<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BrewCityBuck @ Feb 3 2007, 03:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Your teacher shouldn't be showing you that crap. It'sthat kind of propaganda garbage thats confused 25% of our population to believe 9/11 was a government plot. US Today is right near the Pentagon, hundreds of their employee's watched a US passenger jet hit the Pentagon, unless you think dozens of writers and journalists are lying...then...whatever. I love that stupid video, 'Right after the attack there's a hole in the pentagon and no airplane!' Well no sh*t, look at the WTC, when a planes flying hundreds of miles and hour it gets sucked right in, when the WTC was attacked there were no f*cking airplane chunks that fell into the streets, the whole plane went into the building...obviously your not going to see an airplane in a building thats just exploded with jet fuel...whatever was left of the plane in the Pentagon was charcoil black and heavily destroyed by the intense fires. Dee Dee Dee!</div>BCB thats different, the WTC towers had 70-80 towers for the plan pieces to fall right through. It didnt even collapse the moment the tower got hit, meaning, the pieces could have never reached the bottom, but instead blown up, or what ever was left would have fallen to to the ground, after the tower collapsed. As for the Pentagon, that was a different story, the plane hit the rings and wedges straight on. There was nothing at all underneath. If it blew up, it would have sent such pieces probably, flying into the air, and not cause a hole that small. Something very sharp and extremely aerodynamic would have had to done so. And also for the hole to be created like that, the plane like stated, would have been driving at most 10-30 feet in the air. Which is damn near impossible. Now I am not saying this was a government missile, it could have been something else dammit, but a boeing 757? Kind of hard to believe.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (RaptorFan#1 @ Feb 7 2007, 04:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Now I am not saying this was a government missile, it could have been something else dammit, but a boeing 757?</div>What was it then, and why would anyone do it?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (RaptorFan#1 @ Feb 7 2007, 06:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>BCB thats different, the WTC towers had 70-80 towers for the plan pieces to fall right through. It didnt even collapse the moment the tower got hit, meaning, the pieces could have never reached the bottom, but instead blown up, or what ever was left would have fallen to to the ground, after the tower collapsed. As for the Pentagon, that was a different story, the plane hit the rings and wedges straight on. There was nothing at all underneath. If it blew up, it would have sent such pieces probably, flying into the air, and not cause a hole that small. Something very sharp and extremely aerodynamic would have had to done so. And also for the hole to be created like that, the plane like stated, would have been driving at most 10-30 feet in the air. Which is damn near impossible. Now I am not saying this was a government missile, it could have been something else dammit, but a boeing 757? Kind of hard to believe.</div> I think it's funny that people mention a missile being used for the Pentagon. Four planes filled with dozens of passengers were hijacked. Two of them hit the WTC's, 1 of them was taken over and flown into the ground (another thing conspiracy theorists don't want to bring up, if this attack was planned by government you'd think they would have some more people on board to deal with roudy passengers and not just 4 hijackers) and the other 4th plane...was flown into some government hideout and all the passengers taken by our government....while the airplane was still miraculously still on radar....(another thing conspiracy people never bring up) and the government instead of letting the plane hit the target had a missile hit the pentagon (a part of the pentagon that was largely under contruction). Kind of wierd that planes were used in all the other attacks but then the government would take dozens of American citizens and kidnap them so that they could hit the pentagon with a missile instead. And Raptorsfan, I'm assuming your not an expert in airplane damage on government buildings so I take your little analysis with a grain of salt. A f*cking plane hit the pentagon (which was just above the ground, not that f*cking hard to believe considering if the plane was hitting the ground it would be going fast enough to tear through the pentagon anyway), a huge hole was made, their was a gigantic fireball and then fires broke out in the pentagon....is that so hard to believe? Considering the explotion (which you can see on video) I wouldn't expect much in the way of debris on the grass.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Justice @ Feb 7 2007, 06:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>What was it then, and why would anyone do it?</div>I dont know really know, but my point in my arguement was that it is hard to believe it was a boeing 757.