[utley]

yeah im sure everything you find on the internet is chock full of truth.

[Dennislp3]

Just for the hell of adding more proof for you blind people (who will prolly not even watch it) go on youtube and watch "9/11 coincidences"

[kenmister123]

I heard this was all one big goverment cover up conspiracy lifes taken for no damn reason

[Seroquel]

Yeah, there's no damn way a jet hit it. Complete BS. Hole's too damn small for a passenger jet to have caused it. Not having it either.

[Dennislp3]

Originally Posted by utley ↗

did you even bother to look through the thread for pics of the aircraft wreckage? are you that lazy?? you and your kind will eventually mean the death of us as a country...stupidity and laziness have no part in society.

Few posts later from you: yeah im sure everything you find on the internet is chock full of truth.

Are you to fucking lazy and stupid to do some research instead of just taking what the government says...not to mention you just made a statement that contradicts your alleged wreckage pics....dumbass

[SRTtoZ]

Originally Posted by willieboy ↗

If you believe the US govt. wouldn't do this to it's own people then i guess you don't believe they gave LSD to black servicemen in the 50's?

Or how about how the CIA helped import cocaine to the USA during the 60's/70's? And was uncovered by Gary Webb who wrote this fascinating piece....The government is behind a lot more than you think. Do you know who Henry Kissinger is? You understand he hid tons of actions from his OWN govement under nixon right? Do some research PEOPLE! Oh yea that author I was telling you about, Gary Webb? In 2004 he was uncovering more on the CIA and was murdered...

[Desensitisation]

Or how about people look up just how poorly a plane stands up to crashing into solid concrete and steel? The Pentagon has an outer shell that is tough as buggery, for a good reason: It's the Pentagon. The wings hit no less than five lamp posts, and have the least mass of the plane, compared to the actual body. At the speed the plane would have been travelling, hitting solid concrete, most of it would simply vapourise, with the left over shrapnel being from when the wings and engines struck the light poles, generator, and surrounding structures.

The hole is small because it's thick, reinforced concrete and it would take the entire mass of the body of the plane to make the hole in the first place (which is what happened), hence why the wings, with no real mass behind them, failed to damage the building significantly.

[noobcake]

Originally Posted by Desensitisation ↗

Or how about people look up just how poorly a plane stands up to crashing into solid concrete and steel? The Pentagon has an outer shell that is tough as buggery, for a good reason: It's the Pentagon. The wings hit no less than five lamp posts, and have the least mass of the plane, compared to the actual body. At the speed the plane would have been travelling, hitting solid concrete, most of it would simply vapourise, with the left over shrapnel being from when the wings and engines struck the light poles, generator, and surrounding structures.

The hole is small because it's thick, reinforced concrete and it would take the entire mass of the body of the plane to make the hole in the first place (which is what happened), hence why the wings, with no real mass behind them, failed to damage the building significantly.

It may be true that a plane has no chance against a good quality building but this is obviously not a plane. i have seen many photos and documents. "officialy" there was only one engine or turbine (what ever you like more) found after that crash, first thing wrong. Very little pieces of "plane". And the speed and height it hit at is fucked. If anyone actually thinks a plane of that size would be able to fly that low and fast is stupid and imbred a few to many generations.

[Freaksh0w]

Go back and look at the video between 4-6 seconds. Do you really think some hi-jacker is going to come flying in perfectly flat 3" above the ground without touching the ground (according to photos)?

That's the part that looks fake IMO.

[Dennislp3]

and to add insult to injury....the wingspan of the plane is well over a hundred feet....the area of destruction is less than 100 feet wide (obviously cant tell here but look at any after affect pics of the front)....would the wings not have made a mark separate from the fuselage to the left and right regardless of wing size?

And in the video you can see a white cylinder looking object...where is the 44 ft tall vertical stabilizer in the back? you obviously cant see the wings which means the thing would have to be going into the building at a level angle (relative to the camera) so you would have seen it

Also there are no marks on the front lawn...not to mention no plane parts...despite the force and all the idea that the plane would essentially vaporize is very stupid...get destroyed and mangled beyond recognition? sure. vaporized? no....it wasn't a plane...how much evidence does one need? I guess the BS government story is enough for some