Listen, buddies, I hate Bu$h as much as the next leftist bastard, but conspiracy theories are idiotic.
The PSI doesn't determine pentration, angle and inertia of the oibject being penetrated are facotrs you completely forget.
http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/imag...nchouthole.jpg
I see airplane debris which Ranxer denied existed.
http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/imag...door_hatch.jpg
How far away are these? Where they there before the plane hit or moved in with the news crews and repair companies? This proves nothing.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ranxer
the snopes refutation starts with an assumption that if you don't buy the bush commissions report you have to have a scenario that makes more sense, and if you don't the bush admins conspiracy theory stands. there's got to be a name for that kind of reasoning.
|
You're tying to envoke the black/white fallacy, but this isn't it. Snopes states not that everything in the report is 100% perfect, but that nothing but slight 77 could have struck the Pentagon.
Pop in Occum's Razor and most conspiracy theories fail for the same reason Creationism does. Just because the other side doesn't have a story which can be proved 100% doesn't mean yours is just as feasible.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ranxer
We've already been given an explanation that hasn't met the evidence available. who cares if there isn't a better explanation yet, the point is that we havnt had a real investigation yet!
|
9/11 commission mean anything to you? Likewise, why would someone just happen to have a missile or whatever ready to launch on the day of the attacks on New York and planned strike on the White House?
It's like saying that cats, dogs and rats are all mammals, but there isn't enough proof that rabbits are.
I have yet to hear another theory on what happened to the pentagon that makes as much sense as 'On the same day three other planes were hijacked and crashed into landmarks, flight 77 collided with the Pentagon'.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ranxer
i think David Ray Griffin sums up where we're at with the pentagon on 9/11 relativly well..
"The physical evidence contradicts so violently the official account, that the Pentagon was hit by a Boeing 757 — Flight 77, that is. The physical evidence, photographs, and eyewitness testimony say that the Pentagon was hit by something that caused a hole no larger than 18 feet in diameter. The story the Pentagon put out, and was published by the Washington Post, was that the hole in the Pentagon was five stories high and 200 feet wide. If you look at the photographs taken by Tom Horan of the Associated Press — that’s just not the size of the hole.
|
This is where he probably confuses the size of the hole made with the area of damage done to the building. After all, the plane burned just like the ones that hit the towers. Their impact hole size and final damage was vastly different.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ranxer
But if the hole was only 18 feet wide, it had to have been created by something other than a Boeing.
|
We stated that the fuselage was '20x20' or roughly 18 feet in diameter. It's conceivable that the wings snapped back or disintegrated.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ranxer
Whatever went into the Pentagon pierced six reinforced walls. This was the west wing, the part of the Pentagon being refurbished and reinforced. These walls were extra strong, and yet whatever it was went through six walls creating a hole about seven feet in diameter in the sixth wall.
|
The reinforcement was mostly updating things like the windows to be more bombproof. I never heard that the walls were being made plane-proof. The planes that hit the twin towers pierced far deeper slamming through steel and concrete facing. It just goes to sohw the power of inertia. Quite a few dozen tons moving at high subsonic speeds can do that to concrete. It would have been (especially loded with fuel) like a large cruise missile.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ranxer
This had to have been something with a very powerful head on it. A Boeing 757 has a very fragile nose, and would not have pierced through all those walls; it would have been crushed by hitting the Pentagon.
|
The nose would have crumpled, but that doesn;t mean the rest of the plane didn't still have momentum. This is an obviosu disregard for physics.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ranxer
And given that it only penetrated these three rings, the rest of the aircraft would have been sitting outside on the yard. And yet the photographs taken just as the fire trucks got there — very shortly after the crash — show no plane whatsoever.
|
Have you see watery air crashes? An aluminum plane disintegrates when it hits something solid. It still delievers the momentum, but it's structure isn't strong enough to stay intact afterwards. We didn't find two planes sitting whole in the rubble at ground zero either.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ranxer
Q:What do they show?
DRG: They show no aircraft whatsoever. And everyone agrees on this. The official story is that the whole aircraft went inside the Pentagon. The problem with that — the firefighters in there would have seen the airplane. They would have seen the engines, they would have seen the aluminum fuselage
|
Bull. The engines and fuselage would have disintegrated, as neither was capable of withstanding the crash without doing so. And debris was everywhere inside and out the crash site. Also, the explosion of the fuel helped break it down more.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ranxer
Q:If what you’re saying is accurate — that it was a missile — then what happened to the plane and all the people on it?
That’s why I stress I’m not trying to give an account of what really happened. I have no idea what happened to Flight 77.
http://independent.com/news/news906.htm |
Occum's Razor cuts his ass here. The most logical explanation for what happened to flight 77 and it's passengers involves a firey death collision. By stating her that it was a missile, he falls to the black/white fallacy.
Linear Mode
