Is that picture supposed to prove or disprove the official story.
Pages: 1 2
Topic closed
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- Any news about the Pentagon crash?
hmmm...you are a retard also.Beduin wrote:
http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee37 … r/xox5.jpg
http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee37 … on-757.gif
Thats whats up
ITT: ridiculous conspiracy nut
Thank you...usmarine wrote:
hmmm...you are a retard also.Beduin wrote:
http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee37 … r/xox5.jpg
http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee37 … on-757.gif
Thats whats up
I wanna be like you when i grow up
الشعب يريد اسقاط النظام
...show me the schematic
...show me the schematic
You need to think long and hard about that.Beduin wrote:
I wanna be like you when i grow up
Fuck Israel
No, thats the whole point!Dilbert_X wrote:
You need to think long and hard about that.Beduin wrote:
I wanna be like you when i grow up
الشعب يريد اسقاط النظام
...show me the schematic
...show me the schematic
To be honest, I never got how the hell that lawn was left unscathed, just a few feet from where a fueled 757 crashed into a building. You could've gone putting on that stuff. What's with the whole confiscation of videos as well? It's not like these videos can show anything other than what happened, so if what is reported to have happened really did happen, why the need for secrecy? I'm all for believing that a jet hit that building, if things could be explained, but all that seems to have been released is a sequence of stills that you never actually see a plane on, and a tonne of unsubstantiated explanations for why there was no evidence left of a plane hitting the building. What's the deal with that?
Gods, not this shit again...
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
ugh, not really the first thing one should read first thing in the morning
Whats wrong with that? The damage picture makes it look like the aircrafts wings were destroyed when it impacted with the wall and the fuselage continued on through the building causing damage.Beduin wrote:
http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee37 … r/xox5.jpg
http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee37 … on-757.gif
Thats whats up
I'll be honest, me and my brother did it, funded by the knights templar in a bid to put more light on our rivals the free masons.
what the fuck is this supposed to be?
Malloy must go
Perhaps it's because the plane hit the building and not the lawn. It's basic physics. The plane and all of it's fuel were going towards the building and all of that is what punched that huge plane size hole (not the Loony Toons silhouette shape, mind you) into the side of that very strong ediface. There's also a lot more evidence of the plane visible if one puts forth the time to look. I'm not an expert on aircraft and can't find the particular image collection I was looking for; however, read both views and the evidence of each. Instead of dismissing the idiotic conspiracy theorist views of several events the bollocks that they are, someone needs to find faults within the claims presented, which goes for both sides.mikkel wrote:
To be honest, I never got how the hell that lawn was left unscathed, just a few feet from where a fueled 757 crashed into a building. You could've gone putting on that stuff. What's with the whole confiscation of videos as well? It's not like these videos can show anything other than what happened, so if what is reported to have happened really did happen, why the need for secrecy? I'm all for believing that a jet hit that building, if things could be explained, but all that seems to have been released is a sequence of stills that you never actually see a plane on, and a tonne of unsubstantiated explanations for why there was no evidence left of a plane hitting the building. What's the deal with that?
I've been looking at the topics at "Debate and Serious Talk" and I allways go: "Wait, wait whatever happend to 911?".
So I just figured I would ask You Americans if there has been any updates. Which there hasn't I found out.
Woooouuuuuuuussssssshhhhhhhh and we're back to 2008. Hope You enjoyed the trip. I didn't but there Yah go.
So I just figured I would ask You Americans if there has been any updates. Which there hasn't I found out.
Woooouuuuuuuussssssshhhhhhhh and we're back to 2008. Hope You enjoyed the trip. I didn't but there Yah go.
I want some of what you're smoking and fast.Freke1 wrote:
I've been looking at the topics at "Debate and Serious Talk" and I allways go: "Wait, wait whatever happend to 911?".
So I just figured I would ask You Americans if there has been any updates. Which there hasn't I found out.
Woooouuuuuuuussssssshhhhhhhh and we're back to 2008. Hope You enjoyed the trip. I didn't but there Yah go.
There's nothing basic about the physics of an impact of this kind. Just as you said, there's no silhouette image in the building of a plane, but as the wings packed with jet fuel would've hit the reinforced building, it doesn't exactly take a stretch of the imagination to think that clear evidence of the impact should've been found at the base of it. Hell, look at the impacts on the World Trade Centers and see the massive amount of debris thrown out into the air, hundreds of feet outwards from the impact area. Also note the huge fireball in the WTC impacts, and the complete lack of singed grass on the Pentagon lawn.DesertFox- wrote:
Perhaps it's because the plane hit the building and not the lawn. It's basic physics. The plane and all of it's fuel were going towards the building and all of that is what punched that huge plane size hole (not the Loony Toons silhouette shape, mind you) into the side of that very strong ediface. There's also a lot more evidence of the plane visible if one puts forth the time to look. I'm not an expert on aircraft and can't find the particular image collection I was looking for; however, read both views and the evidence of each. Instead of dismissing the idiotic conspiracy theorist views of several events the bollocks that they are, someone needs to find faults within the claims presented, which goes for both sides.mikkel wrote:
To be honest, I never got how the hell that lawn was left unscathed, just a few feet from where a fueled 757 crashed into a building. You could've gone putting on that stuff. What's with the whole confiscation of videos as well? It's not like these videos can show anything other than what happened, so if what is reported to have happened really did happen, why the need for secrecy? I'm all for believing that a jet hit that building, if things could be explained, but all that seems to have been released is a sequence of stills that you never actually see a plane on, and a tonne of unsubstantiated explanations for why there was no evidence left of a plane hitting the building. What's the deal with that?
To be honest, anyone can speculate about the physics, and how exactly things transpired, but I'm not really interested in that. All I care about is that the only reason why room exists for this kind of speculation at all is that the government is being secretive about something there's absolutely no reason to be secretive about. It takes a leap of faith to believe in something that hasn't been proven conclusively, and when what you're supposed to believe in is put forth by the same people who deny you the chance to inspect the evidence, then I see no reason to arrive at any conclusion.
It was the Jews, you retards!
I heard 9/11 was an inside job, what's up with that?
Anyone got any info?
Anyone got any info?
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
on a scale of one to closed, this is closed
Topic closed
Pages: 1 2
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- Any news about the Pentagon crash?