Tomu Breidah |
No Problems, Only Solutions
|
|
|
Reged: 08/14/04
|
Posts: 6819
|
Loc: Neither here, nor there.
|
|
Send PM
|
|
Re: For the record 9/11 conspiracy theorist
08/16/12 12:16 AM
|
|
|
> Btw, to wrap up a previous comment, this is what an aircraft looks like after it hits > the Pentagon.
You can look at that piece of metal and say that that is evidence that a plane crashed. But are you ignoring what damage the Pentagon should have taken (what anyone with reasonable observation skills should see)? If a plane hit it or a missile hit it - either way it would burn. If a plane did hit it then why isn't the impact area consistent with a plane that large? Where the engines would have hit, even the wings and tail-fin. The hole that was in that side of the building -before the floors of the building above the location of impact burned down- was NOT big enough to be a Boeing 757. Whatever hit it even penetrated all the way to the 3rd 'ring' from the point of impact in a straight line. I would imagine that a plane hitting something at that angle (45 degrees) would cause some deflection (it could still penetrate), even spreading out from breaking up as it goes through the layers of the building. Not making a straight line cut. Let's assume that "the plane" did go all the way through to that area outside of that hole. There still wasn't any plane parts in that opening all the way over to that side.
If you want to suggest the ridiculous notion that the plane 'evaporated' from the heat... That can not work. If the heat melted the plane then why was there some office furniture still intact? (Yes or No) Do they make office furniture to hold up better than airplane parts?
Then I can look at that one small piece of supposed debris from the "plane" and look at the damage to the Pentagon, look back at the piece, then back at the Pentagon. Sadly, that piece alone doesn't suggest that a plane hit the Pentagon. It was either planted, or from something else.
For example, if someone, not having any knowledge of 9/11, was shown pictures of this event (at the Pentagon), then they were asked to guess what they think would have caused the damage. And let's make it easy on them by making it multiple choice.
a) A Boeing 767 b) a missile c) a smaller aircraft armed with explosives (for the sake of variety)
"Well, if it were a Boeing, where is the damage on the lawn?" "The hole isn't big enough to be from a Boeing either."
"A small aircraft probably wouldn't have enough momentum to go through 3 layers or essentially 3 buildings (since they were separated).
The best option is the only one that remains.
"It had to have been a missile."
Then again, they could have been given the suggestion by the media that is was a plane, to shut-up, and not ask any questions.
Isn't it strange how the planes that hit the Twin Towers left a cutout of their shapes where they went in, but the plane that supposedly hit the Pentagon didn't? And even if the wings and tail-fin couldn't penetrate the Pentagon - we should have at least seen some impact damage of SOME SORT.
Last thing I'll mention. The corkscrew turn the hijacker made to turn around towards the Pentagon. This is what I was referring to when I used the word "miraculous". It is impossible to do. But some people will believe it without question. Unless you have a theory of how the inexperienced pilot was able to pull off that maneuver - I'm all ears.
LEVEL-4
|
|