heres some shit....
 

blew my fucking mind- check it out... the truth :dunno: :o :MAD: :f: :ick:

That's old shit esteeaz but non the less shocking. Too bad they don't show that police dog searching for human remains, searching and sniffing around before the hole collapsed. That dog was never able to track down any remains what so ever...

The strangest part is this, some witnesses said they've seen a plane(?) but they never mentionned about hearing the deafening roar of the engines as it flew close to the highway.

hahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahah thats old shit esteeaz ahahahahahahaahah- just crackin me upits just funny cause of the title and stuff :) anyway i just saw this recently. i have been on myspace with all kinds of friends and i came accross this and wanted to make sure everyone saw it :)-hugyz-estee :hflag: :BGA: :tu: :a:

One of my favorite pics about this event. BTW, just watched a doco on national geo channel, Seconds form disaster. It portrayed on how some ppl survived and got out of there in time (pentagon), one of the main factor was that, they had installed "bomb proof windows"... the strangest part of this doco was, some ppl were able to escape by breaking some front windows (even tho they were bomb proofed) :con:

Hey esteeaz

If that blew your mind,this will knock your socks off.
Or anything else you might be wearing.


http://911research.wtc7.net/contents.html

american airlines flight 11 #N334AA
the plane in sweden about a month before the sept. 11 attacks. this one crashed into the first tower.
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/188142/M/

united flight 175 #N612UA
the plane at LAX about a month before the sept. 11 attacks. this plane crashed into the second tower.
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/188174/M/

american airlines flight 77 #N644AA
the plane that crashed into the pentagon about a month before the sept. 11 attacks taking off from boston.
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/188155/M/

united flight 93 #N591UA
the plane that crashed in PA seen here 3 days before the sept. 11 attacks.
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/188157/M/

happy? four fucking planes, 300 people lost their lives. where are these planes now? err what is THAT plane now? must be a secret conspiracy between the government, the airlines, and the airplane junk yard. small commuter plane :rofl2:

Well,all I can say is.
Oh what's the point.
You can lead a horse to water.
You can't make it drink.

[Question:] How many conspiracy nuts does it take to make a horse drink?









[Answer:] Three; two to hold it's head underwater and one to suck on its asshole.

Cryptic answer
 

Ah A non believer.
Please take a look and then see what you think.

http://911research.wtc7.net/contents.html

As for calling people "conspiracy nuts" who have a different point of view.
Shame on you.
Name calling,
Come on how old are you?
I actually don't know what to believe,but the more you read
about it the more unanswered questions come up.

people are right we should conform and believe everything that the safe talking box tells us. look if some people want to live in pleasentville and believe that everyone speaks the truth thats fine but im going to keep questioning authority and the crap they try to feed us, to baby us, make us believe that everything is ok- when there is so much more to 911 than we could have ever imagined. im not crazy im a fucking realist- people lie, doesnt matter who you are and that also includes the douche bags that run our country.

.
 

How eloquently put.

Well said.

Yeah right, you're all skeptical investigators scrutinizing events for inconsistancies and deducing the hidden truth.

BULLSHIT.

You find or get sent to the crackpot websites and tabloid articles and in keeping with your self-image as nonconformist rebels you start parroting whatever is contrary to mainstream convention thereby proclaiming: 'look how special and different I am'.

The people who put their reputations, careers and lifestyles on the line in gathering and analysing information and swearing to truthfullness in hearings are the people to believe.

The people who regularly screw up their brains with drugs and alcohol generally aren't fit to evaluate large amounts of information and come to rational conclusions on their own. In fact they're the most easily led around by the nose by people skilled in manipulating their biases and predjudices.

'You hate the Bush administration? Look at all this "information" showing what liars and SOB's they are.'......'and show this to all your friends.'

It's hysterical to see someone as cumdrunk as you are on every word, gesture, thought and deed of the Bush administration label other people as 'easily led around by the nose.'

And we're supposed to think you are a 'skeptical investigator scrutinizing events for inconsistencies and deducing the truth?'

BULLSHIT.

