So no plane hit the Pentagon?

[Terral]

Greetings to All:

This thread is loaded down with little more than ad hominem BS by a bunch of fools with no more sense than a box of rocks (#7-10). The Topic is "So No Plane Hit The Pentagon?" The Retired Guy has no hypothesis to support with any evidence and no conclusions, which is the reason he is ASKING A QUESTION.

The Official Cover Story Stooges have NO EVIDENCE that AA77 crashed into the Pentagon, which would include a 60-ton Titanium Frame, Two 6-ton Rolls-Royce Engines, more than 200 seats, massive wing sections, indestructible landing gear, hundreds of time-change parts, cargo and a tail section that stands more than 40 feet tall on the tarmac. These IDIOTS try to pass off a few pounds of evidence ...

... as a crashed 100-ton Jetliner, then think shouting names makes a case for the Official Cover Story LIE.

This is a picture of the E-ring Wall at the Column 14 location (center of this hole) where these Official Cover Story Idiots want you to believe that a real 100-ton Jetliner crashed going 530 miles per hour!!!! Look at the cable spools standing over the heads of the men that stand directly in the flight path of the mythical AA77 that NEVER CRASHED HERE. The Official Cover Story says that AA77 crashed into this wall at a 45-degree angle from your right ...

... BUT, all of these construction trailers are standing directly in the flight path of the starboard wing!!!!

The distance from the outer E-ring wall to the inner C-ring wall is only 220 feet. At 530 miles per hour, the 100-ton Jetliner would have traveled exactly .39 seconds before the 60-ton frame and those two 6-ton Rolls-Royce Engines came out the rear C-ring wall!

And yet, all we have is a little 8 to 10-feet diameter hole in the rear C-ring wall that says NO 100-TON JETLINER CRASHED HERE.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTJehfQkuyE"]Official Cover Story Debunked!!!![/ame]

Yes. These Official Cover Story Stooges 'can' come out to this fine USMB Conspiracy Theories Forum and call people names and act like little children, but how many of them can show you one picture of AA77 or Flight 93 (my Topic) crashed ANYWHERE? None of them ...

GL,

Terral

 

[Fizz]

Like I figured, you completely ignored where he said:

"But if a plane goes down (more or less vertically) at 500+ mph into the water, it does splatter and shatter and disintegrate pretty much in the same way that it would had it hit a reinforced concrete wall."


So what reinforced wall is he talking about being hit by a plane at 500mph? You fucking stupid ****.

NONE you fucking moron!! you really have a reading comprehension problem. he is talking about it hitting WATER!!

I see you are still ignoring half of his sentence......you know.....the part that mentions a plane hitting a concrete reinforced wall at 500mph. You will keep ignoring it because you are a useless dirty diaper sucking tampon reject that doesn't have the first clue.

holy fuck!! you really cant comprehend what you read!! how many fucking planes is he talking about? ONE!!! where is it crashing??? INTO WATER!!!!

and here comes the part you really seem to have trouble with.......

what is the reaction when it hits? AS IF IT HAD HIT CONCRETE.

if i was your high school english teacher i would smack the shit out of you for being such a jackass.

 

[Liability]

You stupid ****. You tried to make an argument about what others "think" regarding a large fast moving object hitting a body of water. Your statement about a plane moving at 500mph into a reinforced concrete wall is clearly a reference to the pentagon but you won't be honest and admit that because you're too much of a cowardly ****.

You have a terrific point.

Out of curiosity, in your expert opinion, bent tight, how fast was the plane that struck the Pentagon moving at the moment of impact?

Why don't you tell us all how Operation Northwoods was really nothing but documents planted to boost the truther movement? C'mon Einstein! That's always good for a laugh! You fucking invent that wacked out theory but want to pretend you can speculate on the physics of a commercial plane crash? Rotfl.

Zzz.

Whenever you get "stuck," and unable to offer a rational reply, you always deflect.

I have discussed my opinion on the meaningless* Op'n Northwoods shit more than enough.

Now, how fast was the plane that struck the Pentagon on 9/11/2001 moving in your expert opinion?

Or is that just another question you'd prefer to dodge forever?


