Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

9/11: Pentagon not hit by 757?

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • herpa2003
    replied
    A cruise missle would be capable of knocking down a light pole on its way to its intended target.

    Go bowling.
    Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. Did I say bullshit? Sorry bud, you are wrong, your whole argument is wrong. And you know why? Because of this-





    Sorry bud, but the chances of a missile taking down thise lights is one in a billion.



    You can see to the left, in front of the army truck, the area where the wing went into the building.

    Another shot of where the wing went in-



    Sorry bud, you are wrong. Forget about it.

    Leave a comment:


  • nwaA330
    replied
    you guys don't have to... i'm done

    Leave a comment:


  • Chris@YYZ
    replied
    Originally posted by walesrob
    I think its time to lock this thread.....
    I think thats a good idea

    Leave a comment:


  • G-VEIL
    replied
    I think its time to lock this thread.....

    Leave a comment:


  • nwaA330
    replied
    Originally posted by stlgph
    Oh good, another cry baby from this site wants to say something.

    Yes, stirring up the pot around here is fun because a great deal of you...say 98% of you are totally naive.

    Completely.

    Utterly.

    Totally.

    Naive.

    And it really is sad.

    And yes, of course I get ripped on in life. Every single day. I work in news! I've worked as a professor stage and screen actor! If I showed up to ork one day and suddenly everyone was nice, there'd be something completely wrong!

    But no, that's not the point! The point is, you are still

    Completely.

    Utterly.

    Totally.

    Naive.

    I have made plenty of legit statements around here. Much more than the typical "gosh, I love Southwest, they are so pretty, set Love Free, US Airways charges way too much to fly from Greensboro to Boston! Set Love Free it will solve everything!"

    Give me a break.

    And yes, I live in the rich part of town. You know why? I fucking worked for it. That means I got off up off my duff and didn't sit around warbling on internet forums while gaining weight wishing for everyone to love Je$u$, vote Republican, and fly Southwest.

    And being keen to that gives one the sense of reality to be able to discern that only three people were directly involved with landing a so called space capsule on the moon. Everyone else is indirectly involved with the actual achievement.

    But of course, if you wanted to pull off a fantastic in studio stunt like that, you'd need basically a good 20 or 30 people on the technical side, not including the numbers of government officials involved. Maybe another 40 or so?

    So, perhaps one more time we'll try to get this through your head. But since it will fail because of your naivity, then at least take my suggestion to run spell check.
    Hahahah!! it's nice to know you value my opinion so much that you have to defend yourself you insecure spaz. Why do you even post here if you hate 98% of the people on here? Quit telling people you're rich. It doesn't impress people, notice how everyone is annoyed by you. You brag to people that don't care. Why do you do it? I will just ask that directly. And before you tell me to run spell check, why don't you make sure all your words are spelled correctly in your post. Alright, now go on living your double life, and pretend you're rich and everything. For being as rich as you say you are, you seem like a pretty unhappy person. I'm nowhere near rich, yet I'm having the best years of my life here at the wonderful college of the University of North Dakota. I'm friends with great people, doing things I've never done before, and on top of that I'm flying airplanes. I prefer this life over a life of being either a.) rich and unhappy like you are, or, b.) lying that you're rich to a bunch of people on the internet cause you want to get accepted by someone, since you aren't accepted by society. My theory is that whenever someone volunteers as much information to complete strangers online, they probably have a tough life off the internet, and they are trying to make up for it by being a jerk to people online. Yes, there are a lot of people on here who reveal a lot of stuff about themselves, but they also know each other off the forum. You just want random people to think you're rich and cool or something. Do you want me to look up to you or something? Yeah I could do that. I would love to be some guy who has a crappy life and makes up for it on internet forums. Anyways, this has gone on way too long, and you aren't worth my time anymore. So I'm ready for you to make your little cheap shot post, now that you know I wont reply to it. But you would do that cause you're you, so go ahead.

    Leave a comment:


  • stlgph
    replied
    Oh good, another cry baby from this site wants to say something.

    Yes, stirring up the pot around here is fun because a great deal of you...say 98% of you are totally naive.

    Completely.

    Utterly.

    Totally.

    Naive.

    And it really is sad.

    And yes, of course I get ripped on in life. Every single day. I work in news! I've worked as a professor stage and screen actor! If I showed up to ork one day and suddenly everyone was nice, there'd be something completely wrong!

    But no, that's not the point! The point is, you are still

    Completely.

    Utterly.

    Totally.

    Naive.

    I have made plenty of legit statements around here. Much more than the typical "gosh, I love Southwest, they are so pretty, set Love Free, US Airways charges way too much to fly from Greensboro to Boston! Set Love Free it will solve everything!"

    Give me a break.

    And yes, I live in the rich part of town. You know why? I fucking worked for it. That means I got off up off my duff and didn't sit around warbling on internet forums while gaining weight wishing for everyone to love Je$u$, vote Republican, and fly Southwest.