You consistently call every piece of information you come across that doesn't fit into your comfortable little box of predefined beliefs a lie. And talk about people who have a need to feel 'special,' you're constantly insisting your superior ability to perceive the truth exalts you above the gullible rabble. Yet you do all this with no further analysis or more visible effort than is required to assassinate the character of anyone who might blur the edges of your pristine world view.

It's very clear that your biases and prejudices can't be manipulated. Just as well, I'm sure you'd choose to cling to them with your last breath anyway.

As to the inferences that bits of data seem amiss in aspects of 911 pointed to in this thread and all other threads, I do remain skeptical and usually find that the people posting and discussing them are also skeptical. A skeptic ponders and considers the data--not necessarily drawing specific conclusions because inconclusiveness can often be the most crucial aspect of the information.

Having established the skepticism is a good thing, the only person I see here not being skeptical is you albed. I'm sure you mean well by admonishing everyone to use more critical thinking and calling them drugged out crackpots, but by your accepting the official view of things uncritically, whole hog and without any apparent allowances or discussion, you obviously do not practice what you preach, and subsequently, for my money, have even less credibility than the some of the most rabid conspiracy buffs.

It's a revealing insight to see that you think cumdrunk can apply to someone besides youself. You just can't imagine people who aren't like you and don't do that sort of thing can you?

Did I say or infer that? No, you just thought it and since you're so full of yourself you decided I must have said it because the only thing that's real to you is what goes on inside your own head and you can't imagine something could be different from the way you want it to be.

Awwe, I taught you a new word. And CapsLock too. Just keep imitating me and you can learn that way; monkey see-monkey do.

Where do I do this? Oh, we're back inside your little monkey head where whatever you want to think is the truth, without any connection with my posts.

Do I now? Someone who could think clearly might conclude that by going with the majority I'm doing the exact opposite. But then thinking clearly means understanding that things aren't simply what you want them to be and dealing rationally with that fact.

Do you mean drug and alcohol abuse are character traits? I keep going back to my post to find what you're referring to but come up empty. I must be doing a lot of things inside your head.

Skeptic: One who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions. Not "ponders and considers the data". Let's not go making up definitions now even if that's what you want to be true.

Wow, this is really just absurd. Could I goad you into providing an example? Come on, just do it, back up your rhetoric, prove you know what you're talking about, walk your talk, don't be chicken, "bawk-bawk-bawk".


I'm afraid you didn't establish that anywhere. You might have done it inside your head though, and thought it happened for real.

That's right. I've gone along with everything in this thread without a trace of doubt. I have unquestionably believed every word of every post and link. So what's your point?

Read on.
 

Hey Albed,
Don't we get excited easy.
You disagree,fine.
Have you read some of the stuff?
What makes you think all of us are anti Bush?
I'm not.
There is without doubt,more to 9/11,than the official view.
Just because some conspiracy theory's are daft doesn't been
all are daft.
Follow.
Why don't you do me a favour?
Read up,do your own research.
I have.
I find lots of strange things going on.
NORAD being ordered to stand down,
Why?
The flight path of the Pentagon jet.
If it was a jet.
The temperature of the fire bringing down the buildings.
Unheard of.
People being told not to turn up for work.
Fireman hearing explosions
There are lots and lots of inconsistencies.
Nobody is clearing these up.
Please try and keep an open mind.
Please feel free to debate.
Don't name call it's not big and it's not cleaver

:KevC:

and then we chop you up into a little peace

Would you quit whining about name calling beerbrain. I'll call you whatever name I want and if you don't like it you can go tell your mommy.

If you want to debate something then post it in your own words and back up its truthfullness with your own reputation instead of posting links and saying 'lookie here'.

There is no "official view" that you people keep referring to. There is sworn testimony by people who have been established as being in a position to have direct knowledge of the events they're testifying to. If you want to ignore them and believe whatever nutcase some lowlife tabloid reporter dredged up then that's your perogative.






I see the frybrain from oz has taken his usual piss in a post he's too fucking stupid to participate in. Someone give the poor ass some attention so he's not compelled to get it in this way. And spell clever right.

Oh, and he called you stupid too. Did you see that? :KevC: Go tell on him.

ffs...this is old..i had my say on this awhile back

do i think the US attacked their HQ with a missile and then got a plane load of people and hid them..or killed them to fake the whole thing
sorry..cant see a reason for them to do this..
unless it was purely to take some of the focus off the WTC

i think the way those buildings went down was possibly controlled and planned beforehand..something not quite right with how that happened..

And can you see a reason for (them?) wanting to do that? (the US isn't a them, it's a country)


You mean the way gravity pulled them straight down when the fires weakened their I-beams? Yeah that was weird. Gravity just doesn't act that way.

here a website which claims "Evidence That A Boeing 757 Really Did Impact the Pentagon on 9/11"

not read it all cause i aint had time but someone go through it and see if theres anything in it to dispute

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/..._evidence.html

John

yeh..yeh..whatever you say
ofcourse you are the fucking expert on evrything...

Some people are just too lazy or burned out to bother learning new stuff. Give him a website that tells him what to think without the effort of learning anything new or thinking too hard.

can you look anymore the pretentious twat that you are...is it possible?

Jcat

Just finished reading your link. That person make a very good point using material/factual evidences but in the end, he totally blows it by his conclusion on the subject. Thought the webpage had way too many ads flashing... This person must be desperate to keep this page up at minimal cost :o

Anyway, this is it's conclusion

Local firefighters? Makes me wonder who he thaught those guys were?




Got me curious, so I googled up ""montgomery collapse rescue team. The search result is what surprised me the most. The first to hits are worth the look.

wierd i have'nt noticed any, i was told that by someone else but haven't ahd any pops or anything, it must be adblock on firefox doing something usefull. ah i see i blocked right media on another site , that must be whee all the popups and shit come from..

haha jsut clicked on ya google link and fema is on the top line of the first hit, says enough

Are you really too stupid to notice that the fire has been put out? Do you know what MD means (Maryland), and do you know where it is?

This is what people mean when they tell you you have your head up your ass.

i'm bemused reading all the crap of those who question the fact that a 757 did crash into the pentagon and that all these websites who are claiming otherwise are merely stating a different "opinion". there is no opinion! it's quite obvious that not much will be left when a plane the size of a 757 fully fueled hits a solid structure at over 500 mph.

you can clearly see the hole it left, the huge fires afterwards prove that a large amount of aviation fuel was on board, you can clearly see the charred parts of the landing gear, the APU, and fan blades, and, for all those who believe that a missile crashed into the pentagon and not a plane, clearly marked pieces of fuselage with the rivet markings and greenish primer and the logo of american airlines.

did i forget to mention that barbara olsen, the conservative journalist who made regular appearances on CNN and fox news and is probably best known for her unrelenting criticism of the clinton administration, was on this flight? she called her husband, solicitor general ted olsen, just before the plane crashed and told him that the flight has been hijacked and they're over washington DC.

I'm laughing even harder that someone who can make such pointless little circles (as albed did in his last 'response' to me) wants anyone to believe they have 'the big picture'--that someone can "evaluate large amounts of information and come to rational conclusions" when they apparently can't even get the gist of a couple of simple paragraphs.

As to inconclusiveness being a crucial aspect of certain questions, It's downright scary that you couldn't figure this out on your own and you have to ask for examples. Did you really think you had me there? Well that's even scarier, I can think of about 1000 examples without even really trying, but you really must believe you have all the answers.

Did OJ do it? When will you die? Is there life after death? What will you be doing at 6:15 PM on July 14th, 2018? What will happen if you gamble your paycheck on the lottery? What happened to the dinosaurs? Is there life on other planets? What will be the total cost of the war in Iraq? How many innocent people are in prison? When will it rain next? When will the sun burn out? Oscillating Big Bang or steady state? Particle or Wave? Choice or Genetic? Global warming or no problem? Does Michael Jackson have sex with little boys? Did Janet Jackson mean to flash her tit? If a tree falls in the forest and there's no one around to hear it, does it make a sound? Does the human body actually lose 21 grams at the moment of death, and why? What was the hump under the president's jacket? Who is right about Jesus, the Christians or the Jews? Why do we dream? What happened to the Anasazi? What happened to the weapons of mass destruction? Will Iraq be a successful democracy? Is it possible to build a perpetual motion machine? What did William Shakespeare eat for breakfast on his 11th birthday? Will artificial intelligence ever exceed human intelligence? How would gay people getting married affect straight people getting married? Is the speed of light an inflexible constant? How many more Americans will die in Iraq? Who will be the first human to step foot on Mars? When and where will the next earthquake be? Are all crop circles hoaxes? Will a democratic Iraq prevent future 911s? Is telepathy possible? How would the last election have turned out if everyone who didn't vote voted? Who was Jack the Ripper? Where is Bid Laden? If you flip a coin 100 times, how many times will it land on heads and how many on tails? How many fingers am I holding up right now?