_______________________
* Meaningless for a number of reasons, including the fact that it was rejected and the fact that there is ZERO evidence that it was ever implemented in any way at any later time.

 

[CurveLight]

Let's watch the hypocrisy of the OCTA *****......oh....I'm sorry......I mean *****! Rdean and many others find it reasonable to compare an F4 hitting a wall with a 757 doing the same action. So let's apply that logic to the Towers being hit by planes:



"At 9:49 a.m., the ten-ton, B-25 bomber smashed into the north side of the Empire State Building. The majority of the plane hit the 79th floor, creating a hole in the building eighteen feet wide and twenty feet high. The plane's high-octane fuel exploded, hurtling flames down the side of the building and inside through hallways and stairwells all the way down to the 75th floor."
Plane That Crashed Into the Empire State Building


By OCTA logic, since the Empire building didn't collapse that is proof explosives were used on 9E! Hey, in both cases planes crashed into skyscrapers at almost the exact same time of day at near the exact say floors. Have fun you fucking dumbass *****.

 

[Liability]

Let's watch the hypocrisy of the OCTA *****......oh....I'm sorry......I mean *****! Rdean and many others find it reasonable to compare an F4 hitting a wall with a 757 doing the same action. So let's apply that logic to the Towers being hit by planes:



"At 9:49 a.m., the ten-ton, B-25 bomber smashed into the north side of the Empire State Building. The majority of the plane hit the 79th floor, creating a hole in the building eighteen feet wide and twenty feet high. The plane's high-octane fuel exploded, hurtling flames down the side of the building and inside through hallways and stairwells all the way down to the 75th floor."
Plane That Crashed Into the Empire State Building


By OCTA logic, since the Empire building didn't collapse that is proof explosives were used on 9E! Hey, in both cases planes crashed into skyscrapers at almost the exact same time of day at near the exact say floors. Have fun you fucking dumbass *****.

Too many fallacies, too little time.

The plane which struck the Empire State Building did not hit it forcefully enough to (in effect) disintegrate.

Among other things, this ought to tell even a moron like the severely retarded bent tight that the plane was not travelling at nearly the same speed as the jet plane the struck the Pentagon.

You cannot validly claim to be using the logic of your opponents when YOU have no capacity FOR the use of logic and your would-be analogy is crippled by the differences in the two examples.

But, here's a PARTIAL explanation:

* * * *
The B-25 that struck the Empire State Building weighed approximately 21,500 lb (9,760 kg) and was traveling around 200 mph (320 km/h). The kinetic energy it created in the collision was about 30 million ft-lb (40 million Joules).

The twin towers of the World Trade Center, by comparison, were struck by Boeing 767 airliners traveling over twice as fast and weighing nearly 15 times as much as a B-25. The energy of impact for the two planes ranged from 2 billion ft-lb (2.6 billion Joules) to 3 billion ft-lb (4.1 billion Joules), some 60 to 100 times greater than that absorbed by the Empire State Building. This estimate is also conservative since it does not account for the energy released by the exploding jet fuel, which greatly exceeded the energy released by the much smaller B-25 fuel supply as well. The greater kinetic energy allowed the 767 aircraft to penetrate much further into the twin towers than the B-25 was able to do at the Empire State Building. Most of the B-25 impact was absorbed by the building's exterior wall leaving very little to damage the interior structure. The 767 impacts, however, not only produced gaping holes in the WTC exterior but also destroyed much of the structural core at the center of each tower. * * * *

Aerospaceweb.org | Ask Us - B-25 Empire State Building Collision

 

[CurveLight]

Whether or not it "disintegrated," scientists at Purdue created a computer simulation of how the plane crashed and blew up inside the Pentagon.

CGVLAB @ Purdue University

Lol......try to keep up. It looks like you haven't read why that purdue simulation is not as accurate as you are hoping.

Feel free to post why it is not accurate.

"In this paper it is explained how the authors simulated the performance of WTC-1 during "the impact of American Airlines Flight 77". Quite a feat, one might say, considering that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon."
Letter to Purdue President Córdova


"The animation released by Purdue University actually omits the engines from the airframe and does not continue vertical stabilizer path, most likey due to the fact they cannot account for the lack of damage observed at the pentagon from these heavy airframe structures."
Pentagon Foundation Damage

 

[CurveLight]

Let's watch the hypocrisy of the OCTA *****......oh....I'm sorry......I mean *****! Rdean and many others find it reasonable to compare an F4 hitting a wall with a 757 doing the same action. So let's apply that logic to the Towers being hit by planes:



"At 9:49 a.m., the ten-ton, B-25 bomber smashed into the north side of the Empire State Building. The majority of the plane hit the 79th floor, creating a hole in the building eighteen feet wide and twenty feet high. The plane's high-octane fuel exploded, hurtling flames down the side of the building and inside through hallways and stairwells all the way down to the 75th floor."
Plane That Crashed Into the Empire State Building


By OCTA logic, since the Empire building didn't collapse that is proof explosives were used on 9E! Hey, in both cases planes crashed into skyscrapers at almost the exact same time of day at near the exact say floors. Have fun you fucking dumbass *****.

Too many fallacies, too little time.

The plane which struck the Empire State Building did not hit it forcefully enough to (in effect) disintegrate.

Among other things, this ought to tell even a moron like the severely retarded bent tight that the plane was not travelling at nearly the same speed as the jet plane the struck the Pentagon.

You cannot validly claim to be using the logic of your opponents when YOU have no capacity FOR the use of logic and your would-be analogy is crippled by the differences in the two examples.

But, here's a PARTIAL explanation:

* * * *
The B-25 that struck the Empire State Building weighed approximately 21,500 lb (9,760 kg) and was traveling around 200 mph (320 km/h). The kinetic energy it created in the collision was about 30 million ft-lb (40 million Joules).

The twin towers of the World Trade Center, by comparison, were struck by Boeing 767 airliners traveling over twice as fast and weighing nearly 15 times as much as a B-25. The energy of impact for the two planes ranged from 2 billion ft-lb (2.6 billion Joules) to 3 billion ft-lb (4.1 billion Joules), some 60 to 100 times greater than that absorbed by the Empire State Building. This estimate is also conservative since it does not account for the energy released by the exploding jet fuel, which greatly exceeded the energy released by the much smaller B-25 fuel supply as well. The greater kinetic energy allowed the 767 aircraft to penetrate much further into the twin towers than the B-25 was able to do at the Empire State Building. Most of the B-25 impact was absorbed by the building's exterior wall leaving very little to damage the interior structure. The 767 impacts, however, not only produced gaping holes in the WTC exterior but also destroyed much of the structural core at the center of each tower. * * * *

Aerospaceweb.org | Ask Us - B-25 Empire State Building Collision

You are a sooper stupid mother fucker. I wasn't literally making the comparison. That is why I said "according to OCTA logic." I bring up your ON bullshit to show how much of hypocrite you are......and obvious lack of brain juice.

 

[Liability]

Let's watch the hypocrisy of the OCTA *****......oh....I'm sorry......I mean *****! Rdean and many others find it reasonable to compare an F4 hitting a wall with a 757 doing the same action. So let's apply that logic to the Towers being hit by planes:



"At 9:49 a.m., the ten-ton, B-25 bomber smashed into the north side of the Empire State Building. The majority of the plane hit the 79th floor, creating a hole in the building eighteen feet wide and twenty feet high. The plane's high-octane fuel exploded, hurtling flames down the side of the building and inside through hallways and stairwells all the way down to the 75th floor."
Plane That Crashed Into the Empire State Building


By OCTA logic, since the Empire building didn't collapse that is proof explosives were used on 9E! Hey, in both cases planes crashed into skyscrapers at almost the exact same time of day at near the exact say floors. Have fun you fucking dumbass *****.

Too many fallacies, too little time.

The plane which struck the Empire State Building did not hit it forcefully enough to (in effect) disintegrate.

Among other things, this ought to tell even a moron like the severely retarded bent tight that the plane was not travelling at nearly the same speed as the jet plane the struck the Pentagon.

You cannot validly claim to be using the logic of your opponents when YOU have no capacity FOR the use of logic and your would-be analogy is crippled by the differences in the two examples.

But, here's a PARTIAL explanation:

* * * *
The B-25 that struck the Empire State Building weighed approximately 21,500 lb (9,760 kg) and was traveling around 200 mph (320 km/h). The kinetic energy it created in the collision was about 30 million ft-lb (40 million Joules).

The twin towers of the World Trade Center, by comparison, were struck by Boeing 767 airliners traveling over twice as fast and weighing nearly 15 times as much as a B-25. The energy of impact for the two planes ranged from 2 billion ft-lb (2.6 billion Joules) to 3 billion ft-lb (4.1 billion Joules), some 60 to 100 times greater than that absorbed by the Empire State Building. This estimate is also conservative since it does not account for the energy released by the exploding jet fuel, which greatly exceeded the energy released by the much smaller B-25 fuel supply as well. The greater kinetic energy allowed the 767 aircraft to penetrate much further into the twin towers than the B-25 was able to do at the Empire State Building. Most of the B-25 impact was absorbed by the building's exterior wall leaving very little to damage the interior structure. The 767 impacts, however, not only produced gaping holes in the WTC exterior but also destroyed much of the structural core at the center of each tower. * * * *

Aerospaceweb.org | Ask Us - B-25 Empire State Building Collision

You are a sooper stupid mother fucker. I wasn't literally making the comparison. That is why I said "according to OCTA logic." I bring up your ON bullshit to show how much of hypocrite you are......and obvious lack of brain juice.

And the response was to conclusively demonstrate that your moronic projections about what others claim or believe carry no weight whatsoever, you bombastic retard.

Further, I couldn't give a rat's ass about your view concerning my disbelief in the validity of the Op'n Northfraud document.

It is funny to me that you deride ANYONE'S suspeicion about the autheticity of such a document when YOU engage in virulent conspiracy theorizing on far less information.

Oh wait. I almost forgot your pathetically transparent lie, "I'm just asking questions!"

Sure.

You are a complete fraud as well as a fucking retard.

 

[CurveLight]

Too many fallacies, too little time.

The plane which struck the Empire State Building did not hit it forcefully enough to (in effect) disintegrate.

Among other things, this ought to tell even a moron like the severely retarded bent tight that the plane was not travelling at nearly the same speed as the jet plane the struck the Pentagon.

You cannot validly claim to be using the logic of your opponents when YOU have no capacity FOR the use of logic and your would-be analogy is crippled by the differences in the two examples.

But, here's a PARTIAL explanation:

Aerospaceweb.org | Ask Us - B-25 Empire State Building Collision

You are a sooper stupid mother fucker. I wasn't literally making the comparison. That is why I said "according to OCTA logic." I bring up your ON bullshit to show how much of hypocrite you are......and obvious lack of brain juice.

And the response was to conclusively demonstrate that your moronic projections about what others claim or believe carry no weight whatsoever, you bombastic retard.

Further, I couldn't give a rat's ass about your view concerning my disbelief in the validity of the Op'n Northfraud document.

It is funny to me that you deride ANYONE'S suspeicion about the autheticity of such a document when YOU engage in virulent conspiracy theorizing on far less information.

Oh wait. I almost forgot your pathetically transparent lie, "I'm just asking questions!"

Sure.

You are a complete fraud as well as a fucking retard.

Is this why you love the net? Cause you get to act like a tough guy? Now do the predictable bullshit and scream projection. You claim I doubt 9E based on less information that you doubting the ON documents. You are one stupid fucking ****. The only reason you have given for doubting the ON documents is because of the phrase "off on a holiday." That's it! Rotfl......fucking twat.

 

[Toro]

"In this paper it is explained how the authors simulated the performance of WTC-1 during "the impact of American Airlines Flight 77". Quite a feat, one might say, considering that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon."
Letter to Purdue President Córdova

This guy's argument is that the simulation contradicts the official report, and that is both good and bad to him - it is good when it supports his beliefs that the NIST report is wrong but it is bad when it is not researched in as much detail as the official report. So the simulation is flawed and we can ignore it because it excludes details from the official report (which is also flawed) BUT it isn't so flawed that we can use it to further his belief that it contradicts the official report. He conveniently uses it when it supports his thesis and dismisses when it does not.

