Physical evidence that a plane did NOT hit the Pentagon

Go_ said:
So what have we got so far?

Well, it seems that even though our diabolical 9/11 conspirators have already successfully crashed two planes into two buildings in New York, at the Pentagon they inexplicably decide to fake a plane crash into a building instead of actually crashing yet a third plane into a third building.
Click to expand...

And why crash a third plane at all? And into the Pentagon. The conspirafantasists claim 9/11 was executed to curry support for a Middle East war. Well, why debilitate your capacity to make war? The destruction of three WTC buildings and three aircraft was not enough to declare war? Four buildings and four aircraft was the magic number? And why shoot down Flight 93 when you needed it to crash into a building to obtain support for a war?

Very good analysis of the thread to date.
 
Lyte Trip said:
Pardalis said:
Lyte, i ask you again. The conspirators went to all this trouble to not crash the plane into the Pentagon, yet they crashed two other planes in the WTC towers.

Why?
Click to expand...
They used planes as diversions while the actual destruction of the towers was completed with pre-planted explosives.

Same MO in Arlington.

Perhaps they didn't want the plane to hit the pentagon because they wanted more control over the damage since no catastrophic destruction of the entire building was planned.
Click to expand...

WTF?

Let me get this straight. The conspirators did not crash a plane into the Pentagon because they wanted better control over the damage? And this would be the same damage that was done in the first place to simulate a plane crash into the Pentagon?

In other words, these wacky conspirators figured that they could use explosives to create the illusion that a plane had crashed into the Pentagon that would appear to be more realistic than an ACTUAL PLANE CRASH INTO THE PENTAGON would appear?

And you really believe this??? Really?

This cannot be correct. I have got to be missing something here. Tell me I'm missing something. Please.

[What heretofore unknown dimension of reality has this thread slipped into?]
 
Go_ said:
WTF?

...

This cannot be correct. I have got to be missing something here. Tell me I'm missing something. Please.

[What heretofore unknown dimension of reality has this thread slipped into?]
Click to expand...

The Twilyte Zone.
 
Go_ said:
This cannot be correct. I have got to be missing something here. Tell me I'm missing something. Please.
Click to expand...

Yes Go, you are missing something. Lyte can't make any money off the obvious fact that AA77 crashed into the Pentagon. He can only make money if he tries to make up an elaborate lie.
 
Go_ said:
WTF?



In other words, these wacky conspirators figured that they could use explosives to create the illusion that a plane had crashed into the Pentagon that would appear to be more realistic than an ACTUAL PLANE CRASH INTO THE PENTAGON would appear?
Click to expand...

Hey it makes perfect sense to me!!

Just as with Shanksville, the whacky conspirators made the 'fake' scene so believable that only highly trained investigators such as....damn, can't remember his nickname now, anyone some guy online figured it all out simply by LOOKING at photographs!! Incredible, no?

All that time and trouble to plant fake evidence to make it seem (to those dumb professional investigators) that a plane crashed in shanksville, and along comes some kid with a computer and no girlfriend and , voila!, he busts the case wide open, coz you can't see a tail stickin' out of the ground.

So, of course, with the pentagon, the whacky conspirators thought, "What would be even more believable than a real plane crash? a fake one!!"

And they went and faked the damage and the debris and the lightpoles and the generator and the taxi cab and the weather, and they would have gotten away with it, if it hadn't been for those pesky............
 
Go_ said:
WTF?

Let me get this straight. The conspirators did not crash a plane into the Pentagon because they wanted better control over the damage? And this would be the same damage that was done in the first place to simulate a plane crash into the Pentagon?

In other words, these wacky conspirators figured that they could use explosives to create the illusion that a plane had crashed into the Pentagon that would appear to be more realistic than an ACTUAL PLANE CRASH INTO THE PENTAGON would appear?

And you really believe this??? Really?

This cannot be correct. I have got to be missing something here. Tell me I'm missing something. Please.

[What heretofore unknown dimension of reality has this thread slipped into?]
Click to expand...

Don't forget that they didn't use any plane for WTC7 and yet they imploded it with controlled demolition charges... :boggled:

Guess they felt they didn't need that plane diversion anymore, that would have been way too obvious. :rolleyes:

The strangest thing about it all is that is seems to make perfect sense to Lyte.
 
Go_ said:
WTF?

Let me get this straight. The conspirators did not crash a plane into the Pentagon because they wanted better control over the damage? And this would be the same damage that was done in the first place to simulate a plane crash into the Pentagon?

In other words, these wacky conspirators figured that they could use explosives to create the illusion that a plane had crashed into the Pentagon that would appear to be more realistic than an ACTUAL PLANE CRASH INTO THE PENTAGON would appear?

And you really believe this??? Really?

This cannot be correct. I have got to be missing something here. Tell me I'm missing something. Please.

[What heretofore unknown dimension of reality has this thread slipped into?]
Click to expand...
Niiiice Find there Pardalis!!
Great response Go!!!
 
So looks like this geezer has done a runner...or maybe he is out there trying to save the world! :)

Mailman
 
I understand the purpose of the new restrictions on ad hominem argument. Really, I do understand. And civility is a very good thing.

But...the inevitable "but." How does one, in all fairness, with the milk of human kindness flowing like a mighty river, confront the sort of argument that animates this thread without ever employing such terms as "insane," "deranged," "delusional," "barking mad," etc.? Milder expressions such as "irrational" and "wildly implausible" don't begin to suggest the totality of the collapse of a mind that produced the sort of hypothesis--presented as incontrovertible fact--we've been discussing here.

I'm talking about the proverbial 800 lb. gorilla in the room, the elephant in the parlor. Sometimes separating the argument from the arguer is not merely difficult, it's actually counter-productive. Style, Buffon observed, is the man himself.
 
I thought Ad Hominem went like this:

"I support tariffs on imported goods."

"Well, that's exactly what I'd expect a FILTHY IRISHMAN to say!!!"


As in, it diverged completely off the subject and became a personal insult as a diversionary tactic.

When you get:

"I support the theory that the moon is located just 10 miles from the Earth."

"No sane person with even a basic education could think that."

I don't see that as Ad Hominem. You're making what is a very true statement: what's being proposed flies against even basic knowledge of the subject.

I guess I'm not sure now how you draw the line.
 
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