To anyone who claims to be as smart as you it should be plain as day that in most of the above examples if you believe you have conclusive answers it is precisely that, a belief. You don't know the answers and you may never know the answers, but you may prefer to believe one thing over another. It also seems ridiculous to have to point out that affirming the inconclusiveness of most of these problems is the most important aspect. The concept of manmade global warming has been around for about 30 years, but it's still inconclusive. Those who affirm its inconclusiveness are still doing the work of trying to determine if it's a viable concept, while those who believe one or another conclusion simply pointlessly argue with each other about their beliefs.

How much would you bet with someone that you could flip a coin and have it land on heads 100 times in a row? Hopefully not much--but I can't be sure. I haven't drawn any conclusions about exactly how stupid you may be.

Obviously since you're too lazy and burnt out to actually analyze the situation for yourself you believe you can avoid defending this official view by claiming it doesn't exist, but no one believes you. So what value is this sworn testimony by people who have been established as being in a position to have direct knowledge of the events if not to serve as an "official view?" Seems if there's no official view as you claim, that would be a lot of bother for nothing. As I recall, the "official view" of what happened played an enormous role in many policy making decisions of the last few years, did you miss all that? And by the way, where is this sworn testimony? Can you produce it? And if it's all so obvious why would anyone bother to collect such testimonies? Also, do sworn testimonies represent absolute truth in every case?

In a previous post you claimed "in keeping with your self-image as nonconformist rebels you start parroting whatever is contrary to mainstream convention thereby proclaiming: 'look how special and different I am'." What is this "mainstream convention" of which you speak? It's nothing like an "official view" is it?

And by the way, since you're attacking people's spelling, you might want to run a spell check on your own posts, you seem to have no idea how to spell inconsistencies or prerogative.

What your point? Felt like typing a few words before insulting yet another member, again? BTW, who are these so called "people", got some names? or are you hiding behind those fictionnal 'people' to cover the fact that it is only you who thinks this way? I can come up with a few names but unfortunately, they fall under the same breed as you.

Multi, remember that PM i sent you about the rommie, apply it to albed. Same type of behaviour.

schmooky007, personnally, i'm also bemused that people don't realise how some precision flying it was. What I mean is that these planes flew at 500 mph ffs. Even the instructor told the press that those 'terrorists' couldn't even fly a cesna, imagine them now, flying jumbo airplanes at the speed of 500 mph and hitting their target, all 3 of them. It just doesn't sound right.

BTW, i'd also like one of those indestructible passport, the type that can resists high temp fire and can survive after a building crashes on it.

You need to talk to multi about the spelling. You obviously missed the whole "cleaver" theme there, but then you miss a lot of things.

I'd teach you how to learn new words but it'd be difficult with your monkey see-monkey do technique of learning. It involves googling and clicking the definition link on the upper right.

Mainstream: The prevailing current of thought, influence, or activity

Convention: General agreement on or acceptance of certain practices or attitudes

Sworn testimony http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2...1/pdf/appc.pdf
160 witnesses testified under oath before the 9/11 commission.

Questions aren't information. All I asked for was examples of information with an inconclusive aspect and all you give are questions. See if you can do that google-definition thing I explained for information so you understand how it's different from question. And then come up with the appropriate examples if you can.

Them's the people.:tu: My point was you have the pic right in front of you and still fail to see or understand what's in it and what it is.


Sounds like a great guy.


Get yourself one of the realistic flying games, Microsoft Flight Simulator or WW2 Air Combat. I have them and it's not that hard.