    And being keen to that gives one the sense of reality to be able to discern that only three people were directly involved with landing a so called space capsule on the moon. Everyone else is indirectly involved with the actual achievement.

    But of course, if you wanted to pull off a fantastic in studio stunt like that, you'd need basically a good 20 or 30 people on the technical side, not including the numbers of government officials involved. Maybe another 40 or so?

    So, perhaps one more time we'll try to get this through your head. But since it will fail because of your naivity, then at least take my suggestion to run spell check.

    Leave a comment:


  • nwaA330
    replied
    Originally posted by stlgph
    Incorrect. Those people were on the ground in rooms. There were only three people present during the time of the "Moon landing."

    Collins, Aldrin, and Armstrong.

    So, which is it, am I am idiot or a moron? Apparently you, also, have a problem with numbers and decisions.
    You don't make any legit posts. You like stirring up the pot, and pretty sure nobody on this forum respects you. Why do you even give your input? I've read through this thread, and all you do is piss people off, and if that's what you're on this forum for, then I question the lifestyle you live. Maybe in your real life, you get ripped on a lot to your face and the only way you can fight back is by jabbin' people on the internet, who by the way don't give a crap about you. It's the same reason you put "the rich part of St. Louis" in your profile. I don't care if your rich and I no one else does. And the fact that you are saying you're rich makes me lose even more respect for you. Well I never have respected you, so nevermind, your respect level remains the same. Just to clarify... If Collins, Aldrin, and Armstrong got to the moon with no help from anyone else, then yes they would be the only ones involved. But the fact that it literally takes thousands and thousands of people (which is not an exagerration in the slightest) to get any mission off the ground, let alone the first moon landing mission, this means that thousands and thousands of people would know the truth. Therefore it brings me to my original point that it would take a cover up bigger than the human race could handle.

    Leave a comment:


  • stlgph
    replied
    Originally posted by herpa2003
    I didn't decide to stop posting, I said that I wouldn't waste much more energy on this thread.
    Well, you've already lost by Godwin's Law anyway, so not that it matters anymore.

    Originally posted by herpa2003
    And I don't need to. Every question of yours, argument of yours is disproved not only by Popular Mechanics but also by Purdue and the other site I showed. And your arguments are also all disproved by common sense.

    I'm sorry, but I trust people that have credentials in physics and aerodynamics, who have to go through a hiring process to be employed by a major university and a major magazine, more than I trust some random guy who makes a website while living in his mother's basement.
    I already provided the links that answer the suggestions made by Popular Mechanics and Purdue, etc. etc.


    Originally posted by herpa2003
    They aren't the strongest part of the airplane. Easily. Otherwise why weren't they around in that ATR crash I showd you?
    You must be slow. Like, really slow.

    The wings were obviously broken apart by impact forces. However, evidence of wing fragments and impact still exists at the crash site.


    Originally posted by herpa2003
    Also, cruise missiles don't knock down light poles. The 757 did, and there are photos documenting this. Unless you believe that the men in black suits did it when no one was watching...
    A cruise missle would be capable of knocking down a light pole on its way to its intended target.

    Go bowling.

    Leave a comment:


  • herpa2003
    replied
    I didn't decide to stop posting, I said that I wouldn't waste much more energy on this thread.

    And I don't need to. Every question of yours, argument of yours is disproved not only by Popular Mechanics but also by Purdue and the other site I showed. And your arguments are also all disproved by common sense.

    I'm sorry, but I trust people that have credentials in physics and aerodynamics, who have to go through a hiring process to be employed by a major university and a major magazine, more than I trust some random guy who makes a website while living in his mother's basement.

    Originally posted by stlgph
    The wings would have been the heaviest concentrated part of the structure of the airplane. There should be evidence of their impact against the building's structure.
    They aren't the strongest part of the airplane. Easily. Otherwise why weren't they around in that ATR crash I showd you?

    Also, cruise missiles don't knock down light poles. The 757 did, and there are photos documenting this. Unless you believe that the men in black suits did it when no one was watching...

    Leave a comment:


  • stlgph
    replied
    Originally posted by herpa2003
    Prove to me that JLO isn't a man.

    I said it before, and I'll say it again. These "theories" can never be 100% disproved because there is always the "nuh-uhh, the government can do anything" remark.

    And those pics stlgph posted earlier on this page were completely debunked by Popular Mechanics, Snopes, and Purdue. As was his whole argument thus far.

    Nevertheless, I'm not wasting much more energy on this thread.
    1. She's a woman because she's with Marc Anthony. No self respecting gay man would ever go near that thing.

    2. The response by the website to Popular Mechanics, etc. was perfect.

    3. Good, all you do is bitch when someone goes against the norm. Love Je$u$!!

    Originally posted by nwaA330
    You're an idiot. Controllers, people who made the spacecraft, media, everyone who worked at a place called NASA... you are a moron.
    Incorrect. Those people were on the ground in rooms. There were only three people present during the time of the "Moon landing."