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/16/pentagon.video/index.html Here's the video of the plane hitting the Pentagon. Click for the video and it has everything.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BrewCityBuck @ Feb 7 2007, 06:33 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I think it's funny that people mention a missile being used for the Pentagon. Four planes filled with dozens of passengers were hijacked. Two of them hit the WTC's, 1 of them was taken over and flown into the ground (another thing conspiracy theorists don't want to bring up, if this attack was planned by government you'd think they would have some more people on board to deal with roudy passengers and not just 4 hijackers) and the other 4th plane...was flown into some government hideout and all the passengers taken by our government....while the airplane was still miraculously still on radar....(another thing conspiracy people never bring up) and the government instead of letting the plane hit the target had a missile hit the pentagon (a part of the pentagon that was largely under contruction). Kind of wierd that planes were used in all the other attacks but then the government would take dozens of American citizens and kidnap them so that they could hit the pentagon with a missile instead. And Raptorsfan, I'm assuming your not an expert in airplane damage on government buildings so I take your little analysis with a grain of salt. A f*cking plane hit the pentagon (which was just above the ground, not that f*cking hard to believe considering if the plane was hitting the ground it would be going fast enough to tear through the pentagon anyway), a huge hole was made, their was a gigantic fireball and then fires broke out in the pentagon....is that so hard to believe? Considering the explotion (which you can see on video) I wouldn't expect much in the way of debris on the grass.</div>Hey BCB, im not telling you the american government kidnapped 'x' number of people and hid them to create a conspiracy, im saying, its hard to believe a boeing did this. First off, at impact, the boeing explodes, no questions asked. The gas is really combustible, and ass all people know, burns extremely fast. So in essence, there would be no hole. BCB if a plan at that speed was flying 10 feet above the air, there would be a huge tunnel like right underneath its path. It doesn't take rocket science BCB.and lastly, BCB, I acknowledge your desire to continue to be patriotic and stand up for your country, but I mean, in times like these, when you really dont have proof of what happened, you have to look at it in a global kind of way. Now im not saying, "Hey guys, Bush created this whole conspiracy, to throw people like BCB off" Im saying look at it scientifically, if it is not possible to happen, it didnt happen/
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BrewCityBuck @ Feb 7 2007, 06:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'> Looks to me like a 757 could f*cking do it.</div>ya and so could other stuff. Its not really impossible.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/16/pentagon.video/index.html Here's the video with the airplane clearly hitting the pentagon...
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BrewCityBuck @ Feb 7 2007, 06:59 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/16/pentagon.video/index.html Here's the video with the airplane clearly hitting the pentagon...</div>that could have been any other pointy object. Hey BCB, its all good, maybe it was terrorists, but could a boeing really have done that little damage? Maybe. Was it a conspricacy? Probably not. But heck, is it out of the question that its not a boeing? No.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (RaptorFan#1 @ Feb 7 2007, 08:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>that could have been any other pointy object. Hey BCB, its all good, maybe it was terrorists, but could a boeing really have done that little damage? Maybe. Was it a conspricacy? Probably not. But heck, is it out of the question that its not a boeing? No.</div> It was an airplane...Not a 100 foot long missile. What are you talking about? 'Little damage'...there was a sh*t load of damage done to the Pentagon. Most of that side of the Pentagon was burned to nothing on the inside. Thats not enough damage to satisfy you?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BrewCityBuck @ Feb 7 2007, 07:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>It was an airplane...Not a 100 foot long missile. What are you talking about? 'Little damage'...there was a sh*t load of damage done to the Pentagon. Most of that side of the Pentagon was burned to nothing on the inside.</div>Because it seems a bit too perfect, only one wedge came out, shouldnt there be an uneven edge to the supposed 'hole'?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (RaptorFan#1 @ Feb 7 2007, 08:10 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Because it seems a bit too perfect, only one wedge came out, shouldnt there be an uneven edge to the supposed 'hole'?</div> The plane didn't come in at an angle...it came in straight...blew up and made your basic hole where it made contract and where the fire came out...I don't see whats so hard to believe. Why does it have to be uneven?
