shadow_man1 Posted November 23, 2004 Posted November 23, 2004 In the scheme of things yes. And where are the bodies ? Again one little thing the tree and the leaves look at the level of the hole and the height of the tree it had to be smaller then the width of the hole to make it past the tree !Or did it fly over the tree then swoop down and hit the building ? The tree and it's leaves do not lie. As for your insults how old are you.? Quote
shadow_man1 Posted November 23, 2004 Posted November 23, 2004 Your post is toooo funny. In the atomic blast the ONLY PLACE NOT DESTROYED IS DIRECTLY UNDER IT. Period. YOur history has proof! And there is reasons why. But if I drive a plane with wing span of over two hundred feet then I should at least leave a mark NO. Quote
scott_harpell Posted November 23, 2004 Posted November 23, 2004 What tree are you talking about? All the trees I saw were wiped teh fuck out. The only one is the one in the second picture that is all snapped everywhere and burnt to a crisp. Get a clue. You are grasping at straws. How do you know how far that tree is away from the hole in the wall? Quote
Bogen Posted November 23, 2004 Posted November 23, 2004 I asked several times about three things. 1 the tree 2 the lack of fuel 3 the leaves Ever hear of Occam's razor? Maybe this one picture is the falsehood. Are you an engineer? Maybe you don't know as much about ballistic impacts as you think. Â That being said, I can see the need to cover up a missile attack as opposed to a plane hijacking. It implies vastly different levels of security threat. Just for interest's sake, tell us, if you think it was a missile and not the missing plane, is America's response to this attack more or less than appropriate? Â But if that isn't good enough for ya, here's a better scenario: Fighters indeed were scrambled to shoot down the wayward jumbo. In the process, one missile over shot and that was what hit the pentagon. And those witnesses that couldn't be coerced or bought were kidnapped and brainwashed. Quote
cracked Posted November 23, 2004 Posted November 23, 2004 Scott, I agree with half of your arguments and opinions in general, the only thing you have yet to learn is when it's not worth your time. This is an example. Shadowman will never change his stance because he's either a troll or because he's a paranoid schizophrenic. Give it up. Quote
shadow_man1 Posted November 23, 2004 Posted November 23, 2004 (edited) Look again motyher fucker and you will see the tree and the hole and the FF. And in that spoof about the data LOOK AT WHERE THE WINGS ARE you can see them clearly they would be a hundred feet past the hole on either side. And the fuel is in the wings and the engines would have been blowen backwards as the wings started to fold. Come to think about it they where under throttle they would have shired off like a rocket because that is what they are. Â And I again have to ask why are their leaves on that tree the fuel would have acted like Napalm and burned them at an intense heat. Also how can windows with in the wing span not be blowen inward or completly destroyed. You are NOT talking about a cessna. The tree would have to be more then 300 hundred feet away from the building clearly it is not. Â The engines would also not be on the same side as in the photo and the cone on that is not big enough to be a cone on that engine wich I think is a GE engine. I worked at a airport and did push outs and a 757 is not a small plane it is huge ! As for the turbos and the whine that would only happen when they are excellarating and at that speed you would have to be in total controll to make it into the building. Ask anybody you want about the shock waves and how hard it would be to control that aircraft. If the photos of the building are real. Your smarter then that arent you ? Edited November 23, 2004 by shadow_man1 Quote
shadow_man1 Posted November 23, 2004 Posted November 23, 2004 (edited) That being said, I can see the need to cover up a missile attack as opposed to a plane hijacking. It implies vastly different levels of security threat. Just for interest's sake, tell us, if you think it was a missile and not the missing plane, is America's response to this attack more or less than appropriate? Â Yes it was. Thats my point. Indeed the threat would have been far greater. And that would have put all of us in a state of global war. Edited November 23, 2004 by shadow_man1 Quote
scott_harpell Posted November 23, 2004 Posted November 23, 2004 Ass Goblin: Â How did they time it with the WTC disaster? Quote
