[Billthegravedigger]

Originally Posted by vonjo27 ↗

Hahaha- I'm not the one bending over backwards trying to make sense out of the government's story. I don't have to convince anybody, I'm comfortable knowing 2+2 =4.

Oh yeah, you do realize that the pentagon was having extensive upgrades on the section hit by the plane don't you ?

That explains your unbroken windows, and really, if the goverment was going to destroy the pentagon to cover up some sort of conspiracy, why would they choose a part that was almost empty, and had all kinds of upgrades ?

Wouldn't they hit the building where it had not been modified so much ? Wouldn't they hit where the classified documents were kept ?

[Billthegravedigger]

Originally Posted by robot ↗

"The Gate Camera - Some people don't seem to see perspective correctly. I've zoomed in, and compared the two frames over and over - here is what I see as the airplane. I will repeat, however, that this is terrible evidence due to the horrible quality of the original images. I do believe, however, that the white smoke in the images is caused by one or more damaged engine from the impact with the multiple light poles on the way in (as seen in the above image). I stuck in a 757 that was at relatively the same angle - except it's banking slightly to starboard instead of to port - hence the ONE wing is out of place. If it was banking slightly to port it would fit perfectly... However, once again - this is entirely subjective and the image quality from the released surveillance camera is not good enough to form a factual opinion.
http://files.abovetopsecret.com/imag...7/camera1b.gif

Not only that, but if the goverment was going to go through all of this shit, wouldn't they take it up a notch ? The damage the plane did is consistant with a plane. A cruise missle or bunker buster would done much more damage than what that plane did, though some will not admitt it.

[ebneter]

Originally Posted by vonjo27 ↗

Umm..... that's EXACTLY what happens, but there's nothing magical about it- it's physics.

Um, no, that's not what happens. How does it shed that speed, please? (Want to get into a physics debate?)

A very close relative of mine helped design the 767 and the 757 and if he tells me they could be flown that way for a short period of time I am certainly going to trust his judgement on aeronautical engineering matters.

I don't understand why sheeple are in such denial. Why do you defend a disgustingly corrupt government? Why are we Americans the only ones who can't see the truth behind our country's evil. Everyone else does.

*sigh* Please read what Bill and Ronin and I have all said: We don't believe the government is innocent. We just don't believe that this vast conspiracy you claim exists. I believe that our government let it happen when they could have prevented it.

Why go to all the trouble of faking something when you can 25 or so Islamic fundamentalists to do it for you for free?

[ebneter]

Originally Posted by vonjo27 ↗

What most are saying? Right wing folded in to the plane? That's absurd. The wing didn't fold, it's not a fucking insect. It wouldn't have folded, but it could have broken off, but then of course there would still be a wing on the grounds of the pentagon for everyone to see.

Actually, no, it would have shattered into thousands of little pieces at that speed, running into a brick wall.

It seems that initially the pictures didn't match their story, so they created a new one about wings folding. Wasn't it 8600 gallons of jet fuel that brought down a 110 story building- TWICE- in NYC on 9/11?

A bit more. Those were 767s on transcontinental flights. Plus, you know, the contents of a few acres of office.

The damage shown here seems pretty minor in comparison. As a matter of fact, there was virtually no damage to many the offices surrounding the hole where supposedly 8600 gallons of jet fuel ignited. Give it up already.

...no damage...? WTF? Cite, please.

Also, an aircraft hitting a concrete and steel wall is going to cause less damage than an aircraft hitting an aluminum facade and structural steel. Whereas I'm pretty sure the warhead on a cruise missile would have caused a lot more damage than you see.

[ebneter]

Originally Posted by vonjo27 ↗

Yes, ASSUMING IT IS FUCKING POSSIBLE FOR A WING TO FOLD!!!!!. And building 7? Who are you people? There was no damage to building 7, except for a couple fires. It fell in less than 7 seconds, from fire? But lets stay on the topic. I'm being very open minded, unlike you, that's why I am able to spot bullshit when it comes my way.

No damage to Building 7? Are you smoking crack? It was hit by debris from Building 1, causing major damage in addition to the fires. If there was no damage to it, what set it on fire?

[ebneter]

Originally Posted by vonjo27 ↗

Very unstable, according to who??? Besides, Larry Silverstein (leaseholder of WTC) admitted it was "pulled" that day.

*sigh* Silverstein admitted that the firefighters were pulled from the building. And very unstable according to, you know, all the cops and firefighters on the scene... the ones who determined that it was too dangerous to try to fight the fires in the building that were started by the other building collapsing on it.

[Billthegravedigger]

That's pretty much what I told him as well. It could reach and did reach those speeds. He was so low to the ground with the target insight, they would have punched the gas not worrying if the parts were starting to break off.

[tatumthunderlips]

Originally Posted by pbraasch ↗

Nice reply cock gobbler. Ok class, logic 101 is in session. Sit down children, and for those that forgot to take your Ritallin I have some in my desk.
Please, compare the aircraft stirkes on WTC 1 & 2 with the pentagon. You have holes that clearly contain both wing and tail section damage. Pentagon, there is NONE.

A 757-200 has a MTOW (maximum takeoff weight for you redneck hillbilly glue huffers) of 255,000lbs. and when configured for takeoff contains 11,489 gallons of avgas. The estimated speed we are told that said phantom aircraft was travelling was 365mph.

Now, obviously since you have had your head up your ass your whole life you fucking douche...I will explain the physics for you. F=mxa. Based on the mtow and the speed we have 115,680kg x approx. 165 meter per second squared. That is a force of 19,087,200 Newtons which is equivalent to approx. 4,180,000 lbs of force. This isn't even taking into consideration the force of the supposed explosion that took place from the 11,489 gallons of fuel onboard.
Taking this into consideration, your picture with the pretty red crayon outline shows abolutely no damage, with the forces involved, to the area where your crayon has indicated the wing area.
Oh, btw! the AGM-114 Hellfire missle has a Metal augmented charge (MAC); 18 lb (8 kg) shaped-charge that would have easily penetrated the pentagon protection AND penetrated to the inner corriders.
And another btw! The Hellfire produces 5,000,000lbs of overpressure at time of impact.
So, fuck you and I heard you got fired from the sperm factory for drinking on the job!

Thank you for you High School Physics application... I'd forgotten the simple equations which make it so obviously clear that it could not have caused by a plane. Wait wait wait, the system occurring during impact was only slightly more complicated, but of course you could always model it in 3d studio because of course that program has a realistic set of physics. What a joke, go impress some 16 year old kids with your wiz bang science.

As a side note it would be a misnomer to say that the fuel exploded. Due to impact and absolute catastrophic rupture of the fuel tanks by blunt force, they combusted rapidly but did not explode. Lest it ignited under pressure, it would be impossible for the fuel to "explode" it would rather ignite extremely rapidly. As someone who brought physical equations into this argument, you sure lack a general education in the classification of combustion.

[Billthegravedigger]

[Billthegravedigger]

Looks like a plane hit it to me.