Thought as much, you don't have any names to give beside your own.

He is but he's also neurotic. Always need to have the last word, always right and never wrong, knows everything when other ppl don't know squat, becomes verbally agressive when being cornered in a discussion and have no arguements to defend himself, ie, resorts to insults when he can't make a valid statement.

Still can't argue like a normal person, eh? Guess you just had that need to compare the real world to a virtual one.

And now, to analyse your behaviour in depth, there is only one word I can come up with. Troll .

Yes, they are. You read them in print and understood them to be questions, how did you do that if they aren't information? Are you telepathic or something? I'd go on to explain that the questions actually point to broader fields of information, and that they actually imply something inconclusive in each case, but I should never expect you'd actually be able to work this out without someone drawing you a picture and posting it on one of your preferred little websites where you get all your information. It actually requires more mental effort than decoding strings of letters, maybe someday you'll graduate to this level.

:rofl:

The monkey-see-monkey-do thing really hurts coming from someone who thinks their ability to look up isolated word definitions on google is a substitute for comprehension.

I'm sure you consider yourself a master debater because you're slick enough to use a dictionary, but most of us can see you're merely jerking off again.

Believe what you want to believe, the only influence whatever crap you believe has on me is that engenders a suspicion that most people who choose not to question 'mainstream conventions' are just as terminally ignorant as you are, but that's inconclusive.

Wasn't that long ago miss_silver. I assumed you could remember the names when you posted: "I can come up with a few names..." . Guess you were bluffing.

Here monkey monkey.

Question: An expression of inquiry that invites or calls for a reply.

Information: A collection of facts or data

No new tricks for the old dog eh?

If you're trying to prove that you're retarded you can rest easy. You proved that a long time ago. If I ever doubt it I can just look at the picture you posted but were too chickenshit to leave up. I saved it to remind myself that sometimes people can actually look as stupid as they sound.


:)

a kazillion typos
 

Playing microsoft flight sim. for years.

1) Sure it is easy when one knows he isn't going to die
2) sure it is easy without the crosswinds
3) sure it is easy when both engines are Mathematically identical
4) sure it is easy when the ground effect an 757 generates is cancelled out.

dragging a computer game in to real life is not going to fly (sneaky pun there) ;)

the twin towers sure auto pilot will do it for you..... that close to the ground (pentagon) i don't think so.

For my two cents, too many unanswered questions to make the states view believable. But to believe that it is a huge conspiracy is also ....uhm .... a bit out of this world. i just fail to see what "they" had to gain from it

I know why you saved it. Go ahead and do your thing, but why did you go back looking again after the thread sunk off the page? I never posted my voice, but that's just in reality, you can pretend whatever you want.

And thanks for not posting yours.

Calling me retarded or the old "baffle 'em with bullshit" routine won't change the meaning of "information" or "question". You should have learned long ago that your thinking doesn't mesh with reality and given up on trying to convince rational people that you're in the right.

Don't know what your trying to say but with no crosswind, engine-out, or ground effect, you're just saying "it sure is easy".

Unfortunatly ground effect and crosswind can't be switched off in R.L.
i never said a word about engine-out.

the altitude the hijacker(s) flew is next to impossible considering the airspeed.

the conspiracy theorists have one point, at that altitude and with that airspeed the cars on the freeway should have experienced jet wash

You mentioned "both engines are Mathematically identical" as if it was a difference.

What altitude and airspeed?

Jet wash - the rearward moving air from the jet engines.
The engine exhaust would have to be pointed at the ground somehow and it would have little to do with airspeed...or rather it would have to be going ridiculously slow with the nose high to do that.

Okay, last post on this subject.

The mathematically identical engines had something to do with flight simulator where both engines give the same amount of thrust. In R.L. no two engines give/generate the exact same amount of thrust which makes it a lot harder to keep a 757 on course

What altitude? In order to hit the pentagon the way they did, they had to fly extremely low.

It has little to do with airspeed? I take it we are talking about the airspeed of the aircraft right? In order to hit a building at great speeds I think both engines had to be up and running at full throttle wouldn’t you say ??
The jet wash will fan out in a conical shape and an 757 creates more than enough of it to knock a few cars over

Altitude would be in feet and airspeed in knots. When you proclaimed an altitude is "next to impossible considering the airspeed" I expected you knew what you were talking about but you must have just been parroting another ignorant person.

