Loose Change 2nd Edition - Page 7

Lifetaker · 03-06-2006, 04:49 PM

Okay Malum, I'm confused. Do you or do you not believe that a plane hit the Pentagon? That is my question to everyone who has disputed the airplane hypothesis. And if not a plane, a bunker buster? That is absurd. Where in the hell would that have been fired from?

Malum · 03-06-2006, 05:11 PM

well I said nothing about IF a plane hit, Im talking about the discussion of the impact and the destruction ......

~~Pence~~ · 03-06-2006, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pence

Ok, answer me this; All of the aledged hijackers were classed as poor flyers yet they managed to find New York and hit a tower and with a plane of that size you cannot make small corrections and after that your aledged hijacker freind manages to find New York and hit the ajasent tower.
Then your next kamakazi colleague manages to navigate to Washington and instead of landing on top he manages to skim along the terrain hitting lamposts (witch unusualy does not rip the planes "FRADGILE" wings that everyone keeps saying are so fragile that they dissapear if in contact with concrete) then he manages to fly the plane through an almost window sized hole leaveing no trace of the plane, oh yea dont forget he landed this massive 737 into the middle story's not the bottom floor, and this plane must be waxed to hell as it did not damage the lawn (the goverment says it bounced off of the lawn).

Mabey i deserve an answer or mabey you cannot answer?

Malum · 03-06-2006, 07:01 PM

You did not post a question, but a series of your assumptions.

BrokenArrow · 03-06-2006, 07:09 PM

How many times have jet liners been flown into the Pentagon?

I realize there are mathematical and physical estimates based on speed, heading, makeup etc of the plane and building that would determine the results of the impact but that doesn't mean that it is EXACTLY what would happen. Variables obviously effected the outcome of the impact if it doesnt fit exactly what all these conspiracy theorists are saying 'should have' happened.

I said it before in the other thread, I'll say it again now: Conspiracy theories are usually created by people who: A. Can't believe what happened (ex. A lone rifleman killing JFK, People who hate the US and have tried to destroy the WTC before try again with planes and compromise the easy security at airports (no way?)) B. Have an extreme distrust for the government (The current administration likes secrecy, this shouldn't be a suprise). or C) just want to get themselves as much as possible into the limelight.

I'm not saying there aren't questions, there is no doubt in my mind the government is holding information back. But this isn't because they hijacked the planes or shot a missile/dropped a bomb at the targets (please!). It is because they could have taken more steps to prevent it. There's your explanation for the unanswered questions (which if answered would make the administration even less popular).

Also someone mentioned that the Pentagon was designed to withstand bombs and such. Now I'm no expert and I do not claim to be, but if a building is built to resist a bomb blast, imagine what would happen to a plane that hits it (planes are (for the purpose of being able to fly) light and rather fragile).

Also what does the administration seek to gain from doing this? Going to war in Afghanistan? This does not add up to me. The administration seemed pretty intent on attacking Iraq from the getgo if you ask me. They didn't even need the 'War on Terror' as an excuse to get there. They already had evidence that Iraq was looking at/had biological weapons, which is the more proeminant reason for war in Iraq. The campaign in Afghanistan would really just be a distraction I think.

Sorry for the novel guys

.

~~Pence~~ · 03-07-2006, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malum

You did not post a question, but a series of your assumptions.

Dont try an wriggle from the question, read it properly and you will find the questions.

Malum · 03-07-2006, 07:28 PM

No questions to wriggle from. It is a story put forth by you. Are you asking if it is real or not?

03-06-2006, 07:09 PM	#65
BrokenArrow Retired PR Developer Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: NH, US Posts: 3,082	How many times have jet liners been flown into the Pentagon? I realize there are mathematical and physical estimates based on speed, heading, makeup etc of the plane and building that would determine the results of the impact but that doesn't mean that it is EXACTLY what would happen. Variables obviously effected the outcome of the impact if it doesnt fit exactly what all these conspiracy theorists are saying 'should have' happened. I said it before in the other thread, I'll say it again now: Conspiracy theories are usually created by people who: A. Can't believe what happened (ex. A lone rifleman killing JFK, People who hate the US and have tried to destroy the WTC before try again with planes and compromise the easy security at airports (no way?)) B. Have an extreme distrust for the government (The current administration likes secrecy, this shouldn't be a suprise). or C) just want to get themselves as much as possible into the limelight. I'm not saying there aren't questions, there is no doubt in my mind the government is holding information back. But this isn't because they hijacked the planes or shot a missile/dropped a bomb at the targets (please!). It is because they could have taken more steps to prevent it. There's your explanation for the unanswered questions (which if answered would make the administration even less popular). Also someone mentioned that the Pentagon was designed to withstand bombs and such. Now I'm no expert and I do not claim to be, but if a building is built to resist a bomb blast, imagine what would happen to a plane that hits it (planes are (for the purpose of being able to fly) light and rather fragile). Also what does the administration seek to gain from doing this? Going to war in Afghanistan? This does not add up to me. The administration seemed pretty intent on attacking Iraq from the getgo if you ask me. They didn't even need the 'War on Terror' as an excuse to get there. They already had evidence that Iraq was looking at/had biological weapons, which is the more proeminant reason for war in Iraq. The campaign in Afghanistan would really just be a distraction I think. Sorry for the novel guys.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

03-06-2006, 04:49 PM	#61
Lifetaker Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Front Towards Enemy Posts: 159	Okay Malum, I'm confused. Do you or do you not believe that a plane hit the Pentagon? That is my question to everyone who has disputed the airplane hypothesis. And if not a plane, a bunker buster? That is absurd. Where in the hell would that have been fired from?

03-06-2006, 05:11 PM	#62
Malum Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Washington DC Posts: 157	well I said nothing about IF a plane hit, Im talking about the discussion of the impact and the destruction ......

03-06-2006, 07:01 PM	#64
Malum Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Washington DC Posts: 157	You did not post a question, but a series of your assumptions.

03-07-2006, 07:28 PM	#67
Malum Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Washington DC Posts: 157	No questions to wriggle from. It is a story put forth by you. Are you asking if it is real or not?

Sponsored Links

Sponsored Links