Originally posted by: Termagant
So what's the evidence that plane wasn't commercial???
A military "pod" under the 2nd aircraft, which happens to be exactly where the fuselage mounted main undercarriage bulge is, as confirmed by numerous aviation experts as well as experts of lense and pixel effects in optical recordings?
Refuted without even following the link. Or is there some other "evidence" now?
I'll take my own eyes and knowledge of aviation, as well as that of countless experts, over the ideas of "some lady" on the street" anyday.
Originally posted by: blackangst1
/groan
Originally posted by: Hafen
Doesn't play right for me, but given the responses, it doesn't look like I'm missing anything..
What I don't get about these 9/11 conspiracy theories is how on one hand they think the gov't under GWB would be capable of orchastrating such a convincing attack and deception, and OTOH we have GWB and WMDs/Iraq.
Stupid is as stupid does
Originally posted by: poMONKey
Originally posted by: Hafen
Doesn't play right for me, but given the responses, it doesn't look like I'm missing anything..
What I don't get about these 9/11 conspiracy theories is how on one hand they think the gov't under GWB would be capable of orchastrating such a convincing attack and deception, and OTOH we have GWB and WMDs/Iraq.
Stupid is as stupid does
GWB had NOTHING to do with anything... hes a F-ing idiot, figure head... thats all. theres a lot of smart a$$ people that are REALLY in charge. its their job...
Originally posted by: Termagant
So what's the evidence that plane wasn't commercial???
A military "pod" under the 2nd aircraft, which happens to be exactly where the fuselage mounted main undercarriage bulge is, as confirmed by numerous aviation experts as well as experts of lense and pixel effects in optical recordings?
Refuted without even following the link. Or is there some other "evidence" now?
I'll take my own eyes and knowledge of aviation, as well as that of countless experts, over the ideas of "some lady" on the street anyday.
Originally posted by: Genx87
That 767 is painted in United Colors. That link is silly in trying to gaugesize differences to justify their paranoia.
Originally posted by: poMONKey
Originally posted by: Genx87
That 767 is painted in United Colors. That link is silly in trying to gaugesize differences to justify their paranoia.
and size diff doesnt matter? a 767 is one size and has one set of dimentions... a tanker has one size and one set of dimensions... I dont see the problem. a plane can be painted any color and with any emblem. no?
Originally posted by: Rangoric
Originally posted by: Termagant
So what's the evidence that plane wasn't commercial???
A military "pod" under the 2nd aircraft, which happens to be exactly where the fuselage mounted main undercarriage bulge is, as confirmed by numerous aviation experts as well as experts of lense and pixel effects in optical recordings?
Refuted without even following the link. Or is there some other "evidence" now?
I'll take my own eyes and knowledge of aviation, as well as that of countless experts, over the ideas of "some lady" on the street anyday.
/Agree. Will also add that that tower would have had to fall differently then it actually did if it was just a fighter jet. What where the towers built to withstand? Can't remember the size plane.
Originally posted by: poMONKey
Originally posted by: Rangoric
Originally posted by: Termagant
So what's the evidence that plane wasn't commercial???
A military "pod" under the 2nd aircraft, which happens to be exactly where the fuselage mounted main undercarriage bulge is, as confirmed by numerous aviation experts as well as experts of lense and pixel effects in optical recordings?
Refuted without even following the link. Or is there some other "evidence" now?
I'll take my own eyes and knowledge of aviation, as well as that of countless experts, over the ideas of "some lady" on the street anyday.
/Agree. Will also add that that tower would have had to fall differently then it actually did if it was just a fighter jet. What where the towers built to withstand? Can't remember the size plane.
the towers were built to withstand multiple jet liner ( with full fuel tanks ) impacts... with the fire from burning jet fuel included in that calculation. the towers could withstand hurricane force winds... much greater than an impact from one plane. and buildings have burned for many hours more ( the WTC buildings burned for about an hour and a half, and "experts" say that most of the jet fuel burned off within a few minutes of impact ) without totally collapsing ( in about 9 seconds... free-fall speed ). the empire state building was hit full on by an airforce bomber years ago with less damage than one WTC building....
Originally posted by: alchemize
whack a mole, whack a mole, they keep popping up!
Originally posted by: poMONKey
Originally posted by: alchemize
whack a mole, whack a mole, they keep popping up!
I thought you were dissing the bent Im taking, but then I read your sig.... and Im still not sure what you're saying...
if its a "look hard enough and you'll find it" thing, then oh well... dis me for looking past the BS and the rhetoric of fear that has ensued since 9/11... if otherwise... rock on!
Originally posted by: poMONKey
Originally posted by: alchemize
whack a mole, whack a mole, they keep popping up!
I thought you were dissing the bent Im taking, but then I read your sig.... and Im still not sure what you're saying...
if its a "look hard enough and you'll find it" thing, then oh well... dis me for looking past the BS and the rhetoric of fear that has ensued since 9/11... if otherwise... rock on!
Originally posted by: poMONKey
Originally posted by: alchemize
whack a mole, whack a mole, they keep popping up!
I thought you were dissing the bent Im taking, but then I read your sig.... and Im still not sure what you're saying...
if its a "look hard enough and you'll find it" thing, then oh well... dis me for looking past the BS and the rhetoric of fear that has ensued since 9/11... if otherwise... rock on!