Is that what passes as knowledge to you? People who actually know what they are talking about must puzzle you because you assume everyone has your level of understanding and just decide to have a different opinion.

At what rate would you say the jet wash "fans out"? Some simple math tells you that doubling the size of a circle quadruples it's area so as the jet wash fans out it loses velocity at 4 times the rate of expansion. That's ignoring the large forward speed of the engine and the exhausts interaction with the surrounding (static) air. It goes down really quickly.

Anyway, the woods I play in are an air national guard training area and I've watched their jets skim the treetops with little effect and once had an A-10 scream directly overhead at about 100 feet when I was on my mountain bike and just about shit myself and I didn't feel the slightest breeze. Never heard it coming either so it was moving fast.

So that's the way I form my opinions, with actual knowledge, experience and reasoning and all the people who can't understand how to do that are just brainless parrots to me; squawking whatever the other parrots squawk.

Last time i promise.



Primary Function A-10 -- close air support, OA-10 - airborne forward air control
Contractor Fairchild Republic Co.
Power Plant Two General Electric TF34-GE-100 turbofans
Thrust 9,065 pounds each engine
Length 53 feet, 4 inches (16.16 meters)
Height 14 feet, 8 inches (4.42 meters)
Wingspan 57 feet, 6 inches (17.42 meters)
Speed 420 miles per hour (Mach 0.56)
Ceiling 45,000 feet (13,636 meters)
Maximum Takeoff Weight 51,000 pounds (22,950 kilograms)
Range 800 miles (695 nautical miles)


757

Passengers
Typical 2-class configuration
Typical 1-class configuration

243
280
Cargo 2,370 cu ft (67.1 cu m)
Engines
maximum thrust

Rolls-Royce RB211-535E4B
43,500 lb (193.5 kN)

Pratt & Whitney PW2037
36,600 lb (162.8 kN)

Pratt & Whitney PW2040
40,100 (178.4kN)

Pratt & Whitney PW2043
42,600 lb (189.4 kN)
Maximum Fuel Capacity 11,466 gal (43,400 l)
Maximum Takeoff Weight 272,500 lb (123,600 kg)
Maximum Range 3,395 nautical miles (6,287 km)
Cruise Speed Mach 0.80



1) note the difference in thrust rate :p
2) you failed your last physical didn't you? if you don't hear an A10 coming you must have some sort of a hearing problem. Planes don't come more sub sonic than the A-10

• One 757, with a wingspan of 124 ft 10 in, a length of 178 ft 7 in, a height 44 ft 6 in and a weight of 255,000 pounds going 530 MPH about 20 feet off the ground: About $80 million.

• Punching a neat hole in the Pentagon with no visible sign of plane wreckage: priceless.

• One A10, with a wingspan of 57 ft 6 in, a length of 53 ft 4 in, a height of 14 ft 8 in, and a weight of 47,400 pounds with a maximum speed of 449 MPH at sea level: About $13 million.

• A deaf and learning impaired dirt biker playing in the woods with crap in his diaper claiming he can extrapolate the effects of a 757 twenty feet off the ground from a dubiously reckoned 100 foot encounter with an A10: worthless.

About as worthless as the link you googled up to support your claim that there are "sworn eyewitness testimonies" in the 911 Commission Report, which turns out to be a link to nothing more than an outline anyway. Maybe you were too busy looking up "information" and "jet wash" on google to actually view and comprehend your own link. One has to wonder if you've ever actually read it at any time.

Here's the full report (on its "official" website, not the random copy you googled up) and guess what? There's not a single sworn testimony by an eyewitness to the Pentagon attack in the entire document. In fact, sections 1.1 and 9.3, which are the only sections dealing with flight 77 and the attack on the Pentagon, are fairly cursory and paraphrased encapsulations (the least extensively analyzed of the flights in fact) utterly devoid of any mention of reports of anyone on the ground who saw the impact occur. There is one mention of a pilot attempting pursuit who said "looks like that aircraft crashed into the Pentagon sir." (page 25-26) In context this is in the form of a deduction, not the reporting of direct observation. And then on page 33 you'll clearly notice on the timeline a gap of more than an hour between losing track of the craft altogether and confirming that this lost craft was the same that hit the Pentagon.