    Collins, Aldrin, and Armstrong.

    So, which is it, am I am idiot or a moron? Apparently you, also, have a problem with numbers and decisions.

    Originally posted by ATLcenter
    How come no one has figured out some spiffy way to calculate the distance between windows on the WTC, measure the size of the hole, and transpose a plane on to that? The towers had a gross area of 43200 square feet. Given the buildings were square, that means each side was 207.84 feet. (square root of area). The wingspan of a 762 is 156 ft. If you look at this picture, there is "evidence" that the wings of the plane that hit the tower are much larger than 156 feet:
    Now, the wingspan of a 777-200 is 199ft, 11 inches. Given the gap between the building's edge and the hole is definitely not 50 feet, it's obvious that a 757 never came close to hitting the building. It was a government owned 777-200 that was painted into AA/UA colors. The wings were made so they'd "flex" back, thus reducing the size of the hole to a sellable size.
    More insight strikes again.

    On the buildings, you're dealing with a separate outer skin structure. Of course the panels are going to tear off. It's a rippling effect from force. Drop a rock in some water.

    Originally posted by herpa2003
    Let me guess- You saw Hitler in Argentina last night? The Holoucaust never happened? Elvis is still alive? Airliners are spraying secret chemicals on your houses in an effort to kill the entire world?
    Godwin's Law! First one to mention Hitler loses the side of the argument.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_Law

    I win wholeheartedly along with my fellow conspiracy theorists!

    Guess it's a good thing you decided to stop posting, Herpa. Thanks!

    Originally posted by ATLcenter
    So while the wings would go through the WTC, they probably would not go through the Pentagon.
    The wings would have been the heaviest concentrated part of the structure of the airplane. There should be evidence of their impact against the building's structure.

    Leave a comment:


  • nwaA330
    replied
    Originally posted by stlgph
    For a 757? Come on now, even I am not buying into all of that.



    The number of people actually involved with the mission was three. Michael Collins, Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin.


    I appreciate your slovenly math skills.
    You're an idiot. Controllers, people who made the spacecraft, media, everyone who worked at a place called NASA... you are a moron.

    Leave a comment:


  • screaming_emu
    replied
    Originally posted by herpa2003
    Elvis is still alive?
    He's my roomie

    Originally posted by Chris@YYZ
    are you that sure of yourself that you can say that anyone who has a different opinion then yourself is wrong? your not very open minded.
    Even though I agree with Herpes on this one, Chris does make a very good point with this one.

    Leave a comment:


  • Chris@YYZ
    replied
    Originally posted by herpa2003
    For the umpteenth time, the WTC was not made of bombproof reinforced feet-thick concrete walls. The Pentagon was. EVERY link I posted will answer all of your questions. If you want to appear anything other than ignorant, I suggest you read them.



    Let me guess- You saw Hitler in Argentina last night? The Holoucaust never happened? Elvis is still alive? Airliners are spraying secret chemicals on your houses in an effort to kill the entire world?
    are you that sure of yourself that you can say that anyone who has a different opinion then yourself is wrong? your not very open minded.

    damn I posted again, oh well.

    P.S. yeah, as a matter of fact, I DID see Hitler in Argentina last night.

    Leave a comment:


  • herpa2003
    replied
    alright, so everyone is saying that before the impact, the wings, gear, tail, and everything other then the fuselage, were sheared off, if not, where did they go, wouldn't thay have left some sorta trace if they did hit the building? you all saw the video of the towers being hit, when the planes hit, their wings went right through the building.
    For the umpteenth time, the WTC was not made of bombproof reinforced feet-thick concrete walls. The Pentagon was. EVERY link I posted will answer all of your questions. If you want to appear anything other than ignorant, I suggest you read them.

    I will now stop replying to this thread before I say something that'll get everyone upset and get me banned.
    Let me guess- You saw Hitler in Argentina last night? The Holoucaust never happened? Elvis is still alive? Airliners are spraying secret chemicals on your houses in an effort to kill the entire world?

    Leave a comment:


  • ATLcenter
    replied
    I'm no engineer, but I'll take a shot at it...

    A lot of modern buildings are built so that iron girders and not the exterior takes the weight of the building. These buildings are called glass boxes since they allow a building's facade to be made entirely of glass. Since the building is held up by the girders inside, this is possible. The WTC was built using this style by Yamisaki in the 1970s.

    Older buildings depend on the actual facade for support. Therefore, they cannot have too many open spaces without risking collapse-hence the rows of small windows on the concrete-granite exterior of the Pentagon.

    When a plane hits a glass box building, it's really just going through glass and in the WTC's case, the metal lining that runs up the building separating the panes. This isn't much resistance for a loaded commercial jet. Hell, you could throw a rock and dent the damn building. But the Pentagon's exterior is stronger, so a rock would probably do little damage (besides perhaps a scratch, which will call for Congress to set aside $30,000 to fix).

    So while the wings would go through the WTC, they probably would not go through the Pentagon.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X