Police Penis Sucking Goat Fucker
Pre-Show Stalwart
You're just making yourself look dumb.
9/11 Was A Inside Job!!!!
- Thread starter Police Penis Sucking Goat Fucker
- Start date
AndThat'sTheBottomLine
I am the
Funny you mention the pentagon. The footage they showed that day didn't really show a plane hit. The pentagon is a place that has cameras every where you look so how come we were only given one shitty video of the attack. There was hardly any plane debris left from the plane crash. Where was the black box? How come a plane hits the world trade center and causing a steel frame building to collapse like a controlled demolition within a short amount of time but The Pentagon is only left with very little damage. Building 7 wasn't even hit by a plane and that fell down. What about the damage caused? This so called plane that hit The Pentagon left a hole around 15 ft wide and 10 ft wide. When they say a multi ton jet liner with a wing span of 125 ft some how found a way to squeeze itself into that very small hole. The windows in The Pentagon the window adjacent to where the wings should hit were completely fine. Examine the hole in the pentagon and examine the plane that they said hit the pentagon and you will see no plane hit it. What about the maneuver the plane did just to hit the pentagon? It is impossible to do what they said this hijacker did with a Boeing 757. It would have caused a lot more damage outside the pentagon and the pilot who did this maneuver was known as a terrible pilot and he managed to do something on a plane that not even some of the best pilots can do.
You say the government knew about it so that gave them a reason to go to war. Do you think killing thousands of people then invade someone else's country and kill there civilians even the children by bombing there country just so they can go to war? We have troops and civilians dying for nothing. Way more people died there than on 9/11? They like to name all the people who died that day on the anniversary but they never mention all those innocent people in the other countries that America bombed.
What about Building 7?
No one has answered this question for me yet.
How did the pass port made out of paper of the hijacker who flew the plane into the world trade center some how fell out of his pocket and land on the street, but no black box was recovered? How is that a passport made out of paper survived this fire but the black box was destroyed and also this fire was so strong that it caused a steel frame building to collapse also caused a steel frame building not even hit by a plane to collapse. No fire has ever caused a steel frame building to collapse. They also all fell down like a controlled demolition.
[YOUTUBE]CiMB7PXK43M[/YOUTUBE]
Reporter who was there.
[YOUTUBE]1lKZqqSI9-s[/YOUTUBE]
The second video should leave little doubt of what happened. I was in the 4th grade and I remember this happening as clear as day.
Mr. Artistic guy
Better Off This Way
It's a curious thing. Here we have this totally inept knuckle-dragging deficient pathetic simpleton of a creature who, it has been proven many times, can not listen to/understand reason. Essentially he is an absolute fucking plank. And yet a whole host of people who know all of this, myself included, keep returning as if we expect that "maybe this time he'll actually listen". He's too stupid to learn, and I've lost enjoyment from trying to insult him because he probably doesn't understand what I'm saying. Some people are just beyond help it seems.
Police Penis Sucking Goat Fucker
Pre-Show Stalwart
The first video clearly shows that a Boeing 757 did not hit the pentagon. Can you explain how plane with a wingspan of 125 ft caused a hole only 15ft wide?
For the second video I'm not sure if you were posting that video to prove to me that a plane did hit the world trade center because I never said that it didnt. No plane hit the pentagon and that is a fact. A plane did hit the world trade center but there were also explosives inside the buildings. No steel frame building ever has ever collapsed because of fire. Not only did it collapse it collapsed like a controlled demolition. Building 7 wasn't hit by a plane that collapsed like a control demolition too. Many witnesses who were inside the buildings that day claim to have heard explosives blow up in the basement before the plane even hit the towers. It makes so sense that a plane can crash into the world trade center causing it a building not even hit by a plane to collapse but only left a small amount of damage to the Pentagon. Not to mention that a pass port was recovered by the man who had it on him while he crashed a plane into a building but no black box. What about how the steel from the world trade center was shipped overseas right away and melted down before they could have tested it for explosives?
9/11 was an inside job.
AndThat'sTheBottomLine
I am the
Then prove it. Do research and get it brought into the light. Go and research and the publish it in a big newspaper or something. Hell present your research to a big name writer and get him to write a book about it. We can sit here and speculate all we want to but until you go out and try to get these so-called facts brought to light then you will carry on being known as a dumbass. Don't read an article on the internet and post it on a wrestling forum, go and do your own research don't live off of the research of others go and see for yourself.
Hyorinmaru
Sit Upon The Frozen Heavens
why are we feeding the troll?
We all know he will never admit to being a massive fucking idiot so why not just ignore him?