Guess you were just lying your way through yet another attempt to appear informed, bolstered by your excellent grasp of search engines to compensate for your abject lack of comprehension, throwing around numbers like "160 witnesses" to attempt to gloss over your preferential, emotionally invested position of choosing to believe the "official view"--which you deny even exists.

(And again, if posting a link to the 911 Commission Report wasn't supposed to be an invocation of an "official view," then what is the point? You claim there's no such thing as an "official view" but refer to this document with the apparent belief that everyone who reads it should consider it absolute gospel truth, claiming it has sworn eyewitness accounts.)

Maybe you should actually watch the link esteeaz provided which actually does have references from no less than 12 eyewitnesses which raise some interesting albeit vague and thoroughly inconclusive questions. On the basis of your emphasis of the importance of eyewitness testimony alone it would seem it might carry more weight to you than a document which you claimed included eyewitness accounts, but that in reality does not.

At least it's an interesting trick that you were apparently able to reconstruct the entire event perfectly in your little head on the basis of eyewitness testimonies that don't even exist according to an official view that you deny exists but were able to link people to even though you didn't read it yourself...

I'm thinking perhaps you only recently learned to read and understand English, this might account for your profound lack of understanding of the ordinary usage of words which deviate slightly from the rote dictionary definitions. For instance "sound" does not always indicate an audible vibration or voice. In practice, written material may "sound" intelligent or moronic. You see, people who are more interested in the larger meaning of things often use a kind of inferential language around other adults, it's simply more expedient than trying to explain everything as if you're talking to an ADD four-year-old, which can get awfully nauseating after a while.

Perhaps you should get some friends and try going out on a Saturday night instead of hanging around your mom's house googling words like a pimply little geek, and you might learn something about normal human communications.

Also, it's pretty funny that apparently you actually believed me when I said that I saved your picture, even though I was lying and I am a clearly disreputable 'crackpot source.' Just goes to show that you're not quite as good at detecting truth and lies as you claim to be, but then frankly we all already knew that. In this case, as in most others, it seems your vanity and enormous ego got in the way of your preternaturally acute detective abilities.

At any rate, I'm sure this will all go 100 feet over your head like a squealing A10, but I really don't care, nor do I care what sounds you will subsequently make about it. The only reason I reply to your gurgling at all is that I admittedly get a bit of a sadistic kick out of watching you mock yourself with your hilarious little intellectual pretensions.

Quote:

Questions aren't information. All I asked for was examples of information with an inconclusive aspect and all you give are questions.

:rofl:

You're so Mensa. That reminds me a little of the Monty Python skit where the guy invents the joke that's so funny he dies laughing and they have to translate it into German one word at a time so as not to kill the translators so they can use it as a secret weapon against the Germans.


Carry on.

But did they have a blue finger?

There's wreckage visible in the pic miss_silver posted. Pop your head out of your ass and take a peek.


Just packed the lies into this one. Hearing's fine, learning ability's fine, a dirt bike isn't a mountain bike (I'll chalk that one up to ignorance from someone whose knowledge of the world ends at the inner lining of his colon), never claimed to extrapolate anything-(another lie). Can't you argue with the truth Ramona? If your any good at twisting it you can still come to your desired false conclusion.


You mean "160 witnesses testified under oath". A little more subtle but still you're lying again Ramona. My words are right here for everyone to see so you can't play the vicious, slandering gossip role.


It was for you to read since you asked for it, remember?


Ho-hum, eyewitness, eyewitness, eyewitness. A lie repeated often enough....


Did you really think I thought you were telling the truth? "but why did you go back looking again after the thread sunk off the page?" doesn't sound like suspicion? especially when you didn't give an answer. I don't even believe you now when you say you were lying. You aren't as good as you think; like repeating "eyewitness" over and over would fool people, right.


