PVS- what lack of passenger identies? It takes me seconds to find a Flight 77 passenger list.
And no, Captain, this argument is about debunking the silly idea that it was a cruise missile. Sorry if you missed that, but that is indeed what is actually being talked about here.
And you make no sense. How does that video show a 757 didn't hit the Pentagon? What total and utter nonsense is that? It clearly shows SOMETHING hit it, and all the evidence points towards it an aeroplane.
'Dozens and dozens', was it? I wager you will find that it wasn't more than said it was Flight 77.
If this thread reaches 200 pages and people still claim is a missile I'm just gonna puke on my computer out of complete disgust. Eventually this will become the new "Big Foot" footage of our times.
Person A:"It's a guy wearing a gorilla costume"
Person B: "NO IT'S ACTUALLY BIG FOOT!!!"
WD: "Oh, *BEEP*!"
snopes fails to point out the lack of passenger identities,
the quesion of confiscated videos, or the fact that when the planes hit the wtc, there was clear evidence of wing penetration and they punctured solid steel.
Passenger names are readily available - http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/AA77.victims.html
They don't question the confiscated videos because there is nothing to question. They confiscated the videos, there could be a million reasons why. Again, not evidence that it wasn't a plane that crashed into the pentagon.
I posted a picture that shows wing damage to the pentagon.
In short, there is evidence that it was a plane that crashed into the pentagon, there is no evidence that it was a missile.
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
And you seem to have even less.
Good Lord, how did you come up with such a witty and substantial reply so quickly?
It is only less if you are too brain dead to pay attention to the very substantial points that have been made against you in this thread.
Are you now trying to compare the WTC impact to the Pentagon one? How desperate are you getting? 100 miles an hour faster with no ground impact first into a totally different type of structure.
That picture shows the damn impact holes where the wings went in. What's wrong with you? Again, the firefighters were dealing with this stuff, it is all there. They noticed.
Did any of them say that the wings had mysteriously vanished? No. Tell you what though- they'll talk a lot about the aviation fuel burning so hot that they couldn't get near for hours.
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Where? I see a round hole. Not at all like the ones in the side of the WTC.
There's no reason to believe that the damage to the pentagon would be exactly identical to the damage of the WTC. They were different types of buildings, made of different material and such.
The picture clearly shows a large section that is damage beyond the "round hole", this damage was caused by the wings.
Originally posted by BackFire
Passenger names are readily available - http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/AA77.victims.html
Originally posted by BackFireagain, i never said it was. i only said it was reason to question "why?"
Again, not evidence that it wasn't a plane that crashed into the pentagon.
Originally posted by BackFire
I posted a picture that shows wing damage to the pentagon.
i see fuel burns. however i see no wing damage. maybe my eye prescription is in need of updating but all i see is a burnt wall and a round hole.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
And you make no sense. How does that video show a 757 didn't hit the Pentagon? What total and utter nonsense is that? It clearly shows SOMETHING hit it, and all the evidence points towards it an aeroplane.'Dozens and dozens', was it? I wager you will find that it wasn't more than said it was Flitht 77.
Yes, an airplane that is about the size of a missle. THAT is the utter nonsense. You know damn well that that video, which you have yet to dispute it's validity, is NOT a boeing 757. It simply isn't big enough. And you just want to argue. You know very well a plane that size would be much too easy to recognize on that video. And it isn't.
I'm not going to dispute the list of names for the flight that hit the pentagon. I'm not going to dispute how or who fired the missle. Because I don't know enough about those aspects of teh "conspiracy theory". However, I know that no wreckage was recovered from that impact that would correspond to a 757. I know the damage to the building is not consistant with a plane the size of a 757 and I know the several videos, that have yet to be disputed by the government, is not a 757.
Originally posted by BackFire
There's no reason to believe that the damage to the pentagon would be exactly identical to the damage of the WTC. They were different types of buildings, made of different material and such.The picture clearly shows a large section that is damage beyond the "round hole", this damage was caused by the wings.
I don't see it.
Here is a challenge...
What kind of Missile was it? Since some of you are so technical to know the size of a hole a missile would make....one would think you guys would know (or even guess) the size of the weapon that could have cause the whole explosion.
People who believe is a plane say it was a 757. Now your turn...what kind of missile could cause this?
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Good Lord, how did you come up with such a witty and substantial reply so quickly?It is only less if you are too brain dead to pay attention to the very substantial points that have been made against you in this thread.
Are you now trying to compare the WTC impact to the Pentagon one? How desperate are you getting? 100 miles an hour faster with no ground impact first into a totally different type of structure.
That picture shows the damn impact holes where the wings went in. What's wrong with you? Again, the firefighters were dealing with this stuff, it is all there. They noticed.
Did any of them say that the wings had mysteriously vanished? No. Tell you what though- they'll talk a lot about the aviation fuel burning so hot that they couldn't get near for hours.
Again, you are resorting to calling me braindead because I don't agree with you. This is the second time you have resorted to name calling or insulting. I thought you were supposed to lead by example.
Originally posted by The OmegaThere are any number of locations... ANYWHERE really. 12 million people can sneak across Mexico's border... why can't they get a SCUD launcher in? I don't know ranges or anything such as that, but isn't Canada a viable location option? *Shrug*
Ok. But that still does not answer the questions:
Who fired the missile? From where? And for What reason?
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Here is a challenge...What kind of Missile was it? Since some of you are so technical to know the size of a hole a missile would make....one would think you guys would know (or even guess) the size of the weapon that could have cause the whole explosion.
People who believe is a plane say it was a 757. Now your turn...what kind of missile could cause this?
here's a bigger challenge: where did i say i had evidence that it was a missle or even declaired it to be anything beyond speculation?
ok, ill start my homework and you start yours.
*DONE* 😱
Again, Captain, what is wrong with you? Who said the plane is the size of a missile? You can barely see the front of the object in that video.
I know a plane travelliong that fast sure as hell has a good chance of not being seen on a video with that kind of frame delay.
I know all you can do is ignore evidence abvout aviation fuel, and the aeroplane wreackage that was there.
You don't know the damage is not consistent with a 757 at all. You are IMAGINING it is not. You are either simply stupid or just folling yourself. You have not the slightest beginning of grounds to back that, and when something is pointed out to the contrary, you simply ignore it.
It is all in your head, Anyone with a tiny shred of rationality sees evidence that it was an aeroplane, none that it was a missile.
It is simply absurd, all of it.
Originally posted by UshgarakConduct befitting of a Global Moderator, all through-out the thread! 👆
Yes, you need a new prescription. There are whacking great gaps on that picture.
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarfIf I use google to find related information, or wikipedia, will I be chastised and strung up?
If this thread reaches 200 pages and people still claim is a missile I'm just gonna puke on my computer out of complete disgust. Eventually this will become the new "Big Foot" footage of our times.Person A:"It's a guy wearing a gorilla costume"
Person B: "NO IT'S ACTUALLY BIG FOOT!!!"WD: "Oh, *BEEP*!"
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
People who believe is a plane say it was a 757. Now your turn...what kind of missile could cause this?
Yeah, I know a lot about cruise missles. But I know a jumbo jet travelling as fast as one, loaded with aviation fuel, would do a hell of a lot more damage to that building than occured on that day.
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Again, you are resorting to calling me braindead because I don't agree with you. This is the second time you have resorted to name calling or insulting. I thought you were supposed to lead by example.
No no, I am saying you would have to be braindead to look at all the substantial stuff I have posted and call it less than what you have said. Now, if you want to fit the shoe, that;s your business, but I stand by what I say there absolutely.
If I don't like what you say, it's not because you don't agree with me, but because of your apparently dimwitted refusal to accept facts in favour of your sensationalist piece of fiction.