly, if there was some orchestrated disinformation stunt the govt' would have manufactured crystal clear images of the impact, not this crummy image with some blurry something way off in the distance. You know that and so do I.

I don't know that at all and neither do you, we can't tap into the minds of those who would be involved in an "orchestrated disinformation stunt".

FYI the one thing the video definitely does show is that the craft had a very large tail rudder, as shown by the "there one moment, and gone the next" sillouette as pointed out in the animation. No small craft and certainly no cruise missile would have such a large tail rudder like this.

Really? Remember this image? [atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1c3a02436df1.jpg[/atsimg] Slap some paint on that bad-boy to make it look like a commericial airliner, and you're set: [atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ce9d206555a5.jpg[/atsimg] So tell me Dave, does the outline from that Pentagon footage match the appearance of a Boeing 757? [atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2fbcf7079c6a.jpg[/atsimg]

Exsqueeze me? Every witness you're quoting specifically said that it was a plane they saw hit the Pentagon so that destroys your conspiracy claims right there,

Right but the exact description is not conclusive, one dude said he thought it looked like a private jet, and a painted tomahawk missile could easily pass as an airplane if you only have a 2 second glimpse of it.

and these inconsistancies of how far they thought they were from the plane are unrealistic; noone can be expected to reliably judge the distance they were standing from a large object of unknown size with GPS accuracy in the three seconds they saw it. Even then, by your own video their testimony was consistant among each other within a dozen yards or so to the left or right of what the animation showed.

Well if you would have actually watched the video of the witness interviews, there are clear points of refrence that a 10 year old could use to identify where the aircraft was. For example, the police officers were filling up their car with gas, and the aircraft passed overhead on the side of the gas station opposite of where it should have been to satisfy the light pole damage and the official story.

I could speculate that the taped off wreckage was thrown out some distance outside from the area they cordoned off (where they didn't need to put tape around it), but frankly this is too silly for either of us to be arguing over. Accept the fact there were cases where they needed to tape off some pieces of wreckage and cases where they didn't.

Why would I do that? At any crime scene isn't the top priority not to tamper with evidence? The FBI of all organizations should have known this best.

As you have never shown that any additional usable video even exists, all you have shown is that you're making up accusations to justify the previous accusations you're making up, which is circular logic in that you're just repeating the original statemnt in different terms in an attempt to explain itself.

Sorry, I should have posted some evidence to back that up, here ya go: [atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/bad891b9ce70.jpg[/atsimg] Our FBI guy Maguire claims that there was only one out the 85 videotapes that shows an airplane, and that's the one that was released....So I guess we should just take the FBIs word that that's the only good video, because it's not the job of the public to determine that and conclude whether or not the FBI is hiding something, that's the FBIs job.

As you have shown that you...

a) accused a taxi driver of being in collusion to mass murder and treason because "his wife works for the FBI"

Come on Dave, don't resort to strawmans, you're better than that, aren't you? I gave more than just that reason, but you chose to unfairly address only that piece of evidence.

b) made up claims that additional impact footage exists, and then make up claims why they're withholding said make believe impact footage

Maguire said that 85 videos could be helpful, so I think all of those videos should be released to the public. If 83 of them show a backyard barbeque or something like that and don't even catch a glimpse of the airplane, that's fine, but just saying "Oh yeah, these are the only 2 good ones out of 85, so there would be no reason for you to confirm that for yourself. I'll just go ahead and hold on to the rest of the videos, because that will save you the trouble of watching them and determining that for yourself" is pretty sketchy IMO.

c) Intentionally ignored all the eyewitness accounts specifically saying they saw a passenger jet hit the Pentagon, even when they're specifically saying on camera that they saw a passenger jet hit the Pentagon.

They're not all consistent in their observations of the appearance of the aircraft, so I'm not going to call it case closed just because of that.

d) dropped innuendo on how "suspicious" it is that a gov't agency would want to collect aircraft wreckage from a crash site.

Well when the possiblity arises that our own government could have been involved in the planning and execution of the 9/11 attacks, tampering with evidence at the very crime scene that they could be involved in is suspicious to me. The same would go for the police: Imagine a hypothetical scenario in which after a murder occurs, some evidence arises suggesting that police officers may have been involved in the murder. Now what if at the crime scene, the police officers were cleaning up the evidence and packing it away, I would find that equally as suspicious.

...would YOU agree that even if they did release any more impact video, that you'd just grasp at any reason you could find, however absurd, to dismiss said video as being staged/faked just like you're doing everything else?

No I disagree, because if the description of what the majority of eye witnesses claim say they saw matched up with a clear video of a Boeing 757 impacting the light poles and crashing into the Pentagon, I think there wouldn't really be much to dispute there. If a video shows what they are saying, then there wouldn't be much reason to doubt them. However going off of eye-witness testimonies and a blurry video that doesn't show what the witnesses claim they saw isn't going to cut it for me.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
I posted this in that other thread the OP started, and since the OP is avoiding addressing this as well, perhaps you can-

GoodOlDave, perhaps you have not read the OP of this thread, or the thread title. In case you haven't I'll summarise for you.

You claimed for a fact that the images showed remains of passengers.

You have not proven, retracted or revised this claim. Your other off-topic-wall-of-text responses are chaff to this thread.

You have a lot of work to do, GoodOlDave, to salvage your credibility when it comes to making claims about facts.

reply to post by tezzajw

...our other off-topic-wall-of-text responses are chaff to this thread.

i don't mind to say i m maybe partly guilty to it, for this kind of distraction. Btw, has no one ever wondering where the wings went to, after the crash? The impact is smaller than the total size of the wings, but the pictures and videos i saw the past years.....did i overlook them?

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by kaya82

 

The government would have us believe the wings cut threw the poles like a hot knife threw butter. Even my 2 year year old could comprehend that.

I suspectg that when your 2 year old gets through their high school physics class they will disagree with you.

Try Googling 'straw through potato'. You will find several videos of paper straws being pushed completely through a potato. It's the simple physics errors that trip up many of the conspiracy believers.

maybe straw can be pushed threw potato i dont know but if a wing clipped a light pole it would throw it off course with out a doubt in my mind you believe what you wish