As to how exactly the Pentagon collapsed, I have no idea. Maybe he is correct that the simulation contradicts the official report. However, all I care about is whether or not a plane hit the Pentagon. If people want to pick at the conclusion on how the Pentagon collapsed, fine by me.

However, the guys loses a lot of credibility by making outrageous statements about the author and the wars in Asia.

You might start with Purdue's Mete Sozen, a long time leader of official investigations for terrorist acts, and a mainstay of "expert" testimony for those supporting Bush's war of terror. Professor Sozen also happens to be the chairman of a US Department of Defense program, which puts him among the least likely people to objectively judge the scientific basis for the origins of this war. But my guess is that Mete Sozen is more than just a simple war profiteer, and may have more sinister personal reasons for promoting the Bush Administration's genocide for oil program.

This paragraph pretty much says it all about the author of this piece, Kevin Ryan. He not only says that the academics' work is tainted because he is a "war profiteer" but then makes sinister accusations about the author. This is rank speculation and character assassination, and discredits Ryan as his motives are clearly tainted. He also has made a highly political statement about the reasons for the wars in Asia, demonstrating his extreme political bias. It is no surprise that he would come to the conclusion to support his pre-conceived worldview. Thus, while trying to make his case why the authors of the simulation should not be trusted, he exposes himself as extremely biased and who he himself cannot be trusted.

BTW, the Purdue researchers were subject to threats after they released their video.

The Exponent - Purdue's Student Newspaper

"The animation released by Purdue University actually omits the engines from the airframe and does not continue vertical stabilizer path, most likey due to the fact they cannot account for the lack of damage observed at the pentagon from these heavy airframe structures."
Pentagon Foundation Damage

Here is the Purdue video.

Pentagon Crash, Digital Render from Purdue University • videosift.com

As you can see, the simulation does show the engine going into the Pentagon. Then the video strips away all but the body of the plane and the columns in the Pentagon. The quote from 9/11 Pilots for Truth is almost certainly wrong, as one can see in the quote from Mozen himself.

"They think the animation explains the collapse," Sozen said. "Actually it explains how the structure withstood the impact. The fire brought the building down. But that happened after our coverage."

Again, the Pilots for 9/11 Truth make an unsubstantiated claim based on speculation when they misunderstand the motives of the academics. The reason why they strip out all but the body of the plane and the columns in the Pentagon isn't to obscure information about damage, but instead to show how the Pentagon remained standing.

 

[Liability]

You are a sooper stupid mother fucker. I wasn't literally making the comparison. That is why I said "according to OCTA logic." I bring up your ON bullshit to show how much of hypocrite you are......and obvious lack of brain juice.

And the response was to conclusively demonstrate that your moronic projections about what others claim or believe carry no weight whatsoever, you bombastic retard.

Further, I couldn't give a rat's ass about your view concerning my disbelief in the validity of the Op'n Northfraud document.

It is funny to me that you deride ANYONE'S suspeicion about the autheticity of such a document when YOU engage in virulent conspiracy theorizing on far less information.

Oh wait. I almost forgot your pathetically transparent lie, "I'm just asking questions!"

Sure.

You are a complete fraud as well as a fucking retard.

Is this why you love the net? Cause you get to act like a tough guy? Now do the predictable bullshit and scream projection. You claim I doubt 9E based on less information that you doubting the ON documents. You are one stupid fucking ****. The only reason you have given for doubting the ON documents is because of the phrase "off on a holiday." That's it! Rotfl......fucking twat.

Hey rancid twat breath (yes, that means you, bent tight):
You are indeed a fucking moron imbecile shiotforbrain cockgobbler. But enough about you.

Yes, shithead, I DO doubt the motherfucking Op' Northfraud document.

But unlike you, ya diseased pussy stank, I at least have acknowledged that it is within the realm of possibility that the fucking stupid REJECTED document was real. I deem that unlikely, but it is still possible. And? Even if it true, so what? It was --pssst -- REJECTED.


Now, back ON topic (to your horror).

You are STILL ducking, I see.

Ya wuss.

 

[eots]

And the response was to conclusively demonstrate that your moronic projections about what others claim or believe carry no weight whatsoever, you bombastic retard.

