Can I convince PF's resident 'Truthers' that AA77 hit the Pentagon? - Take Two

koko thinks a bullet can't go through glass?.....

Stop dodging koko.

Why did you edit the smoke from your gif.

and...

 

It was not a mistake. You are deluded in assuming that all parts of a light pole are equally rigid.

So lets add another question for you to dodge since your mouth is writing checks your ass cant cash anyway. Where do you get the notion that a bullet cannot penetrate a windshield?

 

While you're at all the dodging koko, tell me if you have gone to the blog yet?

 

he made several mistakes, I mentioned one in a previous post, there are more. In fact he didnt even set the problem up correctly.


this is very simple.

did this bullet go through this windshield? yes or no

 

"Come see my blog! Come see my blog!" ROFL!!!

 

You are just being silly now. Did you know that it is possible to kill a man with a cotton bullet?

 

this is very simple.

did this bullet go through this windshield? yes or no

 

Apprently, Yes.

[video=youtube;v9E_Y0TezRQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9E_Y0TezRQ[/video]

Oops, lol!

 

Yet it is not the government, only, evidence that decided where I stand. In fact, the evidence I use to fight woo here is generally NOT government based. Millette, popular mechanics, and people like Gravy who compile information from other media sources are more often my sources. I am not saying I don't use government sites or that they are factually wrong. I am saying that to believe that I put my faith in one source or to say the government dictates my decision is in and of itself wrong. I am also not saying I don't have faith either, as I do. Just because I am not religious doesn't mean I can't have faith. I have faith in my fellow man, faith in science and faith in myself.

Truthers have turned woo into a religion. As you stated, going as far as to believe contradictory theories to satisfy their own constant desire to believe the government did it.

 

Have you gone there yet?

Why do you think koko edited the smoke from his gif?

What comment do you have on the below?

 

Run away koko, run away.

 

This representation is in error. The question mark on the right wing tip is too low. You can see crushed limestone sheathing a couple feet above that level where the wing actually hit. It was in a left bank. That would have put one wing parallel to the ground,and the other slanted quite a bit upward. All airliners that I know of have a positive dihedral. The only aircraft I know of with a negative dihedral are the F 104 Starfighter, an obsolete interceptor, and the Sky Warrior, which is one of the aircraft that the extreme whackjob twofers claim could have been used to fake an airliner. This is, of course, a stupid idea.

 

I didn't edit anything buddy. Nope, haven't been to your disinformation site, and probably never will. The neato pics? No point of reference to compare them against. Anybody can take a picture of...something....from somewhere, taken somewhere, and claim it's....something. Not very impressive.

 

We know...you do it all the time

 

I know you haven't, for the same reason a creationist would never pick up a biology book, or read a wiki article on how the earth was created over billions of years. It would shake your very fragile faith. It's the same reason koko doesn't go there either.

Hey, I thought you weren't a no planer?

No point of reference?? It's the same object, I've even highlighted the point of reference with a yellow circle...

 

Well, if you can't beat 'em...join 'em, (so I've heard it said ).

 

So you're coming over to our side?

 

Or this?




- - - Updated - - -

Or this?

 

It's the same object, so you say. To me? I have nothing other than a pile of....something....supposedly taken....somewhere.....by somebody. I have no way to verify what it actually is. All I have are suppositions....of something. I'd imagine that any photos that would prove conclusively what WAS there, in context, were confiscated (as they did in Washington), but, that also, is just a supposition.

 

How do I verify the validity on any of those creations? I can't. I can only take....somebodys's word for it that they are genuine. Nothing to verify it was legit, whatsoever. It was intended to be that way...I know.

 

Nah, I'm just going to play the same nonsensical game you guys do, in response. After all, we know that honest discussion isn't even possible. We've established that on more than one occasion. You want to play...I'll play...when I'm in the mood. Anything pertinent to 9/11, I don't expect to get from your side.

 

I could take a picture of my left toe, close up, and say it was one of the toes of one of the victims on 9/11 that was found in your pile of...something, and nobody would be able to verify any differently. You see?

 

you dont have to!

just read some of the answers these guys are putting up here.

I am convinced that troughers are psychopaths on drugs.

 

Well heck, at least Fraud is giving answers... props for that.

As for your comments, well there is no way I can verify that these items of evidence, only that they fit in perfectly with all the others. Others which you would see if you even went to the blog. Eye witnesses, damage,debris, radar, and more. Why wont you go there?

 

(*)(*)(*)(*) that, you cant even show that a plane actually went in outside dime a dozen witnesses and some old junk that was dumped out of a truck.


The HARD evidence screams bull(*)(*)(*)(*).