Introducing The Amazing Penta-lawn 2000!!!

[jhale667]

So Thome, lemme get this straight: Anyone who questions the official 9/11 story is 'a fool', yet you're all over the 'Liberal Media' conspiracy theory?


OK THEN!!!

[Phil theStalker]

Originally posted by jhale667
Then why did Rummy say a 'missile' hit the Pentagon originally?


Just curious....

I think da name 'Rummy' says tit ALL!

[Phil theStalker]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
I would love to have someone come up with what the material needs for this "special operation" a conspiracy theory would entail:

• A.) What would be the number/nature of personnel to carry it out? Were they military sp. ops, ex-military merc's?
  
  B.) What kind of weapons were used (to hit the Pentagon)? Tomahawk cruise missiles? What was the explosive yield of the warhead? How much damage could it have done to the hardened concrete structure?
  
  C.) What happened to the passengers? Did the pilots willingly fly their planes out over the ocean?
  
  D.) Why would so many people, not directly involved in a conspiracy, keep silent? (i.e. Radar tower operators, FBI/CIA Agents, military officers, enlisted, etc.) How could so many people not talk?

In short, I'd love to see someone actually put the conspiracy theories to the same scrutiny that the nutty kids put the official explanation too...

Y'mmean yoo neva heard aff Alex JONES?!





GOOD OLE HOT AJ

[jhale667]

Originally posted by Phil theStalker
I think da name 'Rummy' says tit ALL!

So it was the booze talkin'?

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by jhale667
Then why did Rummy say a 'missile' hit the Pentagon originally?


Just curious....

Because he's a retard that also invaded the wrong country in response to the 9/11 attacks...

[jhale667]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Because he's a retard that also invaded the wrong country in response to the 9/11 attacks...

So at least we agree on that....

I know you said you weren't going to, Nick but you should check out that Loose change link I put up if for no other reason than to PICK IT APART. Just keep an open mind. I went in a skeptic, that didn't change...but it DOES raise some really interesting points, and they back it up with facts. FACT is, there's a lot of shit that the 'official' explanation doesn't cover....

[Phil theStalker]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Because he's a retard that also invaded the wrong country in response to the 9/11 attacks...

nICk, did ya eva think aff calling Alex JOnes' show wit those questions?

He could answer all aff those questions wit a 3 minute radio segment timer.

And he'd still be yelling at yoo, "D'YA WANT SOME MORE?! D'YA WANT SOME MORE?!"

true dat.

[diamondD]

Originally posted by jhale667
Good question: What about the eye-witnesses that said they saw a twin-engine Cessna (sp), or a Military plane, from the same vantage point?


HMMMMMMM?

I posted links to the witnesses that saw a plane. I've talked to someone who says they saw the plane personally.


Where do you get your info from? So far no one's bothered to post any rebuttals from different witnesses. They just say they are out there.

[diamondD]

Originally posted by jhale667
Good question: What about the eye-witnesses that said they saw a twin-engine Cessna (sp), or a Military plane, from the same vantage point?


HMMMMMMM?

Then where's the wings?

[jhale667]

Originally posted by diamondD
I posted links to the witnesses that saw a plane. I've talked to someone who says they saw the plane personally.


Where do you get your info from? So far no one's bothered to post any rebuttals from different witnesses. They just say they are out there.

There's witness testimony on the loose change vid...some say it was a commercial jet, some say a Cessna, some say military...it's interesting, but again not the 1st there was an event with conflicting 'eye-witness' accounts.....I also saw conflicting accounts on CNN/etc. as it happened....

[jhale667]

Originally posted by diamondD
Then where's the wings?

I'd believe a Cessna's wings disintegrated far easier than I believe a 747's would....wouldn't you?


And folks, before you start fitting me for a tinfoil beenie, I'm just sayin' keep an open mind.....:p

PS: A Cessna would more easliy explain a 15ft impact area, huh?

[diamondD]

In layman's terms the crash dynamics worked like so: A large hollow tube, with a belly full of luggage, a passenger bay with 60 people, and wings full of fuel smashed into the side of an almost solid object while moving at a tremendous speed (somewhere around 350-400mph). When the 225,000lb+ plane hit, it smashed apart with such force from the crash that it became like one massive column of liquid (no, the plane didn't melt or turn into liquid, it just acted like one physically - mountainslides act the same way, a million tons of rock acts like a large field of liquid during a landslide even if no water is present). All the small parts, luggage, people, seats, and all the tens of thousands of pounds of fuel acting like a massive river came crashing into the wall of the Pentagon. This force burst through the outside wall and flowed through the inside to the next wall, and momentum carried this mass until it finally ran out of inertia at the 3rd ring.

[diamondD]

Mete Sozen, Purdue’s Kettelhut Distinguished Professor of Structural Engineering:

The model indicates the most critical effects were from the mass moving at high velocity.

"At that speed, the plane itself is like a sausage skin," Sozen said. "It doesn’t have much strength and virtually crumbles on impact."

But the combined mass of everything inside the plane – particularly the large amount of fuel onboard – can be likened to a huge river crashing into the building.

The simulation deals specifically with steel-reinforced concrete buildings, as opposed to skyscrapers like the World Trade Center’s twin towers, in which structural steel provided the required strength and stiffness. Reinforced concrete is inherently fire resistant, unlike structural steel, which is vulnerable to fire and must undergo special fireproofing.

"Because the structural skeleton of the Pentagon had a high level of toughness, it was able to absorb much of the kinetic energy from the impact," said Christoph M. Hoffmann, a professor in the Department of Computer Sciences and at Purdue’s Computing Research Institute.

Innovations Report

[diamondD]

Originally posted by jhale667
I'd believe a Cessna's wings disintegrated far easier than I believe a 747's would....wouldn't you?


And folks, before you start fitting me for a tinfoil beenie, I'm just sayin' keep an open mind.....:p

PS: A Cessna would more easliy explain a 15ft impact area, huh?

Nope, because at that speed and with the design of the object it hit, a 13ft wide cylinder fits just fine.

[FORD]

It wasn't a Cessna, it was a Hughes/Raytheon A-3 Warrior with one jet engine, which is exactly what was found in the wreckage.