Says who? The existence of alternate theories does not disprove a theory. What kind of nonsense logic is this? How could anyone come to a conclusion about anything if this were the standard? For example, since it's plausible that your entire post is a lie, a motive can be concocted for your lie, and you have the ability to lie, then you can't claim that your post is the truth. Beyond that, the term plausible is subjective. Plausibility is not used as proof because something that's plausible to one person can be completely ridiculous to another.
Wrong. Just because you make up some story that seems to make sense to you, it does not invalidate what was found to have happened by looking at ALL the evidence. ANYONE can make up bull(*)(*)(*)(*) fairy tales to suit their point of view. If there is no evidence to back them up, they are pretty meaningless. -- Note I said EVIDENCE -- NOT opinion or speculation Not by itself but it is one of the MANY pieces of supporting evidence that includes physical evidence, documentary evidence, and testimonial evidence.
How fast was the plane traveling? I mean, there is blackened marks on the wall, but I am not seeing 'damage' that would be consistent with a wing slamming into the wall at several hundred miles per hour. Besides, where is the wing?
what sort of damage should there be? And you answered your question,the wing slammed into the pentagon at several hundred miles per hour.
There should be more damage, like structural damage, since the engines are on the wings, right? Not just black marks, which look like burn marks. And I ask again, where is the wing?
And you're basing this on . . . . what exactly? All of the other 757 versus reinforced concrete building crashes you've seen? http://www.sawyerhome.net/whatilearned.html
Okay. So the nose of the plane was capable of going through reinforced concrete but the wings weren't capable enough to damage said reinforced concrete even though the wings carry the engines?
Different shapes and different speeds at impact. Where is the missile debris? Where are the eyewitnesses that saw the missile?
You're comfortable with that Dave? That makes sense to you? That the nose of the plane would go through the building but the left wing would only leave behind black marks. What does the other side look like? Is it blackened but otherwise unscathed? And I ask again, where is the (left) wing? Since an eyewitness said he saw the wings rip off as the plane entered the building, wouldn't they be laying there on the ground?
Yep. Yep I don't know. Why don't you tell me? Why of course not. There should be an airplane shaped hole in the side of the building much like when Bugs Bunny runs through a wall in the cartoons. The plane hit the wall at 500 mph +- and you expect to see what exactly?? Based on what exactly?? But if you're not comfortable with it, I'll ask again . . . Where is the missile debris? Where are the eyewitnesses that saw the missile?
I haven't said anything about a missile. Quit trying to change the subject, please. Why wouldn't the wings be laying on the ground?
Hmmm ... Aluminum wings filled with fuel, striking a perpendicular concrete wall at 500 mph. I wonder why they aren't just lying intact on the ground.
This is the picture that is being used, correct? Well, Patriot linked to the site that this picture is on. Where are the wings from the plane that had crashed, presumably, not too long beforehand? Now, of course they're not going to be 'intact', but there should be large/medium/small/tiny pieces still. Where is that wreckage? Where is the evidence of a plane impacting that wall in that picture?
Do you see the caption and arrows pointing to 'probable aircraft debris'? What do you suppose that might be? How about the debris on the ground under the windows?
Yes. I suppose that it might be plane debris. I also suppose that underneath the window might be plane debris as well. It looks like a combination of things (underneath the window), really. But as Mike Walter (the witness) said, the wings folded back as the plane entered the Pentagon ([video=youtube;f0vxc50xAbk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0vxc50xAbk[/video]). Where are the wings?
a 757 strikes a concrete,masonary and limestone wall,some say is 2 feet thick at over 500 miles per hour and you expect to see something resembling wings on the ground,and we're ridiculous?
a 757 strikes a concrete,masonary and limestone wall,some say is 2 feet thick at over 500 miles per hour and you expect to see something resembling wings on the ground,and we're ridiculous?