typical, truther has to make it personal.

so much for having a respectful discussion, regardless of the forum.

Charlie sure takes himself too seriously, as does the OP. :1orglaugh

If it was a plane, where were the two holes that the 6 ton, partially titanium engines traveling at several hundred mph should have made? .. or any trace of those engines?

The report of them being pulled through the single hole as the wings folded back is a bit extreme don't ya think?

Especially when considering that the engines on a 757 are designed to break away on impact.

In hindsight the metric system wouldn't have been so bad.

This photograph of an engine part at the Pentagon crash scene were released as exhibits in the 2006 trial U.S. v. Moussaoui. 1
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon.../P200030_1.jpg

Several photographs of aircraft parts photographed inside the Pentagon

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon...s/diffuser.jpg

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon...andinggear.jpg

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon...iordamage5.jpg

those photos lend even more to the 757 argument..

Just one landing gear piece was ever shown.. parts from just one engine was reported being found.. on the inside..

No evidence of any engine parts on the outside..
Again.. 2, 6 ton engines, traveling at 300+ mph are able to change directions twice (within a few feet) after impact to work their way through a single hole..

At best this says that the breakaway feature failed on both engines.. and the titanium parts burned up at a temperature that has to work hard to melt steel.

and the basic laws in inertia are a myth.

typical. you cannot have it both ways.

and this is generally how truthers argue the issue. 1st they (you) say one thing, then when proof is shown, it's a quick backtrack or sidetrack.

Charley has put his balls on the table with that article.

Nope.. not backtracking..

I'm saying it was no 757 that hit.. Had it been, the engines would have broken loose on impact and would have slammed through the bldg.; creating 2 more holes, or the single hole that was made would have been much larger.. or they would have hit the bldg. and left all sorts of pieces & parts at their impact points. Neither was the case..

As for the proof shown.. I said that it lends more to support the argument against it being a 757.

Think about the size of the hole.. then the size of the plane.. Flying fast enough to allow a 150+ ft. fuselage to disappear completely into the bldg.... through a number of re-enforced walls, but apparently not fast enough for 2, 6 ton engines to leave as much as a mark on the wall..

A fitting message for my 999 post

Bump ... although it's like Kennedy, we all know it was a setup ... now what? Bring people to justice, good luck

No he won't and no Charlie Sheen isn't.

Agreed. Posting half-witted insane rantings from Prison Planet is quite representative of your contributions here. Nice work. :1orglaugh

Missiles explode don't they? Or are you suggesting this one did not?

I concur.

Quite the contrary. I'm suggesting that one did and it penetrated all the way through the other side. Seem much more probable to me over the official story of a plane doing this all the way through the other side of an section of this building which was designed to withstand some serious damage. (even admitted in this thread it was just finished)

http://www.sxolsout.org.uk/p55_files/hole-out.jpg

It's just like the myth of those building designed to withstand a direct large passenger plane impact falling to the ground in pretty much exactly the same manner. And then you add to that an additional building that wasn't even hit falling the exact same way.

What exactly came through the other side of the building? Did it penetrate through and just disintegrate? Also pay close attention to the Sheen video posted where the comparison camera shots of the impact and the cab/cop car whatever it is. The excuse is that the camera only had so many frames. But as you can see from the cab shot it has a refresh rate much faster than they would like to make everyone believe.

1. exactly.



this picture proves A LOT

2. a missile that, at most, has a 2-3 ft diameter blows a hole in a wall exactly the same size as a 757 fuselage? wrong. forensics proves a hole created is approx the same as the diameter as the projectile that creates the hole.

3. obviously, by the picture, the plane hit at a height where the engines (hanging under the wings) were torn off prior to impact.

4. bodies of plane passengers were forensically identified inside the building.

You all are funny.

New page?

Shit one more try? LOL

You mean, let me understand this cause, ya know maybe it?s me, I?m a little fucked up maybe, but I?m funny how,I mean funny like I?m a clown, I amuse you? I make you laugh, I?M HERE TO FUCKIN? AMUSE YOU?

http://21.media.tumblr.com/2lUZK8fth...i2IKo1_500.jpg

If the fuselage came through then where is it? Come on now, I don't see anything that resembles a plane or even a piece of a plane in that picture. Nor do I see anything burning laying there. I do see lots of smoke billowing out of the building and a bunch of building rubble.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

another typical truther response- you pass right over the facts to shrug your shoulders with a "well, what about this then?". the fuselage disinegrated. what did not disenegrate has been presented previously (in pictures) in this thread, both inside and outside the pentagon.

bodies of passengers have been identified inside the building as well, computer models explain the physics of the event.


there's a lot of data backing this up.

What exactly is funny? That we have people like Sheen giving these truthers a vessel?

Dude, how much do you expect to be left of a piece of aluminum going 500 MPH into several brick walls?

Once again data produced by those who wish to keep the official story, the official story. You're in the IT business you know as well as I that you can make a model to explain anything any way you wish. What you can't get it to explain is common sense. And common sense tells me that the plane didn't penetrate the other side of that building and all of it just burn to a crisp while the building material all around it didn't. Makes no sense whatsoever.

Funny in how worked up you all get.

look, don't try and make this about my common sense. i know that a HEALTHY skepticism of the government is a good thing and i feel i have that, but scorn distorts one's ability to view the event from a neutral point of view. to try and argue that my common sense should explain to me what happened is an attempt to insult. physics is far from common sense, i learned that the hard way in college, lolz.

i don't have a problem playing around in threads like this, but please, don't make it about me.

I didn't say anything about your common sense. If you read it again I said what you can't get a computer model to do... You seem to want to turn the debate into personal attacks yourself. Since you took physics then please explain how a plane reduces to ashes while wood and other easily combustible materials around it doesn't.

naw, i'm not going to get into that with you, besides, my comment about taking physics in college was more tongue in cheek about how difficult it is to grasp the concepts of physics while you brush off it off as common sense. that's like saying mankind should understand gravity without newton's laws.

you mentioned common sense in a way that implies everyone should agree with you, and understand, which is silly in a discussion such as this. i'm not here thinking it's important you will come around to see things the way i see them. i'm here to waste time whilst i am stuck in front of my computer.

Anyone should be able to look at that picture and see that there's no way in hell a plane burnt to a crisp after coming through that wall and all of the material around it didn't. Physics degree, classes or not. Whether anyone agrees with me or not I don't care. I can only point out the obvious.

Charlie Sheen made a good point today and brought up another puzzling question. Why is it that the doomsday planes were able to be on location and even photographed at both the WTC and the Pentagon but fighter jets weren't able to be scrambled? How in the hell can those rarely used planes be where they were needed pretty much on time if not on time and not fighter jets? I mean fuck couldn't the the pilots in the doomsday planes do a suicide mission and slam into the rogue airliners. Hell any military plane armed or not.. It's on record Cheney knew that flight was heading towards Washington for at least 30-40 miles out. He could have tried to do something. If he wanted to.. Instead "of course the order still stands did you hear anything differently?" whatever order that was. One can only assume a stand down order.

Fan fic is so much fun!