Further, I couldn't give a rat's ass about your view concerning my disbelief in the validity of the Op'n Northfraud document.

It is funny to me that you deride ANYONE'SS suspeicion about the autheticity of such a document when YOU engage in virulent conspiracy theorizing on far less information.

Oh wait. I almost forgot your pathetically transparent lie, "I'm just asking questions!"

Sure.

You are a complete fraud as well as a fucking retard.

Is this why you love the net? Cause you get to act like a tough guy? Now do the predictable bullshit and scream projection. You claim I doubt 9E based on less information that you doubting the ON documents. You are one stupid fucking ****. The only reason you have given for doubting the ON documents is because of the phrase "off on a holiday." That's it! Rotfl......fucking twat.

Hey rancid twat breath (yes, that means you, bent tight):
You are indeed a fucking moron imbecile shiotforbrain cockgobbler. But enough about you.

Yes, shithead, I DO doubt the motherfucking Op' Northfraud document.

But unlike you, ya diseased pussy stank, I at least have acknowledged that it is within the realm of possibility that the fucking stupid REJECTED document was real. I deem that unlikely, but it is still possible. And? Even if it true, so what? It was --pssst -- REJECTED.


Now, back ON topic (to your horror).

You are STILL ducking, I see.

Ya wuss.

what a freak...you really need some help...this cant be healthy for you

 

[Liability]

Is this why you love the net? Cause you get to act like a tough guy? Now do the predictable bullshit and scream projection. You claim I doubt 9E based on less information that you doubting the ON documents. You are one stupid fucking ****. The only reason you have given for doubting the ON documents is because of the phrase "off on a holiday." That's it! Rotfl......fucking twat.

Hey rancid twat breath (yes, that means you, bent tight):
You are indeed a fucking moron imbecile shitforbrain cockgobbler. But enough about you.

Yes, shithead, I DO doubt the motherfucking Op' Northfraud document.

But unlike you, ya diseased pussy stank, I at least have acknowledged that it is within the realm of possibility that the fucking stupid REJECTED document was real. I deem that unlikely, but it is still possible. And? Even if it true, so what? It was --pssst -- REJECTED.


Now, back ON topic (to your horror).

You are STILL ducking, I see.

Ya wuss.

what a freak...you really need some help...this cant be healthy for you

LOL! ROFLMFAO!

A "lecture" on mental health from a completely lost conpiracy shithead!



Too funny!

 

[eots]

Hey rancid twat breath (yes, that means you, bent tight):
You are indeed a fucking moron imbecile shitforbrain cockgobbler. But enough about you.

Yes, shithead, I DO doubt the motherfucking Op' Northfraud document.

But unlike you, ya diseased pussy stank, I at least have acknowledged that it is within the realm of possibility that the fucking stupid REJECTED document was real. I deem that unlikely, but it is still possible. And? Even if it true, so what? It was --pssst -- REJECTED.


Now, back ON topic (to your horror).

You are STILL ducking, I see.

Ya wuss.

what a freak...you really need some help...this cant be healthy for you

LOL! ROFLMFAO!

A "lecture" on mental health from a completely lost conpiracy shithead!



Too funny!

I'm glad it brought a little ray of sun into your bleakness

 

[Liability]

what a freak...you really need some help...this cant be healthy for you

LOL! ROFLMFAO!

A "lecture" on mental health from a completely lost conpiracy shithead!



Too funny!

I'm glad it brought a little ray of sun into your bleakness

My bleakness?

You poor deluded stupid asslicker. I'm not the one living in a world of nightmarish paranoia. That would be you and your fellow urgently-distubed cockgobbler "Troofer" friends.

Bleankness?

You are a laugh a minute, ya loopey shithead.

 

[rdean]

Greetings to All:

This thread is loaded down with little more than ad hominem BS by a bunch of fools with no more sense than a box of rocks (#7-10). The Topic is "So No Plane Hit The Pentagon?" The Retired Guy has no hypothesis to support with any evidence and no conclusions, which is the reason he is ASKING A QUESTION.

