• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Only a disinfo agent would say that no plane hit the Pentagon

Personally I would place the odds as being much better that anyone saying that no planes hit the WTC towers OR the Pentagon is simply a deluded, paranoid, and stupid person, are better than that person being a disinfo agent, but that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

Good to know that FF88 gets somethings sorta, kinda right, albeit for the wrong reasons.
 
"I contend we are both 9/11 CT debunkers; I just believe in one fewer 9/11 CT than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all other 9/11 CT's, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
 
Why did the Vast Conspiracy design and build a cruise missile (off-the-shelf cruise missiles can't carry the amount of fuel necessary to account for the fires), but make it too small to create a proper-size hole in the Pentagon to pass it off as an airliner? Why not build a bigger missile?

Most conspiracists seem to believe that the Twin Towers were really hit by drones that looked like actual airliners - why not use one on the Pentagon? Were they deliberately tipping their hand?
 
Redwood said:
Why did the Vast Conspiracy design and build a cruise missile (off-the-shelf cruise missiles can't carry the amount of fuel necessary to account for the fires), but make it too small to create a proper-size hole in the Pentagon to pass it off as an airliner? Why not build a bigger missile?

Most conspiracists seem to believe that the Twin Towers were really hit by drones that looked like actual airliners - why not use one on the Pentagon? Were they deliberately tipping their hand?
Click to expand...

I'd really have to laugh out loud at the Pentagon 'hole too small' meme if it weren't so sad a commentary on the intelligence of some people who spout it.

There is approx 100 feet of missing ground floor wall and the plane had a wingspan of approx 100 feet. The roundish hole at the second level is the same diameter as the plane's fuselage, approx 20 feet.

Its obvious that the wings hit almost level and through the ground floor wall while the fuselage (which after all basically is located ON the wings) entered the second floor.

A scenario BTW which is bolstered by the eyewitness accounts that declare this is what they saw happen!

What in the name of anything anyone might possibly hold Holy, is so difficult about that?
 
jaydeehess said:
Personally I would place the odds as being much better that anyone saying that no planes hit the WTC towers OR the Pentagon is simply a deluded, paranoid, and stupid person, are better than that person being a disinfo agent, but that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.
Click to expand...

dafydd said:
I was going to point out that the title of the thread is wrong, only deluded truthers etc. Oh, I just said it. Undelete
Click to expand...

Don't be so hard on yourself. Deleting my post never even occured to me.:D
 
jaydeehess said:
I'd really have to laugh out loud at the Pentagon 'hole too small' meme if it weren't so sad a commentary on the intelligence of some people who spout it.

There is approx 100 feet of missing ground floor wall and the plane had a wingspan of approx 100 feet. The roundish hole at the second level is the same diameter as the plane's fuselage, approx 20 feet.

Its obvious that the wings hit almost level and through the ground floor wall while the fuselage (which after all basically is located ON the wings) entered the second floor.

A scenario BTW which is bolstered by the eyewitness accounts that declare this is what they saw happen!

What in the name of anything anyone might possibly hold Holy, is so difficult about that?
Click to expand...

The simple and logical answer is a trap. Always take the complex answer that has no supporting evidence.:rolleyes:
 
jaydeehess said:
I'd really have to laugh out loud at the Pentagon 'hole too small' meme if it weren't so sad a commentary on the intelligence of some people who spout it.
Click to expand...



And of course, lots of truthers who whine about the hole being "too small" actually point to pictures of the exit hole in one of the inner rings of the Pentagon.....
 
Redwood said:
Why did the Vast Conspiracy design and build a cruise missile (off-the-shelf cruise missiles can't carry the amount of fuel necessary to account for the fires), but make it too small to create a proper-size hole in the Pentagon to pass it off as an airliner? Why not build a bigger missile?

Most conspiracists seem to believe that the Twin Towers were really hit by drones that looked like actual airliners - why not use one on the Pentagon? Were they deliberately tipping their hand?
Click to expand...

Wouldn't it be easier to just use a real airplane?

