You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: 9/11
actually that was meant as a reply to flagg...but was not posted as such. I am on your side of the debate, if there are sides, that is.
What are you talking about? The scholars list their area of expertise and occupation. This is no secret and is commonly known about the scholars for truth. I have provided a source for all my arguments. I support the offical, logical story and have evidence to support it. Many of you assert a coverup and then attempt to work backwards to justify it. No one has yet to provide a linear theory of alternate causes and events, just multiple scenarios to unique times of the attack.
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: 9/11
How many Jetline crashes have you scene? How many have you scene crash into a fortfied building?
Re: 9/11
There's plenty of airline crashes to use as reference, and several that actually hit skyscrapers. None of them fell like the WTC did.
That damage at the Pentagon isn't even the size of an airliner. Gimme a break. Maybe a truck bomb or something of that nature, but not an airplane.
Re: 9/11
You guys do realize that the Pentagon is a fortress right? It's built to withstand all kinds of attacks.
Besides, there's fucking video of it hitting. There are eyewitnesses who saw it fly over the highway. There is indeed damage to the ground, contrary to what was said here.
Would you guys believe a drinking straw could fly right through a tree?
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: 9/11
There's plenty of airline crashes to use as reference, and several that actually hit skyscrapers. None of them fell like the WTC did.
That damage at the Pentagon isn't even the size of an airliner. Gimme a break. Maybe a truck bomb or something of that nature, but not an airplane.
Are you failing to see something in the photos? The first picture I provided showed the 75ft width of the hole in the Pentagon. In the 2nd Lair of the Pentagon, there is a smaller, 15ft wide hole that was caused by the landing gear as the main portion of the plane basically vaporized on impact.
Please for the love of god. If you people are going to make claims about 9/11, please do some basic research.
Oh and James, please provide me some examples of Boeings crashing into other skyscrapers of similar design and material as the WTC. I'm sure you've looked this up before and have a well thought out explanation. 
Re: 9/11
Are you failing to see something in the photos? The first picture I provided showed the 75ft width of the hole in the Pentagon. In the 2nd Lair of the Pentagon, there is a smaller, 15ft wide hole that was caused by the landing gear as the main portion of the plane basically vaporized on impact.
The 75ft wide hole was the result of the structure collapsing. Initially there was just the 15-20ft hole. This makes it possible for the claimed plane to fit, in the width. Not the height however, which is under half of the height of the plane.
And if the plane vaporized, why is there a hole? Why were there penetration through 3 steel inforced walls? If something vaporizes it doesn't make a hole through something. Basic physics.
Funny still, that the government claimed they ID'd the passengers through fingerprinting. They even claimed they got the wreckage someplace. No pictures though.
Re: 9/11
There's another good example, but forgot which country it happened in. Maybe polluxlm or someone else in this thread remembers it.
I guess these don't count though since they didn't fall like a house of cards.
We'll just disregard all airline tragedies since the WTC was able to do the impossible. Twice. An hour apart.
The Usce tower was bombed by US forces 12 times and still didn't fall to the ground. We were practically begging for it to fall. Why didn't it? Because buildings are built to withstand that shit. You don't build them with cardboard. If you want it to come down, you demolish the fucker from the inside.
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: 9/11
The top one is definitely not a plane nor building similar to the WTC attack obviously. Because I don't know the context of the 2nd building, I can't comment. But notice how there isn't a sihlouette of the plane's wings in either photo, which is a common citation of proof of a missle attack among 9/11 truthers.