scott_harpell Posted November 23, 2004 Posted November 23, 2004 Scott, I agree with half of your arguments and opinions in general, the only thing you have yet to learn is when it's not worth your time. This is an example. Shadowman will never change his stance because he's either a troll or because he's a paranoid schizophrenic. Give it up. Â maybe I can get him to off himself. Quote
KaskadskyjKozak Posted November 23, 2004 Posted November 23, 2004 Your post is toooo funny. In the atomic blast the ONLY PLACE NOT DESTROYED IS DIRECTLY UNDER IT. Period. YOur history has proof! Â Look at pictures of Nagasaki and Hiroshima after the bombings - there are partial buildings standing where everything around them is totally flattened. Â You're trying to look at pictures and deny the reality of what happened by asking idiotic questions based only on paranoia and a penchant for conspiracy theories. You act as if you are some kind of expert in the dynamics of explosion, and refuse to recognize that these types of explosions involve a certain amount of inherent randomness in their actual effects. Quote
shadow_man1 Posted November 23, 2004 Posted November 23, 2004 (edited) You know what you guys are fucked plain and simple. I am not paranoid in any fashion but you can see by the pictures again if they are real. that it could not have been a passenger jet of that size plain and simple. As for trolls that would be you dude you have said your only point is how did they match the WTC I have no idea but to say that an aircraft collided with a building and did not show any damage where the wings are is well nuts to say the least. Ask your oh so smart freind if he could do that gell thing for you again. Â As for the blast that you are talking about the buildings where standing but nothing was left inside or outside of the building nothing. Look again. And the buildings you are talking about where directly under the blast plain and simple. None of you have explained either the tree or the fuel or the wings or the fact that with out any damage to the outside of the building. How did it drag it's wings into the building with NO DAMAGE TO THE WALLS LOOK NO DRAG MARKS GOING INTO THE BUILDING. Um what they just folded up at the same lenght as the aircraft ? The fuel would have left huge burn marks and the glass would have melted. That building is designed to withstand a hit directly but a mere little plane punched right on threw four levels how ? It should have been toren apart and left peices of aircraft ripped and moulded into the rebar. OH blasts are very much controlled very much. Cause and effect are a normal thing in a blast. Thats why they know how or why a plane Lockerbie over the ocean blew up and where to look for the pieces ask a demo expert will ya he will explain the dynamics of a blast for you clearly. Please explain one of the three and you are right. Stop being an ass and saying I am paranoid again of what ? or trolling get a grip. Edited November 23, 2004 by shadow_man1 Quote
scott_harpell Posted November 23, 2004 Posted November 23, 2004 s for trolls that would be you dude you have said your only point is how did they match the WTC I have no idea but to say that an aircraft collided with a building and did not show any damage where the wings are is well nuts to say the least. Â It was already explained by a scientist in a link that you obviously skipped. Thanks for commin out junior. Maybe next year. Quote
KaskadskyjKozak Posted November 23, 2004 Posted November 23, 2004 You know what you guys are fucked plain and simple. I am not paranoid in any fashion but you can see by the pictures again if they are real. that it could not have been a passenger jet of that size plain and simple. As for trolls that would be you dude you have said your only point is how did they match the WTC I have no idea but to say that an aircraft collided with a building and did not show any damage where the wings are is well nuts to say the least. Ask your oh so smart freind if he could do that gell thing for you again. Â As for the blast that you are talking about the building where standing but nothing was left inside or outside of the building nothing. Look again. And the buildings you are talking about where directly under the blast plain and simple. None of you have explained either the tree or the fuel or the wings or the fact that with out any damage to the outside of the building. How did it drag it's wings into the building with NO DAMAGE TO THE WALLS LOOK NO DRAG MARKS GOING INTO THE BUILDING. Um what they just folded up at the same lenght as the aircraft ? The fuel would have left huge burn marks and the glass would have melted. That building is designed to withstand a hit directly but a mere little plane punched right on threw four levels how ? It should have been toren apart and left peices of aircraft ripped and moulded into the rebar. OH blast are very much controlled very much. Heres just another thought why is the grass not burned at the engine ripped past it at full throttle ? Â Apply Occam's Razor. 4 planes were hijacked. All the passengers are dead. Two flew in to the WTC, one into a Pennsylvania field. The fourth went where? The pentagon. Â Quod Erat Demonstrandum Quote