The Official Cover Story Stooges have NO EVIDENCE that AA77 crashed into the Pentagon, which would include a 60-ton Titanium Frame, Two 6-ton Rolls-Royce Engines, more than 200 seats, massive wing sections, indestructible landing gear, hundreds of time-change parts, cargo and a tail section that stands more than 40 feet tall on the tarmac. These IDIOTS try to pass off a few pounds of evidence ...

... as a crashed 100-ton Jetliner, then think shouting names makes a case for the Official Cover Story LIE.

This is a picture of the E-ring Wall at the Column 14 location (center of this hole) where these Official Cover Story Idiots want you to believe that a real 100-ton Jetliner crashed going 530 miles per hour!!!! Look at the cable spools standing over the heads of the men that stand directly in the flight path of the mythical AA77 that NEVER CRASHED HERE. The Official Cover Story says that AA77 crashed into this wall at a 45-degree angle from your right ...

... BUT, all of these construction trailers are standing directly in the flight path of the starboard wing!!!!

The distance from the outer E-ring wall to the inner C-ring wall is only 220 feet. At 530 miles per hour, the 100-ton Jetliner would have traveled exactly .39 seconds before the 60-ton frame and those two 6-ton Rolls-Royce Engines came out the rear C-ring wall!

And yet, all we have is a little 8 to 10-feet diameter hole in the rear C-ring wall that says NO 100-TON JETLINER CRASHED HERE.

Official Cover Story Debunked!!!!

Yes. These Official Cover Story Stooges 'can' come out to this fine USMB Conspiracy Theories Forum and call people names and act like little children, but how many of them can show you one picture of AA77 or Flight 93 (my Topic) crashed ANYWHERE? None of them ...

GL,

Terral

This video goes on and on about pristine grass in front of the building and how the wings missed the windows on either side and the fancy flying needed.

Well, if the plane came down like in this picture, you wouldn't need fancy flying. You wouldn't scuff the grass. And you would most definitly miss the windows.

The plane could have been going sideways. For sure, it would have left a much smaller footprint.

 

[eots]

this is the most profoundly idiotic thing I have ever seen...

 

[eots]

LOL! ROFLMFAO!

A "lecture" on mental health from a completely lost conpiracy shithead!



Too funny!

I'm glad it brought a little ray of sun into your bleakness

My bleakness?

You poor deluded stupid asslicker. I'm not the one living in a world of nightmarish paranoia. That would be you and your fellow urgently-distubed cockgobbler "Troofer" friends.

Bleankness?

You are a laugh a minute, ya loopey shithead.

paranoia.??..you mean like thinking the islamofascist is lurking around every corner hatin ya for yer freedumbs...LOL..LOL...LOL

 

[Liability]

I'm glad it brought a little ray of sun into your bleakness

My bleakness?

You poor deluded stupid asslicker. I'm not the one living in a world of nightmarish paranoia. That would be you and your fellow urgently-distubed cockgobbler "Troofer" friends.

Bleankness?

You are a laugh a minute, ya loopey shithead.

paranoia.??..you mean like thinking the islamofascist is lurking around every corner hatin ya for yer freedumbs...LOL..LOL...LOL

No no, stupid. In the first place, I do not imagine -- much less fear -- Islamoshitfuckers hiding around any corners here. And I am not especially interested in "why" the Islamoshitfuckers hate us. I am a bit concerned that they are willing to act on their hate, however. And thus, unlike morons like you, I do urge that we engage in simple, rational courses of action to protect ourselves from their almost random acts of extreme violence. It is not paranoia to be wary of those who are actually trying to kill you or those you care about, you numbnuts fucktard.

Fuckin' anus lickers like you are just too damn stupid to grasp the obvious. YOUR paranoia is that "they" didn't attack us. No no. In your irrational delusional universe, some of "us" did it to ourselves!

No evidence needed in your stupid world. Which works out good for morons like you, since you have no such evidence.

 

[Terral]

Hi Dean:

This video goes on and on about pristine grass in front of the building and how the wings missed the windows on either side and the fancy flying needed.

Well, if the plane came down like in this picture, you wouldn't need fancy flying. You wouldn't scuff the grass. And you would most definitly miss the windows ...

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2THs3oNooM"]... Dean Has No Clue ...[/ame]

GL,

Terral