A question?

If you were presented with the smoking wreckage of the Pentagon, within the wreckage you found the remains of crew and passengers of a jet liner along with parts and pieces of said Jet Liner, and were told someone had called and reported the flight had been hijacked. Upon further investigation you discovered the remains of 4 known terrorists in the wreckage.

Would you say " There is no conclusive evidence that the flight was hijacked"?

 

No. I would not say that. However,

I would look at the wreckage to make sure it was a 757. They did that.
I would collect the remains and compare them to baseline DNA. They did that.
I would segregate the remains of the hijackers from the others on the plane. They did that.
I would check the veracity of the calls. They did that.

The investigation, from all points of view, was complete.

So, the statement "There is no conclusive evidence that the flight was hijacked" is the utterance of somebody either of very low IQ, starved for media attention, or someone not in control of their mind.

 

Clearly, there was a gas leak. This is why we don't l;et people smoke within 20 feet of the windows.

 

No.

I would disregard all that evidence, and pretty obvious questions such as "What happened to all the people that were on the plane that colleagues, friends and loved ones said good-bye to mere minutes before?" and "Where did the plane go?," the hundreds of eye witnesses, and instead concoct a theory about a missile that nobody saw, that no radar picked up, and is completely inconsistent with the narrative of the 9/11 conspiracy theorists (why have planes slam into the WTC but a missile into the Pentagon?)

That seems perfectly reasonable to me.

 

I would post youtube video after youtube video to prove my point.

 

no. i would try to distract people by showing people a hole full of airplane parts and claiming it was empty.

 

"IF"

That game is the favorite past time of Republicans. The game of "If". Usually, as part of the game, they offer an "either/or" answer and you are supposed to "pick one" and then that "answer" should become part of US foreign policy. You see, the great thing about "either/or" answers is they are always slanted so one answer is the only one that is really acceptable.

If a woman, at 8 months went in to get an abortion, should she be allowed, "yes or no"?

Should Obama be allowed to let terrorists go free on the streets of New York or should he keep them in prison because otherwise, they will kill you daughter? "Free or imprison"?

So OK, I'll play.

Even though, in this day and age, no plane would be allowed to get that close to the Pentagon and even though the first hijackers only used box cutters and even though you are thoroughly searched when you get on a plane and aren't even allowed to carry fingernail clippers and even though a plane crash into a building wouldn't leave anyone recognizable and even though id check wouldn't let "known terrorists" as far as the boarding line and even though American citizens are so fed up with anyone acting the least bit unruly and when someone does, they pile on the person "acting up", then the answer is "Yes" they probably were terrorists. How did I do? Did I give the right answer?

Now do you see why Republicans hate me? I consider it a badge of honor.

 

Look we have another retarded troofer. Or someone that is so politically biased that they will argue the opposite just to be opposite.

 

It was a self-inflicted missle strike!

(Sorry, I was just channeling id-eots there for a second!)

 

The idea that before 9/11 anyone actually searched people that thoroughly or actually had lists of terrorists on file is hilarious.