Originally posted by pinch

Originally posted by tezzajw
They're all laughing at us.

You got that right. Laughing at you because of of your creative imaginations. One of the definitions: "Mis"sile\, n. [L. missile.] A weapon thrown or projected or intended to be projcted (sic), as a lance, an arrow, or a bullet."

Read that again - "a weapon...projected" A 90 ton airliner used as a weapon on an attack against a building is indeed, a missile. A manned-missile, in this case. A car can be a weapon, depending on how it is used. A hammer can be a weapon. A pencil can be a weapon. An airliner can be a weapon.

So yes, we are ALL laughing at you and will continue to do so on a regular basis.

[edit on 10-1-2009 by pinch]

Wow, that's how you justify that?!
A 90 ton airliner is still a plane at the end of the day. Not a missile.

You don't serve coffee, watch a movie, decide over chicken or fish
and put on your safety belt on a missile.

Sir put your seat up, the missile is about to land!

hahahaha....

Why can't people believe an airplane can bring down a building. Think of what would happen if 1 Plane fell on a school. Now imagine 1 plane damaging badly 2 to 3 floors of a building. Thanks to all the naysayer there selling books by the millions. Yes they did use 911 as a gateway to their war on terror. But this # really happened. Plus i dont wanna know how a building ON FIRE WITH EXPLOSIVE WOULD COME DOWN!. It would be messed up. Anyway, Be opened minded on both side. Don't believe because it would be cool in a Evil Empire way.

Originally posted by Chadwickus
And how can three buildings be gutted and weakened then rigged with hundreds of explosives without anyone noticing?

Because they didn't gut them? Because you don't have to gut them? Because they only gut them to make the job easier? Because they weren't conventional demolitions? Because you take the words 'controlled demolition' too literally? Because 'hundreds' of explosives is an assumption based on the box you live in?

What if they used just ONE device? Have you ever thought of that possibility? You do know of that possibility right? You do know that the military has been researching weapons to demolish buildings since the 60's? What do you think they do all day at defense weapons research facilities? What do they do with all our tax money?

I'm not saying this is what happened, only showing you that you are in a box, and if you step out of it a world of possibilities open up, but you're not ready yet, are you?

What I find funny is that people argue that it must have taken hundreds of explosions to bring down the towers if it was to be controlled demolition....yet these same people believe a single plane could do it.

So, a plane can bring a building down...but a plane + a few explosives wouldn't do the trick? Gotcha.

And by the way, I don't know what to believe. All I know is that the 9/11 Commission is chalk-full of fallacies, omissions, and lies. I can't tell you what happened that day, but I can tell you that what is written in the 9/11 Commission is NOT the 100% truth.

definition of missile:
source oxford online dictonary:

missile

• noun

1 an object which is forcibly propelled at a target.

2 a weapon that is self-propelled or directed by remote control, carrying conventional or nuclear explosive.


"an object which is forcibly propelled at a target."
proof that an aeroplane can be used as a missile. some earlier missiles before the design of the crusiform shape liked very much like UAV's with a charge on them.
also in saying that anything from throwing a rock to a dart is classified as a missile.

I like "Pinch's" fly-boy avatar, "Location: Washington, D.C.", and signature:

"Conspiracy theories in general are attempts by people to explain complexity. Instead of acts of God, they become giant conspiracies of all-powerful men...and life is so much more tragically boring and sad than the conspiracy types can handle. So they tell their stories to console themselves about their ignorance. You eat junk, you get fat. It’s as simple as that. Stay away from the junk food." --Thomas Barnett

That's right Pinch ol' boy, we've got nothing better to do than make up wild conspiracies about our government murdering 3,000 citizens in a false-flag terrorist attack that's used to start illegal trillion-dollar wars and murder a million civilians just so we can explain complexity, avoid boredom and console ourselves about our ignorance.

Instead, we should be intelligent, wise and sophisticated by believing the government's 9/11 conspiracy theory that includes 19 al-CIAduh cave-dwellers and invincible bogeyman Osama bin Laden!

Where does the government get these amateur psy-ops buffoons, anyway?

The very fact that after nearly a decade of exhaustive research with thousands of people poring over the record, the footage, the testimony, the commentary - all the Truth Seekers can come up with is dubious interpretations of what made those buildings collapse, and the odd slip up in recordings like this.

Where's the massive documentation of a conspiracy against America. No one has come forward saying they were given instruction to do something treasonous. Where is the timeline, names, places, of The Plot.

The cumulative evidence is about as compelling as someone going through a book and finding typos and grammatical errors and claiming the whole thing is planned disinformation.

Thanks for helping prove to all of us Arab terrorists flew airplanes into those landmarks as a mountain of primary evidence and first hand testimony has already demonstrated.


Mike F

why are people so desperately trying to say that he meant planes instead of missile??

They have to be very careful in what they say on these, so that it dosnt get miss-interpreted by papers, and saying the word missile is widely open for interpretation.

I feel like this is turning into Clinton and his remarks to define "is"...

9/11 sparked many controversies. The biggest debate had been
over whether a "plane" or a "missile" hit the pentagon. Plane or
Missile?! Missile or Plane?! Plane or Missile?! You get the idea.

In the case of 9/11.. throw out your oxford dictionary and Mr. Websters.
A missile is a missile and a plane is a plane.

And if it is so evident that a projectile plane or a pencil or a rock
is also a missile, then why would he correct himself?! He would
be right in saying a missile, no?! But it seems he corrected himself.

Originally posted by stealthAUS
definition of missile:
source oxford online dictonary:

missile

• noun

1 an object which is forcibly propelled at a target.

2 a weapon that is self-propelled or directed by remote control, carrying conventional or nuclear explosive.


"an object which is forcibly propelled at a target."
proof that an aeroplane can be used as a missile. some earlier missiles before the design of the crusiform shape liked very much like UAV's with a charge on them.
also in saying that anything from throwing a rock to a dart is classified as a missile.

1. A plane is not "forcibly propelled" unless it gets it's momentum solely from a device such as the catapult used to launch fighters on a carrier. That actually does not happen anywhere as only planes getting their momentum from outside sources are gliders (Or whatever they're called... ). Forcibly propelled implies an outside source providing the initial momentum. Hence the explanations you posted explicitly state different propulsion methods (self-propelled vs. forcibly propelled).

2. A plane is not a "weapon" except in a broad sense. A plane (fighter) can carry weapons. Just as a man can be considered a weapon, but usually is NOT referred to as such. A man can carry weapons. Same difference.

So, no, neither fits the case at hand.

Originally posted by pinch

Originally posted by tezzajw
They're all laughing at us.

You got that right. Laughing at you because of of your creative imaginations. One of the definitions: "Mis"sile\, n. [L. missile.] A weapon thrown or projected or intended to be projcted (sic), as a lance, an arrow, or a bullet."

Read that again - "a weapon...projected" A 90 ton airliner used as a weapon on an attack against a building is indeed, a missile. A manned-missile, in this case. A car can be a weapon, depending on how it is used. A hammer can be a weapon. A pencil can be a weapon. An airliner can be a weapon.

So yes, we are ALL laughing at you and will continue to do so on a regular basis.

[edit on 10-1-2009 by pinch]

Way to add absolutely nothing of substance to this conversation, except for you to reveal how juvenile and petty you are. And rest assured, if you continue to hold other human beings in such contempt, the universe will continue to show its contempt for you. Keep laughing. You'll miss more.

Originally posted by stealthAUS
definition of missile:
source oxford online dictonary:

Great. Now why don't you look up the definition of an aeroplane and then tell us what allegedly hit the buildings.

Official story believers are that desperate to want to define an aeroplane as a missile using the dictionary as their defence. Ah-huh.

You think that you've read it all, but a few people always manage to surprise.

I find it very interesting that the OP is simply stating 3 FACTS.

1. Tim Roemer slips up and says a missile hit the Pentagon.
2. George W. Bush slips up and describes explosives in the WTC.
3. Donald Rumsfeld slips up saying that United 93 was shot down in PA.

In their own words this was said. Fact: This thread is 100% descriptive
and accurate to the contents included.

You can't deny they said these things?! It's right there on tape.
Freudian Slip perhaps?!

The only thing left to debate is their meanings?!

I am not going to include a picture of a missile and a picture of a plane,
that would be too juvenile.