Stubblebine Speaks...

T.A.M. said:
you an expert on the matter? You see I am not, so I rely on the opinion of those who were there and investigated the matter.

That was my point...amateur speculation is worthless...wing, explosives, missile, what ever.

TAM:)
Click to expand...
Ok Ok slow down tiger!
Lets not get alllllll crazy and suggest truthers actually INTERVIEW the first responders and people involved in the cleanup at the Pentagon!!
I mean really if you cant use cherry picked witness statements and BS claims....
 
9/11-investigator said:
I have ever since december held the position that F77 and F93 are of minor importance in the grand scheme of things. Concentrate on WTC: that's where all the dying took place. There is the obvious CD.

But if I have to speculate, yes there was no plane at the Pentagon. There was an explosion from the inside and a plane flying over the Pentagon at extreme low altitude.

See: http://how911wasdone.blogspot.com/#flight77
Click to expand...
WOW you got all those sneaky masterminds and WHAT A COINCIDENCE....THEY ARE ALMOST ALL JOOOOOOS!!!!!!

Thank god the CIT CULT attracts all the jew haters.
 
9/11-investigator said:
That unbroken window was located at the point of impact, according to the OCT.
Click to expand...

Totally wrong. I get the impression you are referring to the one that most twoofers say should have been hit by the vertical stabilizer, the one directly over the impact hole. Given the angle at which the wings hit, given the marks to the left of that window, which marks resemble those left by the counter-balance in the vertical stabilizer of the Betty that hit the Hinsdale, there is no reason for that window to have been damaged by impact from the outside.

Given that the floor under that window was lifted and cracked, it should, were the damage done by a bomb, have been blown completely out of its frame.

The damage is, then, consistant with the action of ballistic objects, rather than with explosives.

There is no necessity that a window breaks from an explosion if that window is shielded off from the explosion by interior walls.
Click to expand...

The floor slab cracked in several places around the impact hole. That would generally over-pressurize the entire second floor, proibably the third. However, no glass is broken out at locations where it can be demonstrated that no solid ballistic object hit.
 
9/11-investigator said:
That's OK. I studied physics.

First year mechanics, thermodynamics, wave theory, special relativity theory.

Second year nuclear physics, quantummechanics.

Third year: studied the impact of airplane wings hitting windows. I did that for a whole year. Thousands of experiments and in all cases the windows were smashed. Trust me.

Fourth year: general relativity theory, electrodynamics.
Click to expand...

Thats funny.

I studied physics too.

first year - string theory.
second year - quantum mechanics
third year - effects of explosives on bomb proof windows...did that all year long

fourth year - Spatial/Temporal distortions and the formation of worm holes.

TAM:)
 
9/11-investigator said:
That's OK. I studied physics.

First year mechanics, thermodynamics, wave theory, special relativity theory.

Second year nuclear physics, quantummechanics.

Third year: studied the impact of airplane wings hitting windows. I did that for a whole year. Thousands of experiments and in all cases the windows were smashed. Trust me.

Fourth year: general relativity theory, electrodynamics.
Click to expand...


Imagine, four years of science classes and you didn't learn a thing.

I like your yarn about killing a year studying the impact of airplane wings hitting windows. We must have gone to the same school. Why, for two whole years I studied the designs on the backs of Tally-ho playing cards. Best forty grand I ever spent.

Sure, we trust you. I can't imagine why anybody wouldn't trust you. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
9/11-investigator said:
I have ever since december held the position that F77 and F93 are of minor importance in the grand scheme of things. Concentrate on WTC: that's where all the dying took place. There is the obvious CD.

But if I have to speculate, yes there was no plane at the Pentagon. There was an explosion from the inside and a plane flying over the Pentagon at extreme low altitude.

See: http://how911wasdone.blogspot.com/#flight77
Click to expand...


As a favor to the sane people here, would you mind NOT explaining how the remains of the passengers and crew of AA77 happened to be found inside the Pentagon.

Is the phrase "Nazi moron" redundant?
 
bill smith said:
Remember Jamie Mcintyre making his report live at he Pentagon ? 'Didn't look like a plane had crashed anywhere near the Pentagon ' only pieces small enough that you could pick up in your hand'. '' there are no large pieces like tail sctions, wing sections, fuselage...'

This was the clip we saw on 9/11 and the only one we saw for years.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C02dE5VKeck
Click to expand...


Bill, Bill--when will you learn? When they handed out smarts, you were AWOL. Even though it's shooting fish in a barrel, I take great pleasure in pointing out that...

YOU'VE BEEN CAUGHT AGAIN!


http://www.911myths.com/html/jamie_mcintyre_and_the_pentago.html
 
Ok, wait a minute. If a bomb went off INSIDE the building, why isn't there TONS OF OFFICES relocated to the lawn of the Pentagon??

Take this explosion for example. This is an explosion from gas alone.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dSpoUUFBBM

BTW, it LEVELED that house. Nothing left, and that was a SMALL explosion compared to what would have had to be used to hurt the Pentagon.

PS. The firefighter SURVIVED!! 1:55 seconds is where the explosion occurs.
 
bill smith said:
Remember Jamie Mcintyre making his report live at he Pentagon ? 'Didn't look like a plane had crashed anywhere near the Pentagon ' only pieces small enough that you could pick up in your hand'. '' there are no large pieces like tail sctions, wing sections, fuselage...'

This was the clip we saw on 9/11 and the only one we saw for years.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C02dE5VKeck
Click to expand...

And in the part that someone cut out "in the name of truth", Mcintyre also said:

MCINTYRE: "... I COULD SEE PARTS OF THE AIRPLANE THAT CRASHED INTO THE BUILDING..."

Full text: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/11/bn.35.html
The transcript is dated 9/11/2001.
Click to expand...
 
bill smith said:
Lol I wonder if MikeW (who owns that site) would care to come and argue this with me ? I bet he doesn't.
Click to expand...

There is nothing to argue. You are an incompetent liar and that is a fact. Whether or not Mike decides to tell you this makes no difference.
 
dtugg said:
There is nothing to argue. You are an incompetent liar and that is a fact. Whether or not Mike decides to tell you this makes no difference.
Click to expand...

But don't you want to watch the fun dtugg ? I bet everybody else does ?
 
Oh boy. Our favorite Dane is back with new canards.

How's that research on the remote hijacking of the 9/11 planes going there, buddy?

Find any whistleblowers yet?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom