Animation Video for Pentagon Proof, best ever made - and why it's wrong.

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
actually I just don't wanna waste my time searching for, counting, and copying the names of 500 people!

there may not be 500 people; I don't know, neither do you.

I asked you to name only 5 as an out and you couldn't even do that. This is a good chance to prove me saying something false, which you haven't done yet.

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
The point of this thread is the comparison of the 911CS video to reality. A number of pilots who could or could not do something is irrelevant.

It's no skin off of my butt if you prove it wrong. However, I do object to stating information as FACT which you have absolutely no evidence that what you have said is fact. Mostly, all you've done is show that you don't understand the dynamics of an aircraft crash... That's all.

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
The video showed the airplane crashing into the 5th window left of a main column. The window didn't break... that's called evidence, son... window didn't even break? then NO AIRPLANE hit there, the video is wrong.

Could it possibly be that the exact location of the tail impact to the inch is wrong? Could it be that you have not acknowledged that the "tail" is constructed of composite material? Could it be that your smoke and water obscured photo does not show the entire area of the facade where the aircraft crashed? Could it be that the blast proof windows did their job better than expected? Nah, it has to support an imaginary conspiracy.

Sure, I understand how a delusion can overshadow all rational thought and critical thinking. You've vividly shown that already....

The subject of this thread is the 911 Case Study video and the comparison to actual evidence.

reply to post by Thermo Klein


In other words, you're going to keep posting that image until someone tells you that they think it means there was no plane...

Hate to break it to you, but the damage can be explained to be a plane and it makes sense when you think about what the plane's made of.

I still do think it's hilarious that people in the twin tower threads are still claiming that the plane couldn't have damaged the wall at all, when a smaller plane blew a nice hole in the Empire State Building. I guess that one was faked too.

reply to post by Varemia


I like it that he keeps posting the picture, it just reinforces the fact that no large passenger jet could have crashed there.

Originally posted by GrinchNoMore
reply to post by Varemia

 

I like it that he keeps posting the picture, it just reinforces the fact that no large passenger jet could have crashed there.

By what logic? You have a crumpling material as the tail wing, and right below it where the bulk of the plane is, there's a huge hole. You have horizontal damage where the wings and engines would be, just lesser damage near the ends of the wings.

The picture reinforces nothing except that it's a bad photo of the damage.

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by GrinchNoMore
reply to post by Varemia

 

I like it that he keeps posting the picture, it just reinforces the fact that no large passenger jet could have crashed there.

By what logic? You have a crumpling material as the tail wing, and right below it where the bulk of the plane is, there's a huge hole. You have horizontal damage where the wings and engines would be, just lesser damage near the ends of the wings.

The picture reinforces nothing except that it's a bad photo of the damage.

Correct. In fact, it's less than half of it. That's OK, most of these folks would look up a goats butt with one eyeball and call it a diamond! Particularly if it involved an exciting conspiracy....