i didnt watch it but i wouldnt call a youtube video 100% proof of anything.

hilarious how the youtube videos get no love when they support the OS

hilarious

the missile theory is so silly it's not even worth discussing tbh. or is that the shot down one, I get so confused

Thanks for the overwhelmingly "conclusive evidence"! I must admit, it's pretty hard to argue with a cartoon. After a long 10 years, I can finally put my mind to rest.

Originally posted by Immortalgemini527
A missile would not have hit so many objects going towards the pentagon if it was a missile.

Yes and a plane could.

Last time I checked a plane was much much better than a missle... is it not?

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
hilarious how the youtube videos get no love when they support the OS

hilarious

the missile theory is so silly it's not even worth discussing tbh. or is that the shot down one, I get so confused

The missile theory is so not kool and just wrong!

I wonder why they expect people to believe in the missile theory, its impossible and just a blatant lie.

I Think this video shows good evidence that allot of people haven’t seen before, such as the lights post that was knocked down by the wings, and even the airline debris inside and out.

If i Created a 'Computer Animated' Picture of a Missile Hitting the Pentagon wold that be 'conclusive Evidence' and Sway your mind?

How does that vid prove anything?

Where is the explanation of the physics that allows the carbon-fiber nose of the plane to punch though reinforced concrete, but not the engines and wing spars, and are not to found in front of the pentagon?

What physics allowed the plane to punch through, but then disintegrate on the inside where there was nothing but columns and empty space.

Did that vid even address these points?

Originally posted by balon0

Originally posted by Immortalgemini527
A missile would not have hit so many objects going towards the pentagon if it was a missile.

Yes and a plane could.

Last time I checked a plane was much much better than a missle... is it not?

yep,your correct,a missle doesnt have a wingspan.

Originally posted by Immortalgemini527
A missile would not have hit so many objects going towards the pentagon if it was a missile.

Now this statement I figured was reasonable as I thought, yeah that's true enough. You almost had me. Until BIRDS! Birds fly into airplane engines and have the power to bring them down, but metal poles are just sheared in half? I don't buy that.

We won't find out the truth about 9/11 until someone steps forward because how likely the perpetrators would keep evidence?

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
Thanks for the overwhelmingly "conclusive evidence"! I must admit, it's pretty hard to argue with a cartoon. After a long 10 years, I can finally put my mind to rest.

Probably wouldn't have been a good idea to crash another plane into the pentagon just to see what happened

An animation shows what happened without all the bother of death and destruction!

Originally posted by Immortalgemini527

Originally posted by balon0

Originally posted by Immortalgemini527
A missile would not have hit so many objects going towards the pentagon if it was a missile.

Yes and a plane could.

Last time I checked a plane was much much better than a missle... is it not?

yep,your correct,a missle doesnt have a wingspan.

If you actually look at the damage it is not consistence with something going through, you can see columns pushed outwards. IF a missile entered the building and exploded on the inside that is how it would look.

The damage is too low for the wings to have done it, the plane would have to have been actually on the ground with the engines digging into the grass, yet there wasn't any damage to the lawn at all. Does that tell you anything?