shadow_man1 Posted November 23, 2004 Posted November 23, 2004 I just read that. Man you guys go back to school will ya. The fact that NO drag marks are found on the walls is one thing. The fact that that building was desined to take a direct hit by a bomb and should with stand it is another point. The fact that the hole is round and not brocken all over the place shows something of similar size punched throw not slammed into. Look at it this way if you slam your hand into a window it shatters and if you shoot a bullet it punches a hole the size of a bullet(dont try this at home) try it out in a field. The laws of pychics is against you. Ask a prof about it. Again the steel in that hole would have had several pieces of the aircraft hanging from it. Again the wings. What happend to them ? Quote
cracked Posted November 23, 2004 Posted November 23, 2004 No, no, no. The laws of pychics (psychics??) is against YOU. Cuz you're psychotic. Quote
shadow_man1 Posted November 23, 2004 Posted November 23, 2004 I dont care about anything other then the photos. look at the site of impact wheres the damage. Timing is not in the photos. Also did they find bodies yes or no ! Quote
shadow_man1 Posted November 23, 2004 Posted November 23, 2004 No, no, no. The laws of pychics (psychics??) is against YOU. Cuz you're psychotic  Your so funny. Just explain anything I have said anything with out an insult or how dumb I am and so on. JUST explain any one of the three points. Fuel tree leaves heres one more no drag marks keep your insults to your self if you can not explain any of these thanks Quote
scott_harpell Posted November 23, 2004 Posted November 23, 2004 I dont care about anything other then the photos. look at the site of impact wheres the damage. Timing is not in the photos. Also did they find bodies yes or no ! Â Well I don't care about anything other than a missing plane. Quote
KaskadskyjKozak Posted November 23, 2004 Posted November 23, 2004 Well I don't care about anything other than a missing plane. Â Exactly. Quote
jjd Posted November 23, 2004 Posted November 23, 2004 No, no, no. The laws of pychics (psychics??) is against YOU. Cuz you're psychotic Your so funny. Just explain anything I have said anything with out an insult or how dumb I am and so on. JUST explain any one of the three points. Fuel tree leaves heres one more no drag marks keep your insults to your self if you can not explain any of these thanks  moron  I dont care about anything other then the photos. look at the site of impact wheres the damage. Timing is not in the photos. Also did they find bodies yes or no !  moron  I just read that. Man you guys go back to school will ya. The fact that NO drag marks are found on the walls is one thing. The fact that that building was desined to take a direct hit by a bomb and should with stand it is another point. The fact that the hole is round and not brocken all over the place shows something of similar size punched throw not slammed into. Look at it this way if you slam your hand into a window it shatters and if you shoot a bullet it punches a hole the size of a bullet(dont try this at home) try it out in a field. The laws of pychics is against you. Ask a prof about it. Again the steel in that hole would have had several pieces of the aircraft hanging from it. Again the wings. What happend to them ?  SHUT THE FUCK UP! Quote
shadow_man1 Posted November 23, 2004 Posted November 23, 2004 Why are you here if this is something you don't like? Do you want to why you are like this because you can not explain youreslf anyother way. Â It does not bother me at all. Why is this thread here for only your side. YOU SHUT THE FUCK UP !!!! Â The idea is to speculate and all that has come back in stabs and so on. TRY to communicate with out taking about me. TRY to give one example to why there is no marks on the walls and so on. You are very confused. I don't care either way but LOOK AT THE PICS and then well try not to speculate and if not change the channell not me opinion. Thanks Quote
scott_harpell Posted November 23, 2004 Posted November 23, 2004 They might be a little more receptive if you could answer my question. Quote
scott_harpell Posted November 23, 2004 Posted November 23, 2004 I can tell you where it was... THE PENTAGON! Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.