No wait, nevermind. That would just be nutty.
 
Mark F said:
Wouldn't it be easier to just use a real airplane?

No wait, nevermind. That would just be nutty.
Click to expand...

Why is it every truther theory (actually every CT) sounds like something dreamed up by a 5th Grader?
 
Robrob said:
Why is it every truther theory (actually every CT) sounds like something dreamed up by a 5th Grader?
Click to expand...

I have a theory that conspiracy theories are the Chimpanzee part of the brain at work and well, nobody looks good flinging poop.
 
A craft hit the Pentagon but it wasn't a 757. Here's some of the proof.

The nose of the craft that hit the Pentagon does not look like the nose of a 757.
http://www.g7welcomingcommittee.com/blog/wp-content/images/pentagon1_plane.jpg

The craft that hit the Pentagon was too short to be a 757.
http://0911.voila.net/index4.htm

The crash site is not consistent with a 757 having hit it.
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/ArticlesMeyer3March2006.html
http://www.physics911.net/missingwings
http://0911.voila.net/index1.htm

Here's a video about it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGvXVzdlcQk
(8 parts)

Here's a summary of it for those who don't have time to watch it.
http://wtcdemolition.com/blog/node/2170

Here's another witness.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88JQL4esHFg
 
FatFreddy88 said:
A craft hit the Pentagon but it wasn't a 757. Here's some of the proof.

The nose of the craft that hit the Pentagon does not look like the nose of a 757.
http://www.g7welcomingcommittee.com/blog/wp-content/images/pentagon1_plane.jpg

The craft that hit the Pentagon was too short to be a 757.
http://0911.voila.net/index4.htm

The crash site is not consistent with a 757 having hit it.
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/ArticlesMeyer3March2006.html
http://www.physics911.net/missingwings
http://0911.voila.net/index1.htm

Here's a video about it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGvXVzdlcQk
(8 parts)

Here's a summary of it for those who don't have time to watch it.
http://wtcdemolition.com/blog/node/2170

Here's another witness.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88JQL4esHFg
Click to expand...

Again with the comedy links!
 
FatFreddy88 said:
A craft hit the Pentagon but it wasn't a 757. Here's some of the proof.

The nose of the craft that hit the Pentagon does not look like the nose of a 757.
http://www.g7welcomingcommittee.com/blog/wp-content/images/pentagon1_plane.jpg

The craft that hit the Pentagon was too short to be a 757.
http://0911.voila.net/index4.htm

The crash site is not consistent with a 757 having hit it.
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/ArticlesMeyer3March2006.html
http://www.physics911.net/missingwings
http://0911.voila.net/index1.htm

Here's a video about it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGvXVzdlcQk
(8 parts)

Here's a summary of it for those who don't have time to watch it.
http://wtcdemolition.com/blog/node/2170

Here's another witness.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88JQL4esHFg
Click to expand...

I just clicked on the one link for Scholars for 911T, and read the article.

One laughable point. The author claims that a B767 hitting a concrete wall is basically like firing an EMPTY aluminum can against a reinforced concrete wall.

How..... ridiculous, to say the least. I stopped reading there.

ETA: I decided to read the rest, and it's equally funny after that. His claim is that the INNER walls are also blast resistant, reinforced concrete.

Well, this is of course false. Why would they blast-proof the INNER walls?

Secondly, the author claims that he doesn't understand WHY the wall didn't collapse.

Well, apparently he doesn't understand brick and mortar buildings.

Same reason this didn't collapse.

http://media.nola.com/crime_impact/photo/chalmette-car-through-brick-walljpg-15976b8cd71d8d05.jpg

or this.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_f98opUNuVXc/TFMOOd6sbKI/AAAAAAAAROQ/x-2KpkFn1js/s1600/Parking+mishap.jpg

Or any of the hundreds of other brick walls that don't collapse when impacted. Physics! WOOT!!

I highly suspect the author is an idiot, and if he indeed has a degree in ME, it should be revoked for incompetence, and suspected of cheating his way through college.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom