You're right.. Any time someone claims something as fact they should show proof. Yet you never have to prove YOUR claims? Everytime I ask you to back up things you claim are fact you simply copout and merely repeat the claim, usually verbatim, rather than show evidence for it. You never have. No personal attack at all.... It is a fact that you refuse to respond to points that challenge your argument, and it's also a fact that you just got done whining like a school girl when it happened to you here.. This is being hypocritical, according to the textbook definition of the word. Dynamite? Chainsaw? Deathbeams from space shot by lizard people? Don't know really. Now I'd like you to answer the same question, only if flight77 hit them.. What knocked over the poles? The nose of flight 77? An engine of flight 77? Or a wing of flight 77? Put the bullet point in coherent English maybe? Suchas.... This would be possible when there's no missile. Premature gloating and feigning of victory per candy's usual. Actually, I AM capable of responding to points made, even when it has NOTHING to do with claims I've made.. And yet you CAN'T respond to points addressed at you, like how the CIA could get their hands on WMD's and make them vanish from the inventory, and how they could tie them to Saddam and convince the IAEA of it, and also explain KSM's false confessions, etc. You see, unlike you, I don't chicken out around EVERY corner.
Oh the gloating is not premature. It's well earned and it is well deserved. Chainsaws? Really? LOL. Can't explain what took down the poles can you.... Too bad, so sad.
You asked me IF NOT flight77...In that case, whoTF knows. I never denied flight77 knocking down the poles. Therefore it could be flight77.. Now I answered your question.. Can't you do the same? What knocked down the lightpoles? The wings, engine or fuselage? Also answer the other stuff please.
Quite the contrary. It proves (As HFD has admitted) that a plane hit the Pentagon, not a missile. A plane. Air traffic control Airplane parts don't suggest to you that an airplane was there? Too bad all of the wreckage is consistent with a 757. A Global Hawk lacks the wingspan to take down the light poles that were several dozen feet apart on the approach path. That is why they are relevant and totally rapes any twoofer argument. The DNA of the passengers proves it. The wreckage proves it. The ATC tracking proves it. And the lightpoles prove it. Checkmate!
So your stance is that they hijacked a plane for no reason at all. Interesting. Bat (*)(*)(*)(*) crazy but interesting none the less. The ones with American Airlines painted all over them suggest...no actually prove that the plane hit the building. Photographs tell the story quite clearly.
This is why I grow tired of this section of the forum. No real debate or exchange of ideas going on. So many times idiotic questions like this are asked. A plane (or just for fun we'll pretend it may have been a missile or Cinderella's flying carriage) crashed at the PENTAGON and you are asking if an official list, not compiled by the government, is available of the identifiable parts recovered. It is government property. Who the hell else besides the government would you expect to do the investigation and cleanup and inventory evidence??? Of course in typical conspiracy theorist fashion the implication is that the official government record cannot be trusted because they were behind the conspiracy in the first place. Air traffic control info is questionable??? Come on. Get a grip on reality already. How many people were in on this giant conspiracy that you folks keep trying to convince the world existed? And if they were so brilliant as to pull off this giant conspiracy and keep people from talking, why is it that they would make silly "mistakes" that the YouTube "detectives" claim to have spotted? And why would these sinister conspirators that confiscate supposedly incriminating video from gas stations and don't think twice about murdering 3,000 American citizens allow ANY of this YouTube drivel to still exist. And Scott, don't post that bullcrap Disinfo link or the cognitive dissonance link either. I've seen them both before.
That's not how aviation works. You can't just toss some wings on existing rocket technology and suddenly have an aircraft. Beyond that, why would anyone do such a thing? What purpose does a missile serve that a passenger airliner doesn't fulfill? Why would the narrative require replacing hijacked aircraft with a mocked up missile if they would have to develop whole new technologies for the specific purpose of this mission? Where did the hijacked aircraft go? Where did the people on the hijacked aircraft go? Why has no one involved with the aircraft come forward with compelling evidence that it wasn't the aircraft? Why has no one come forward saying they planted evidence, or worked on the missile plane project? Why has no one come forward saying they cut down light poles, or saw light poles being cut down? Toward the end of the Bush admin the entire intelligence community was leakier then a spaghetti strainer. No one came forward about this? No one in the FBI? No one in the CIA or the NSA? No one at the Pentagon came forward to say they found out about a massive national conspiracy to attack America? That doesn't make any sense at all.
It is amazing Wikileaks has nothing about 9/11 isn't it? he he he The larger question with the missile v. plane theories is two-part. On one hand, why would you hijack AA77 and then not use it? Why add that to your inbox? On the other, the lightpoles....if you're going to say the plane hit the building when it allegedly didn't, just increase either the angle of approach or change the inbound path by some degrees. You get the same effect and you don't have to add in a bunch of other co-conspirators to take down lightpoles of all things. The Pentagon continues to be the Achilles heel of the twoof movement which is why you see the one word answers (when you get answers) or posters too scared to write down what they think happened. Of the endless list of indignities these people have foisted upon themselves, this is probably the most obviously moronic of them all. And that is saying quite a bit.
Or if you were going to use a missile, why not just use a missile and claim that terrorists acquired a missile and fired it into the Pentagon? Why bother with the plane at all? Seems a lot cleaner this way.
And scarier; the thought of a bunch of guys hijacking a plane is scary enough but given that we've seen it before as a society, it has the "comfort" of being a past stimuli. It is much scarier to think that there are people running around the Eastern Seaboard with a rocket launcher. One need only look at the anthrax attacks and the DC Sniper instances to see how paralyzing such an unusual terror attack would be and how little our elected and constabulary officials could do about it. I saw this and it sort of sums up the response:
Another reason the poles make all of the difference is that you would not really know where to "start" and "stop" on the approach path. Because depending on the missile and how it is launched; one doesn't really know the altitude of the missile at any given time. Most missiles are set to come in from extremely high angles. This is for two reasons: First, the armor of a target (if the target isn't armored, you usually don't need a missile that has to be carried by something so robust as a an airplane, you use a TOW or a Javelin) is usually much weaker on top than it is on the side where ground troops are. Also the armor on top is flat; not angled which makes any projectile's job much more difficult since the 12" plating now presents a wider path for the missile to hit. Secondly, you don't want the missile colliding with anything on the battlefield so it comes in from the much less congested sky. So not only do conspiracy loons have to come up with a satisfying scenario as to what knocked down the poles, but why they would even be added into the equation. If that wasn't enough of a hurdle for them--none have ever cleared the hurdle and as we can tell from Scott; he's quite apprehensive to try--then there is the multi-ton generator that was knocked off of it's moorings by the missile as well. Again, one has to wonder why the twoofers would suggest that someone went through the trouble of sawing down poles AND taking a generator off of it's moorings. One would really wonder why the plotters would also add that to their inbox as well. Scott wants me to look at this page that he swears explains everything. I won't comment on the entirety of it so I'm not going to do that here either; he needs to have the courage to state his own case. However, one thing I did see on the cartoon to which he continues to reference is that the poles, the cab with the crushed windshield and the wreckage of AA77 was all staged during this explosion and nobody would have noticed a damaged cab being towed to the scene where it was found, poles being planted, or a bunch of guys running around spreading wreckage. One does have to wonder how the obviously damaged generator had it's front removed without the AFD (Arlington Fire Department) noticing a bunch of guys with Saws-alls going to town, removing the front moorings (the hind wheels were off of the ground), and of course, the intense heat of the fire not making such ridiculous actions prohibitive. Notice the demolished car: One would also have to wonder how a wrecker with a damaged cab would get to the front of the traffic which was caused by the explosion and unload the cab only to disappear totally afterword and, of course why Lloyd England would be included in this conspiracy with Vice President Cheney and other world leaders. Some say there was no conspiracy at all so I'm really treading on thin ice here I suppose. LOL Moving right along.... These topics will not be addressed of course. They are too inconvenient for the conspiracy theorists outside of Ace's patented three syllable responses and HFD's hair splitting and petulant "Can you prove the generator wasn't damaged before 9/11?" or "Why do things burn?" Somewhere Les Nessman is smiling. Now if we could only get someone to bomb twooferville with live turkeys. Oh the irony that would be created by such an event. Anyway, the notion that any planners would be sitting around a table and wargame this attack would focus on lightpoles and generators and think they need to be included in the plot is patently silly. Dylan Avery and Korey Rowe look like Rhodes Scholars compared to this current crop of twoofers. Happy Thanksgiving.
of course official liars wont address any of these matters because it does not uphold the official lie.
Nothing trivial about flight 77 being to high to have hit light poles and hit the Pentagon. There are some major discrepencies about the approach, angle and actual damage to Pentagon.
I responded directly to this statement: I even copied it into my post for clarity. Was that statement just a random piece of Tourette's text that had nothing to do with what you were talking about? That's so odd because you said it after quoting Candycorn's assertion that it wasn't a missile it was a plane. You were trying to...agree with her?
who says t was a plane? survivors saw no plane parts anywhere or do you cherry pick which witnesses to take into account and only those that support the BIG lie?
Just pointing out that you nor him/her know what you are talking about, when talking about what hit the Pentagon.
What is this, split personality disorder? Are you denying that you said: Because it's post #108 in this thread and it has your name on it. I'm only responding to what YOU said. Are you trying to show ignorance by proxy or something? You don't know what you're talking about therefore my response to ignorance is ignorant?
It is pretty easy to see I am just stating a fact. You are just trying to read something into the words that isn't there.
No, the wreckage says it was AA77. The lightpoles distance apart prove it was the light poles, the DNA proves it was AA77, the tracking of the plane into the Pentagon proves it was AA77. Etc etc... You're just here for attention.