We all know he will never admit to being a massive fucking idiot so why not just ignore him?
Hyorinmaru
Sit Upon The Frozen Heavens
that's just makes this more sad if that's the case
Police Penis Sucking Goat Fucker
Pre-Show Stalwart
That is a good question where is the plane that didn't hit the pentagon. Since that plane never hit the pentagon it is probably still being used. Can you explain to me then how a plane with a 125 ft wing span only caused a hole 15 ft wide after it crashed into the pentagon? How come the was practically no debris from the plane at all? Where were the wings? Why were the windows adjacent to the hole not damaged? How is it that the maneuver made by the plane is impossible to do with a Boeing 757? Also the pilot who did this maneuver was known as a terrible pilot did something that not even the best pilots can do. Why is it that they cant provide a good video of the plane hitting the pentagon when there are camera every where there? You keep on calling me dumb but you never answer any of my questions. The evidence does not match up with what our government told us what happened that day.
Tastycles hasn't called you dumb once in this thread. The implication is there I'm sure, but he hasn't called you dumb.
But, if we're going to be throwing rocks from our glass houses:
But, if we're going to be throwing rocks from our glass houses:
If you're genuinely curious for answers to your questions...
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/debunking-911-myths-pentagon
HonkyDong Man
Dark Match Jobber
Im surprised no one brought up Jimmy Hoffa. There's something fishy about his disappearance in -75. Just can't put my finger on it though.
Lord help me, imma rise to it...
So the government hijacked the plane, flew it somewhere, killed the passengers, create a fake paper trail, and now someone uses it for something else. Meanwhile they make a missile or something that looks sufficiently like a plane so eyewitnesses report it as such and shoot it at the Pentagon? Seems like a lot of hassle when they could, at the cost of a plane, just have flown the plane into the Pentagon, no?
Can I explain it? Sure. To you? Maybe not. Essentially, it's about pressure, the first part of the plane that hits hits the building, and as it starts at a point and makes itself bigger, the plane forces itself through whilst disintegrating. The wings have far less momentum because a) by the time they reach the building they are going slower than the front was because of the obvious deceleration , b) they weigh far less than the fuselage and c) the engines, which will hit first, will basically blow them off.
To illustrate this, I could give lots of examples, for example something thrown through something, or breaking through something, but instead I'm going to user the rather left field example of a plane crashing into a building.
In 1940, a B-25 bomber crashed in heavy fog into the Empire State Building. In the image on the left, you can see this caused a pretty big fire that killed a lot of people. On the right, you can see that the impact hole is about 18 feet across. A B-25 bomber's wingspan is about 70 feet. Was this a conspiracy to go to war with Germany? Or was it physics in action?
Again, think about this. The amount of energy involved in a plane going from about 850 km/h to 0 in the space of a few milliseconds is immense. This energy basically tears the plane apart, for want of a better term, and it is rare to find anything but the tailplane in accidents where no attempt to slow down before impact was made. Below is a picture of a Korean Air Jumbo Jet, that crashed in Guam in 1997, but you'd never know it.
Do you just regurgitate everything you see online without checking it. This is a picture of the Pentagon I took from a 9/11 conspiracy site, people on "Your side". Every single window in it is smashed.
What manoeuvre? Again, this reeks of regurgitation, complaining about something without explaining what the issue is. The plane did a 330 degree turn, which all planes can do, and then crashed, which all planes can do, unfortunately. You're right in saying that the best pilots don't crash though. I also don't really know where you got your appraisal of the hijacker from.
Ok, a lesson about CCTV. Generally CCTV cameras have a frame rate of 8 frames per second, which is much slower than normal TV. This is so a single tape lasts much longer, and because CCTV is designed to get an image of a person, not entertain people. The visual width of a CCTV camera is typically about 10 metres, because this gives it enough scope to have recognisable images at fairly low resolution, again a tape saving mechanism. The plane that hit the Pentagon was travelling at 850km/h. That is 850,000 metres per hour, 14,200 per minute and 240 metres per second. If the frame rate of a camera is 8 per second and it's field of view is 10 metres wide, an object only has to be going 80 metres per second to avoid being seen. The plane was travelling 3 times that, which means it could travel past most cameras without being seen by them.
There is one camera angle, the one you show which has a wider field of view. You don't really see the plane move across it, but you do see it on the right hand side after it has passed by briefly. This is to be expected.
It is the exact same principle as a bullet passing by your face. You don't see it pass you, because it is moving too fast for the "frame rate" of you're eyes to notice it.