I'm a little confused here.BCB, what do you mean by it wasnt a "conspiracy"...I'm just confused on where everyone stands on this...
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (RaptorFan#1 @ Feb 7 2007, 06:55 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The gas is really combustible, and ass all people know, burns extremely fast.</div>Hmm..I never knew that. I'm gonna try it right now.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MaRdYC26 @ Feb 7 2007, 09:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I'm a little confused here.BCB, what do you mean by it wasnt a "conspiracy"...I'm just confused on where everyone stands on this...</div> I believe 9/11 was committed by Al-Qaeda terrorists. The conspiracy theorists believe our government planned and committed the attack. (The conspiracy theorists are idiots). The 9/11 conspiracy theorists are people who know nothing about Al-Qaeda, terrorism or our government. They spread these stupid videos to suck in ignorant kids. Thats all they do, spread bullsh**, these people usually find conspiracy in anything.
I gotta say I do enjoy watching the videos these people make, but the videos are in themselves evidence against any such conspiracy. if the Government could pull off something so complax and big as 9/11, the government could easily kill off a few college students. These videos also link a lot of unrelated events together as proof; such as the Pheonix memo, or that certain high ranking military officials discussed the possibility of an airliner being flown into the pentagon. they will also say look at the people who were at the conference, they are all big shots in the Bush administration, what they fail to mention is these same people, most notibly Dick Cheany and Donald Rumsfeild, have been big wigs in other administrations as well, and were both considered some of the best military minds in this country.When you sit down and actually think about the facts, you come to one conclusion; the 9/11 conspiracy theorist are about as credible as the JFK theorist, the moonlanding theorist, and the area 51 theorist.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (RaptorFan#1 @ Feb 7 2007, 05:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I dont know really know, but my point in my arguement was that it is hard to believe it was a boeing 757.</div>Okay. So there's no one that has come out and said anything about this. The people that died on that plane are still alive somewhere, and their families I suppose don't know. The plane is still somewhere; it was rerouted to another location. Something flew into that building, but no one has any idea what. People just say what they thought they heard. Yeah, that's an entirely reasonable explanation.Ever heard of Occam's Razor? It's pretty applicable here. If I wake up in the morning and my bedroom door is open, well hell, it could have been Motherf*cking ALIENS. If I wanted to be sensible though, I would think to myself, "Hey, I probably just forgot to close it, or maybe one of my roomies opened it." It's stupid to make up these complicated hypotheses when there is no evidence to suggest towards said ridiculous hypotheses. In most cases, and in this case, the simplest answer is the correct one.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Justice @ Feb 8 2007, 02:08 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Okay. So there's no one that has come out and said anything about this. The people that died on that plane are still alive somewhere, and their families I suppose don't know. The plane is still somewhere; it was rerouted to another location. Something flew into that building, but no one has any idea what. People just say what they thought they heard. Yeah, that's an entirely reasonable explanation.Ever heard of Occam's Razor? It's pretty applicable here. If I wake up in the morning and my bedroom door is open, well hell, it could have been Motherf*cking ALIENS. If I wanted to be sensible though, I would think to myself, "Hey, I probably just forgot to close it, or maybe one of my roomies opened it." It's stupid to make up these complicated hypotheses when there is no evidence to suggest towards said ridiculous hypotheses. In most cases, and in this case, the simplest answer is the correct one.</div> You didnt ask me if I knew what hit the plane. You asked me, or the point of arguement, was proving that a boeing may or may not have hit the plane.
Hundreds of journalists/reporters from US Today watched the airliner hit the Pentagon (The US today building is right across from the Pentagon), hundreds of people on the highway watched the plane fly right over them as it headed to the Pentagon, the security tape clearly shows a plane hitting the Pentagon, in wreckage pictures you can cleary see airplane debris inside the Pentagon, the plane was on radar going over Washington DC, I don't know what other evidence you need.
