9/11 Conspiracy Thread

#1,426
#1,426
I have a problem with the pentagon crash. There's 100's of cameras covering every square inch of the exterior and interior of this massive bldg and the government releases 1 video that shows nothing but an explosion from a security gate several hundred feet away from the site.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#1,427
#1,427
Pacer92 said:
Two, I've yet to see credible proof of a plane crash in Shanksville. It wasn't necessary to use one here..
Click to expand...

You mean, other than the fact that they told us a plane crashed there, right? Whether or not it's hard to hit the Pentagon, crashing a plane into a random field in the PA countryside can't possibly be that difficult. And look, geniuses like you have noticed that there's no evidence of a plane crash, so it looks like they were pretty stupid to choose not to crash a plane there.
 
#1,428
#1,428
So the Saudi government are the ones that called the Jewish workers the night before the attack to tell them not to go in the next day? Who pushed the button for the explosives below the Towers...CIA or FBI?
 
#1,429
#1,429
bamawriter said:
You mean, other than the fact that they told us a plane crashed there, right? Whether or not it's hard to hit the Pentagon, crashing a plane into a random field in the PA countryside can't possibly be that difficult. And look, geniuses like you have noticed that there's no evidence of a plane crash, so it looks like they were pretty stupid to choose not to crash a plane there.
Click to expand...

You hit the nail on the head! Driven the point home! :good!:

Except the FACTS don't show that...
 
#1,430
#1,430
AirVol said:
I have a problem with the pentagon crash. There's 100's of cameras covering every square inch of the exterior and interior of this massive bldg and the government releases 1 video that shows nothing but an explosion from a security gate several hundred feet away from the site.
Click to expand...

You can't question the validity of the most heavily guarded and monitored place in the country...

End of discussion...
 
#1,431
#1,431
As some people say the pentagon plane incenerated, then why wasn't the furniture and books that were only feet from the hole not burned? There were parts of a plane there, but not 757 parts. Where is the debris from a downwash if this plane was only feet from the ground flying at 500 mph?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,432
#1,432
Pacer92 said:
You hit the nail on the head! Driven the point home! :good!:

Except the FACTS don't show that...
Click to expand...

So again:

If the government is going to claim that a plane crashed into a field, why didn't they crash a plane into a field? They showed that they were willing to do it in NYC, so why not do it there?

There really is no logical answer, is there?
 
#1,433
#1,433
AirVol said:
As some people say the pentagon plane incenerated, then why wasn't the furniture and books that were only feet from the hole not burned? There were parts of a plane there, but not 757 parts. Where is the debris from a downwash if this plane was only feet from the ground flying at 500 mph?
Click to expand...

Can't question things that don't make sense...

It will get you being labelled a conspiracy theorist, tin foil hat wearing, (blue font) genius!

There is absolutely zero undeniable or categorical evidence that a 757 full of passengers hit the pentagon...
 
#1,434
#1,434
bamawriter said:
So again:

If the government is going to claim that a plane crashed into a field, why didn't they crash a plane into a field? They showed that they were willing to do it in NYC, so why not do it there?

There really is no logical answer, is there?
Click to expand...

They didn't claim to crash planes into the WTC's...

They claimed planes hit the pentagon and in Shanksville...without sufficient proof...

Absolutely zero indisputable evidence of either...
 
#1,435
#1,435
Pacer92 said:
Just Google images of plane crashes...sites are LITTERED with debris...

1. What is funky structure?
2. Several buildings took more damage than building 7..why didn't they collapse in on themselves?
images

3. When in history has fire taken down a skyscraper at free fall speed?
Click to expand...



1. its not square. geometry. a circle is the strongest shape, the entire border is the same distance from the center. square is next, all sides are equal all angles the same but some points of the border are farther away. rectangles next because it still has right angles but non equal sides. any time you go from a 90 angle it brings in weakness. one way to think about it is to imagine you are sitting on a chair with 8 legs. if those legs are in a circle and one is removed no issue. square kinda the same, rectangle could be tricky on which one it is and if you have rhomboid forms it gets even trickier.
2. without knowing the specifics how can you say which building took more damage? I can't speak to why the others didn't fall down except in generality, they didn't receive as much STRUCTURAL damage. superficially it may look worse but that isn't everything. as an architect in training I blame the contractors of number 7
3. again you ignore what I am saying. It wasn't JUST the fire, it wasn't just damage, it wasn't just the seismic loading. and why do you keep using the term "free fall" its gravity, it doesn't stop and wait on anything.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_structural_failures_and_collapses

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skyscraper_fire

in none of the other cases of skyscraper collapse did I see anything comparable to this. as in no building sustained outside damage and an internal fire. so its impossible to say this shouldnt have happened
 
#1,436
#1,436
AirVol said:
As some people say the pentagon plane incenerated, then why wasn't the furniture and books that were only feet from the hole not burned? There were parts of a plane there, but not 757 parts. Where is the debris from a downwash if this plane was only feet from the ground flying at 500 mph?
Click to expand...

as was pointed out the hole we see was AFTER the fire. therefore the stuff outside of that hole would not have burned. its why we can enjoy campfires.
 
#1,437
#1,437
Pacer92 said:
They didn't claim to crash planes into the WTC's...

They claimed planes hit the pentagon and in Shanksville...without sufficient proof...

Absolutely zero indisputable evidence of either...
Click to expand...

No you claimed that they crashed the planes into the World Trade Center. I'm just trying to follow your train of thought.
 
#1,439
#1,439
bamawriter said:
No you claimed that they crashed the planes into the World Trade Center. I'm just trying to follow your train of thought.
Click to expand...

Can you give undeniable, irrefutable evidence that planes full of people hit the pentagon or in Shanksville?

Besides what they TOLD you...
 
#1,440
#1,440
Carl Pickens said:
So the government invented three planes worth of imposter people and flew hardened military planes into the towers...... But the towers had real people on them..... Is that how it goes?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RZjhxuhTmGk
Click to expand...

Some of these folks subscribe to every single conspiracy theory out there. Even the ones that directly contradict the other conspiracy theories.
 
#1,441
#1,441
Pacer92 said:
Can you give undeniable, irrefutable evidence that planes full of people hit the pentagon or in Shanksville?

Besides what they TOLD you...
Click to expand...

I am coming at this from YOUR point of view. I am not asking IF there was no plane in Shanksville. I am asking WHY there was no plane in Shanksville.
 
#1,442
#1,442
LouderVol said:
1. its not square. geometry. a circle is the strongest shape, the entire border is the same distance from the center. square is next, all sides are equal all angles the same but some points of the border are farther away. rectangles next because it still has right angles but non equal sides. any time you go from a 90 angle it brings in weakness. one way to think about it is to imagine you are sitting on a chair with 8 legs. if those legs are in a circle and one is removed no issue. square kinda the same, rectangle could be tricky on which one it is and if you have rhomboid forms it gets even trickier.
2. without knowing the specifics how can you say which building took more damage? I can't speak to why the others didn't fall down except in generality, they didn't receive as much STRUCTURAL damage. superficially it may look worse but that isn't everything. as an architect in training I blame the contractors of number 7
3. again you ignore what I am saying. It wasn't JUST the fire, it wasn't just damage, it wasn't just the seismic loading. and why do you keep using the term "free fall" its gravity, it doesn't stop and wait on anything.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_structural_failures_and_collapses

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skyscraper_fire

in none of the other cases of skyscraper collapse did I see anything comparable to this. as in no building sustained outside damage and an internal fire. so its impossible to say this shouldnt have happened
Click to expand...

Watch this video....
https://youtu.be/rVCDpL4Ax7I

Science doesn't lie...
 
#1,443
#1,443
bamawriter said:
Some of these folks subscribe to every single conspiracy theory out there. Even the ones that directly contradict the other conspiracy theories.
Click to expand...

The one I truly believe is that Vince sent Derek to Knoxville to destroy Vols football. Little off topic, but I'm sticking with it😜
 
#1,445
#1,445
bamawriter said:
Some of these folks subscribe to every single conspiracy theory out there. Even the ones that directly contradict the other conspiracy theories.
Click to expand...

Come at people with some irrefutable facts, science, or anything instead of the whiny conspiracy theorist post....

Please show us all how the "official story" is garnered in fact...
 
#1,446
#1,446
Pacer92 said:
Deflection...of course.

I've already explained my opinion on that...
Click to expand...

"Deflection" explains why they faked a plane crash. It does not explain why they wouldn't go ahead and crash a plane in order to firm up their fraud.

Be straight with me: do you really not understand what I'm asking? I'm not using big words.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,449
#1,449
GoBigOrangeUT said:
Last I checked, the burden of proof is on you
Click to expand...

No burden on me...you guys come at me and Ras, and a few others that aren't afraid to question(Airvol, BigOrangeTrain, Obsessed) with emotional name calling and little else...

You guys have many questions, but very few answers...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,450
#1,450
bamawriter said:
"Deflection" explains why they faked a plane crash. It does not explain why they wouldn't go ahead and crash a plane in order to firm up their fraud.

Be straight with me: do you really not understand what I'm asking? I'm not using big words.
Click to expand...

Answered your questions in multiple ways...

Why would they if they didn't have to??...the memory engrained of the passengers fighting back against terrorism is all that was required. That's what they want you to remember...not the lack of evidence.

Do you believe our govenment is above deceiving the masses?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top