So the government hijacked the plane, flew it somewhere, killed the passengers, create a fake paper trail, and now someone uses it for something else. Meanwhile they make a missile or something that looks sufficiently like a plane so eyewitnesses report it as such and shoot it at the Pentagon? Seems like a lot of hassle when they could, at the cost of a plane, just have flown the plane into the Pentagon, no?
Can I explain it? Sure. To you? Maybe not. Essentially, it's about pressure, the first part of the plane that hits hits the building, and as it starts at a point and makes itself bigger, the plane forces itself through whilst disintegrating. The wings have far less momentum because a) by the time they reach the building they are going slower than the front was because of the obvious deceleration , b) they weigh far less than the fuselage and c) the engines, which will hit first, will basically blow them off.
To illustrate this, I could give lots of examples, for example something thrown through something, or breaking through something, but instead I'm going to user the rather left field example of a plane crashing into a building.
In 1940, a B-25 bomber crashed in heavy fog into the Empire State Building. In the image on the left, you can see this caused a pretty big fire that killed a lot of people. On the right, you can see that the impact hole is about 18 feet across. A B-25 bomber's wingspan is about 70 feet. Was this a conspiracy to go to war with Germany? Or was it physics in action?
Again, think about this. The amount of energy involved in a plane going from about 850 km/h to 0 in the space of a few milliseconds is immense. This energy basically tears the plane apart, for want of a better term, and it is rare to find anything but the tailplane in accidents where no attempt to slow down before impact was made. Below is a picture of a Korean Air Jumbo Jet, that crashed in Guam in 1997, but you'd never know it.
Do you just regurgitate everything you see online without checking it. This is a picture of the Pentagon I took from a 9/11 conspiracy site, people on "Your side". Every single window in it is smashed.
What manoeuvre? Again, this reeks of regurgitation, complaining about something without explaining what the issue is. The plane did a 330 degree turn, which all planes can do, and then crashed, which all planes can do, unfortunately. You're right in saying that the best pilots don't crash though. I also don't really know where you got your appraisal of the hijacker from.
Ok, a lesson about CCTV. Generally CCTV cameras have a frame rate of 8 frames per second, which is much slower than normal TV. This is so a single tape lasts much longer, and because CCTV is designed to get an image of a person, not entertain people. The visual width of a CCTV camera is typically about 10 metres, because this gives it enough scope to have recognisable images at fairly low resolution, again a tape saving mechanism. The plane that hit the Pentagon was travelling at 850km/h. That is 850,000 metres per hour, 14,200 per minute and 240 metres per second. If the frame rate of a camera is 8 per second and it's field of view is 10 metres wide, an object only has to be going 80 metres per second to avoid being seen. The plane was travelling 3 times that, which means it could travel past most cameras without being seen by them.
There is one camera angle, the one you show which has a wider field of view. You don't really see the plane move across it, but you do see it on the right hand side after it has passed by briefly. This is to be expected.
It is the exact same principle as a bullet passing by your face. You don't see it pass you, because it is moving too fast for the "frame rate" of you're eyes to notice it.
Kip The Fury
Pre-Show Stalwart
Poop Master Flex
Mid-Card Championship Winner
Not this again. Seriously, NOT THIS AGAIN!
Why can't people drop this? Is it so hard to believe that a bunch of pissed off guys in the middle east did this?
The only part I agree with is a controlled demolition but it doesn't mean its an inside job, some terrorists posing as painters and construction workers could easily pull that off.
Why can't people drop this? Is it so hard to believe that a bunch of pissed off guys in the middle east did this?
The only part I agree with is a controlled demolition but it doesn't mean its an inside job, some terrorists posing as painters and construction workers could easily pull that off.
AndThat'sTheBottomLine
I am the
Slyfox696 said:
This pretty much proves everything Goat Fucker said to be WRONG. Lol case closed.
Posted from Wrestlezone.com App for Android
In pieces. See that twisted up piece of metal? That's a piece of the plane that hit the pentagon.
So, the government hijacked a plane and hit the pentagon with a missile to disguise the fact that they stole a plane? Todd, since you're convinced that toe government did this, can you explain why?
The 15 foot hole made by the landing gear? Yeah, that doesn't have a 125 ft wingspan.
Practically none =/= not enough to say "yeah, that's a plane". Also, see Tasty's answer.
Ripped off.
You're asking why blast resistant windows stood up to an impact better than regular glass? The clue's in the name.
What Manoeuvre?
Crash a plane into a building? Yeah, pretty sure I could do that wheras a good pilot wouldn't.
Firstly there's what Tasty said, but also cameras close enough to the plane to get a good shot probably wouldn't be recording for much longer.
You are dumb.
I answered your questions, and your evidence is laughable.
