HOME - LOST ENDING -> 9/11Start A New Topic | Reply
Post InfoTOPIC: 9/11
Posted By: Truth

Posted On: Apr 29, 2006
Views: 1101
9/11

Even if you don't agree with the words, the pictures speak for themselves.

http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/


View the flash


Posted By: Not even close to the truth

Posted On: Apr 29, 2006
Views: 1100
RE: 9/11

Another stupid conspiracy theory. A jet hit the building no matter how much you want to pretend otherwise. Get over it already.


Posted By: .....

Posted On: Apr 29, 2006
Views: 1098
RE: 9/11

Look at the pictures and explain.


Posted By: James

Posted On: Apr 29, 2006
Views: 1091
RE: RE: 9/11

Look, I agree with you, something isn't right there. At least the grass should be burnt, or a hole bigger than 20 feet before it colapsed. Some wings or a tail would be an indicator to. Hitting the building at over 500mph and right at the base, yet nobody on the highway was blown off or even saw it.

One thing though. Nobody here gives a ****. 90% of these people are kids still in school, or are very happy the government ****s them in the ass. Try somewhere else.


Posted By: kris

Posted On: Apr 29, 2006
Views: 1058
RE: 9/11

well there are good arguments to both points, we will never know for sure. I guess it will be debated for a long time but I'm more likely to believe it wasn't a jet impact. good research though


Posted By: adam

Posted On: Apr 30, 2006
Views: 1056
RE: 9/11

i think it was a plane...but if a plane hits and explodes, shouldnt peices of the siding fly off in crazy directions....you're saying they all stayed there and melted which sounds just as crazy as a missile


Posted By:

Posted On: Apr 30, 2006
Views: 1048
RE: RE: 9/11

"we will never know for sure"

Actually we do know for sure. It is just that some people such as yourself are just too stupid to get it. There are no good arguments against it being a jet unless you call ignoring the mountains of evidence and using doctored photos a good argument.


"shouldnt peices of the siding fly off in crazy directions....you're saying they all stayed there and melted which sounds just as crazy as a missile"

Simple physics will keep the plane parts from exploding in all different crazy directions. A mass traveling at a high rate of speed will maintain that speed and direction until an opposing force acts on it enough to stop it. The jet would have started breaking up on impact but the pieces would still be moving at hundreds of miles and hour into the building. Crash sites go from the impact forward, not the other way around. Take a water balloon and throw it fast at an angle to the sidewalk and you will see the splash patterns more in the direction the balloon was traveling. This is not to say there was no debris behind the crash site. There was reports of 2" sized pieces of aircraft skin spread out all over the lawn and road. There were also a few 3’ or so pieces of aircraft in front of the building. Most likely they sheared off when the jet clipped a power generator in front of the building. Smaller pieces have less mass and with less mass have less energy. Go grab a clump of dirt and rocks and throw it into a fan. All the big chunks are unaffected but the small bits will blow back.

So you have the jet breaking up on entry and continuing forward until it hits enough stuff to stop its forward progress. This pulverized the plane to smaller bits. The fire would have melted a great deal of the wreckage given the high temps but it was not that hot everywhere and there was plenty of plane debris photographed and recovered from inside the building. Parts of the engines, wheels, landing gear, and fuselage have been clearly identified.

The building was not in motion so it behaved differently. The plane hit would have sent a shockwave through the impact zone and propelled debris in an outward pattern. The fuel explosion would have created a pressure wave that would blast more debris outward. This is clearly what happened and obvious from this photo - http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/jpg/P200027-1.jpg

There is no mystery at the pentagon. Everything that is claimed to have happened is in keeping with the physics and evidence of the crash site and the eye witness accounts at the scene. If you are looking at the real evidence and not seeing this it does not mean there is a cover-up. It just means you don't have the capacity to understand it. “Don’t cloud my argument with facts” will continue to be your motto.


Posted By: James

Posted On: Apr 30, 2006
Views: 1044
RE: 9/11

God damn, my rants arent that bad... are they?


Posted By:

Posted On: Apr 30, 2006
Views: 1041
RE: 9/11

Your rants have very little factual content and have at least one misspelled word per sentence. Your rants are usually spreading stupidity instead of correcting it. So, yea your rants are very much worse.

Interseting how you avoided the fact that you were shown to be an outright liar.


Posted By:

Posted On: Apr 30, 2006
Views: 1039
RE: 9/11

^Interesting


Posted By: James

Posted On: Apr 30, 2006
Views: 1038
RE: 9/11

I didn't bother to read it. I'll read it latter. It's my birthday tomorrow, see you on the T.


Posted By: kris

Posted On: Apr 30, 2006
Views: 1027
RE: 9/11

I read it. Reports can be made up, photos and videos doctored. So, that's why I said we will never know for sure. you weren't there... you just googled a bunch of info and gullibly assumed it was true... then told us we're stupid because we don't believe it


Posted By: adam

Posted On: Apr 30, 2006
Views: 1025
RE: 9/11

i have sand in my eye, but thanks, that really put things into perspective


Posted By:

Posted On: Apr 30, 2006
Views: 1022
RE: 9/11

"you just googled a bunch of info and gullibly assumed it was true"

Wrong again moron.


Posted By: kris

Posted On: May 1, 2006
Views: 958
RE: 9/11

"Wrong again moron. "

No, you're wrong... Idiot.


Pages [ 1 2 ] Next Page ->  

Home