please spread this link...

Nice run-on sentence Lick! Now your just starting a juvenile name calling game. I give theories a chance, but im not going to say anything is right until I am presented with proof. Im not trying to convert anyone, im merely trying to present another side. You know some periods here and there might make your posts much less exhausting to read.

 

Best have your eyes checked then, punctuation was applied more than adequately to satisfy the rules of grammar. Perhaps sentences longer than three words truly are a challenge to you.

As for proof, well we'll need a legitimate and fully public investigation to uncover that now wont we? Sufficient inconsistency and implausibility in the "official" coverstory has certainly been demonstrated to support that much. Yet, interestingly, you still can't seem to acknoweldge even that much truth.

 

i'm not going to read threw 7 pages of this crap again. this has been posted before, welcome to the forums.

and once again, it will go nowhere productive, just name calling and empty threats. give up while you're ahead, before someone brings religion into it (unless they have already).

 

You are obviously not a missile expert because the global hawk isn't a missile, its a UAV.

I find nothing more amusing that how Lick and Rat get incredibly hostile when you ask then to explain their alternate theories, as if it were an outrageous imposition.

Its Occam's Razor. There is no better way to stir up the blind fury of conspiracy theoriest than to mention Occam's Razor. They can argue that a piece of metal on a lawn is too small, too big, too close, too far, from the wrong part of the plane, not burned enough, not in every photo taken at every point of time from every angle, but ask Lick what happened to the ENTIRE AIRPLANE instead of one stupid piece of wreckage, or why they went to so much trouble to put together this bizarre missile plot when they had just flown two passenger jets into the WTC, and you won't get an answer, you'll get insults, arrogance, run-on sentences, verbiage, and spite. Answers? No, that would be beneath him.

 

Yeah even when you post an image that seems to be evidence that makes sense, your still called a "brainwashed-head in the sander-warmonger-right wingist."

​

 

thats exactly what i just did... im still waiting on an answer... Rat "answered" it by going on about what they had to gain by conspiring the whole event, but dodged my question completely..

 

An image which by your own claims of "total incineration" and the "vacuum effect" are similarly debunked by lack of any evidence of incinerated paint and (given that the lettering on AA planes is at the front of the plane) location well back from the impact site.

But you happily ignore those vital counterpoints to maintain your entrenched denial of any possible bait and switch by our supposedly "good" government.

When youre ready to admit that sufficient doubt has been repeatedly provided (in this neverending argument) to mandate a full public investigation, you and those of your ilk here might actually demonstrate some critical reasoning.

 

Usually the paint on planes can take high heat. Because usually JET ENGINES ARE HOT. (If it can take jet heat for numerous hours, then im sure it can take blast heat.) When something is destroyed, unless it "turns into anti matter," there is going to be some evidence. Some peices may have been blown off on impact. One comment I made about the no parking sign, I was simply saying that the pictures may have been doctored. A reason why there were no pictures of movies on the scene, you should know, being some type of political consultant that you claim to be: THAT WAS A NATIONAL DEFENSE AREA. All film and photos are to be seized, no questions asked. Thats procedure. Just drop it. You have to be the most stubborn, walking thesaurus that just doesn't know when to quit. You have not given any reputable sources or evidence supporting your claim. There is no amount of evidence that will quell your speculation.

 

The simple fact of the matter, andrew, is that your supposed "evidence" is no evidence at all nor does it match with any excuse you've offered. If you bothered to follow through with your lamentable claims youd see your own logical inconsistencies.

Jet engines may be hot, but they are not hot enough to incinerate a plane, else we wouldnt have too many aircraft left in service now would we? Again you choose to ignore the fact that the lettering on AA 757's is located at the front of the plane. Thus by your own claims, would have clearly incinerated and/or been "sucked" into the wreckage of the building. Your photographed shard bears no scorching nor is anywhere near the entry hole of the building. Clearly this simple logic escapes you.

Why don't you simply admit that you prefer to hold tightly to the myth of our "upright" and "protective" federal government which could never be comprised of men so hungry for power and the pursuit of global hegemony that they would sacrifice a relatively small number of US citizens to sway the many more to their cause? At least then you'd for once display a shred of intellectual honesty.

 

I am aware a Global Hawk is not a missile. But it can be used as a missile.

I have never agreed with the theory of Occam's Razor. I notice a lot of people bring that term up a lot in reference to conspiracies -- especially 9/11. I believe that it's simply their way around the real questions, which they refuse to ask themselves due to their minds being extremely conditioned. It's kind of like a defense mechanism, I guess. People will not believe what they don't want to believe, no matter what evidence they might be presented with. I personally do not believe that the simplest explanation for something is the most accurate one, or only one. That's basically saying if it doesn't seem likely or possible to your conditioned idea of reality and accumulated knowledge, then it can't be true. That is such a farce!

PB: I know you think I am a conspiracy theorist. In some ways I am. But if a person was to even suggest government involvement in 9/11 three years ago, I would have laughed in their face and insulted them the way you insult me. Since then I have learned a lot, needless to say....

I really believe that people such as you and Drew are the real conspiracy theorists. After all, I am not the gullible mindslave who believes the "official" government story that a total of 18 hijackers (eight of which are determined to still be alive and living in the Middle East) managed to commander FOUR commercial airplanes with BOX CUTTERS, having such keen flying skills to be able to crash them so perfectly into their targets. Almost every commercial airline pilot interviewed on the subject has said that it would be damn near impossible for a plane such as Flight 77 to crash into the Pentagon as perfectly as it did, by such inexperienced pilots. Same for the Twin Towers. If you think that terrorists with limited piloting skills were able to pull of what they did on 9/11, I think that maybe you're the crazy one. If not crazy, extremely gullible and naive. Extremely brainwashed.

Of course we don't know exactly how whatever crashed into the Pentagon did so, because we haven't seen any REAL footage, despite the fact that the Pentagon has more surveillance cameras than any place else in the entire country.

Of course the terrorists were also able to pull off not being intercepted for the two hours within which all four hijackings occured. I guess it was just a "minor error" on behalf of our "flawed defense system."

Yeah, whatever comes from the Pentagon and White House must be true.

 

Why do you insist on continuously showing this one picture?

Like I said before, that is the only even fair-sized piece of alleged airplane wreckage photographed at the Pentagon (aside from the engine rotor I provided). Where are the engines? Where is the landing gear? Where is the rest of the fuselage?

Why is that the only piece of wreckage remaining?

Are we supposed to believe that is the ONLY piece of wreckage that was photographed outside the Pentagon, which could have easily been added to the photo via computer manipulation?

 

Those photos originated from FEMA's wesbite. Do you think FEMA doctored the photos?

Not if they're photographed by the government themselves!

 

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/

check it out

 

oh that crappy thing again. I love the expert witnesses that use online screen names to identify themselves and try to convince me they know what a missle sounds like. Seen a lot of Iron Eagle movies I take it. Yeah, I wont convince anyone anything, but before you decide that no wings visible in the wreckage is a smoking gun, try and remember that those wings were completely full of jet fuel when the plane exploded. Carry on as though I didnt post..

 

Speaking of the 9/11 attacks, here is an interview with Dave vonKleist on Radio Liberty with Dr. Stan Monteith regarding 911 In Plane Site.

http://www.soundwaves2000.com/rammaker.asp?id=155a&d=12-27-04a

 

People around here usually forget that JP fuel is explosive.

 

Jet fuel cannot melt steel engines.

Ok, so if the wings did disintegrate, where is the rest of the plane, such as the fuselage and the tail?

 

are you serious? Ok I admit you may have seen plane wreckage in the ANDES where the Pilot was trying not to die and collapse or destroy fortified structures. BUT THES WERE PLANES SPECIFICALLY PICKED FOR THEIR EXPLODIDABILITY, and if you wanna get technical on me, picked FOR MAXIMUM FUEL STORAGE. Those planes had just refuled.
These planes made no effort to land. The were chosen as weapons and used as weapons. and just so you know, the entire plane is a fuel tank. ALL PLANES. if it dont have people or cargo, it was fill of fuel. but please feel free to pretend I am wrong. I only make my Living working on aircraft. My planes are full fg electronic countermeasures and weapons delivery components, BUT STILL STORE FUEL EVERYWHERE POSSIBLE!!!
Fact. accept it or not. I think Pressed Rat collapsed them towers. Or did they really collapse? did the liberal media get corrupted and are refusing to show the true images of the towers still stranding?
YOU PEOPLE DISGUST ME!!!!

 

Hmmm.... interesting.

I guess this is simply the first time an airplane has ever crashed without leaving any wreckage behind?? Ok, right. Uh-huh.

George Bush is my idol! God bless America! Put a ribbon on your car showing you support the troops as they are subjected to potentially fatal, experimental vaccinations and exposed to depleted uranium! Go USA!! Bomb those ragheads!!

What credentials do you hold? Many of the top 9/11 researchers/investigators hold degrees in such things as structural engineering and other sciences. What degree(s) do you hold, other than for your claim to "work" on airplanes, which even if true, doesn't faze me in the very least.

Being an airplane mechanic proves nothing.

 

Oh, I cant make a plane fly. But if my shit dont work, war planes dont take off. no point. You have no clue and your degrees are...well nonexistent. just continue to critique music. I know how a plane explodes. so did the those people that USED PLANES AS A WEAPON. we..not you.... understand that fact. please continue to tell me about .....eno.....