You certainly don't do it to uncover the truth, debunk lies, or even express your own opinion. But if it brings a little pleasure into your empty, meaningless life then that's all the reason you need.

Five times zero is still zero. A plane that's diving actually has it's exhaust pointed upward. Have any figures for that fanning cone? Summary: it's perfectly reasonable to have no jet wash hitting the ground.


My hearing's fine, that's just the way it is for whatever reason. I was on deck in the Mediterranean once and three A-4 Skyhawks (I think) in tight formation screamed overhead at about 50 feet and I nearly jumped overboard. Damn Italians! Never heard them coming either.

Common sense tells me the exhaust noise is heading rearward and fanning out, and with nothing to reflect it forward it won't be heard from the front.

Anyone else have experience in this sort of thing?

RAS

Don't even bother with this troll anymore, he lives on it, the attention span I ment.

I'm done feeding it

BTW, before putting you on my ignore list albed, you didn't even have the balls to put a name to the other user phrase you took as example. Why is that? Afraid that wolfie will bite your ass off like the time you trashed his favorite member?

Anyway, have a nice life.

Yeah, I'm terrified of something that never happened except in your imagination.



The important thing is YOU REMEMBERED. You actually have a functioning brain cell.

hummm

Ok - and Bomb-Proof Windows? I searched the net It seems they do not exsist.

In the doco on the nationnal geographic channel, seconds from disaster they used the words "bomb proofed windows". Found it under the term "blast-resistant windows"

So they lied you are saying. What the hell is blast resistant? The wind shield in my car is blast resistant. How many windows are blast-resistant? All of them? One of them? I really doubt every window is, also this is a militaty building, i don't think the blue-prints or construction are public knowledge. Maybe they are, doesn't really matter, fact is the Doc is telling half-truths at best.

If you ment that the geo channel lied, I don't think so, they used a different term or word. They could have also said laminated glass.

If you're referring testimony of some of the escapee, maybe they were lucky enough to pop out one of the dammaged window, but breaking it, I seriously doubt it.

The dupont company is best suited to explain what is "blast resistant windows"
http://www.dupont.com/safetyglass/lgn/stories/2111.html

here is a snippet of info on how resistant those windows are

Link

I admit to being almost totally ignorant about this. Can someone tell me please, if the plane did not hit the Pentagon, then what is supposed to have happened to the plane & the people in it? And what is supposed to have hit the Pentagon?

Heh-heh, they're not out to explain anything, just backstab the authority figures their twisted mentality drives them to hate. Many seem to have a touch of integrity and are reluctant to actually proclaim they really believe the rhetoric they're spouting; or more accurately, linking to. None I've seen actually have the intelligence to come up with alternate scenarios.

Plenty of websites if you search. Frankly google gives more of those stupid sites than reputable ones when you go looking for facts on your own.

Ahhh, See when you use rational thinking and look for real facts --- you can find the truth.




Couple other quotes from your links...


From nationalgeographic.com

---On September 11, 2001, American Airlines Flight 77 was hijacked by terrorists who flew the plane into the Pentagon's west wall, killing 189 people. Pentagon 9-11 follows the events that led to the worst day of terrorist attacks on American soil.---

architectureweek.com -

Badly damaged by the impact of a hijacked 757 jet airplane on Tuesday, September 11, 2001 at 9:43am, in the same set of attacks that destroyed the World Trade Center in New York.

hummm

You know damn well that these are not my wiews on the subject. What you posted are the "official" views/truth according to the mainstream media. As to why you needed to post what I do not think in bold letters, only you, have the answer.

But still, I really want one of those passport that are fireproof and building demolition proof. I wonder what type of magical paper could withstand fire, a crashed building and still be intact.

See you tomorrow...

Belle

Click on malvachat link and try to draw your own conclusions. Once you get out of the mainstream media, you might not want to go back.

malvachat's link

http://911research.wtc7.net/contents.html

The WTC 7 building, the last one who fell down, is quite an interesting topic.

Like he said, you can bring a horse to water but you can't make him drink. BTW, Malvachat, I really enjoy your style of writing :)

Just what I mean; unwilling or unable to explain.

Always eager to recruit new converts though.

Don't think, don't criticize, just accept.