The plans that hit the pentagon was flying out of radar range. The Pentagon is out of radar range? The fire burned for a very long time. Im sure you've seen what jet fule can do to steal. If planes where made out of differnt metal say titanium it would of lasted, but that is not the case. They use Aluminum. Ever thorown a beer can in a fire. It burns up. If a small wood fire can mealt metal imagin what Jet fule can do. Actually, I've not seen what jet fuel can do. I do know the jet fuel is basically kerosene, which burns at about CAN burn at 1700F..steel does not begin to melt till about 2800F. Steel, even if only weakened by the fire (which is debatable all by itself) would sag, and not uniformly. The free fall speed at which 1 and 2 fell, demonstrate that none of the upper floors encountered resistance from the lower floor. Simple physics.
You see...this is another example of where your argument falls short (or does not even get off of the ground). You can't address the facts so you go after the messenger. This quote is from The Hadith ---which are muslim holy texts regarding the "sayings and actions" of the terrorist prophet muhammad. Remember...muhammad was a illiterate, so it was his terrorist followers that documented his life and deeds that are today found in muslim "holy" scripture: Abu Dawud 38:4357: When the Apostle of Allah cut off the hands and feet of those who had stolen his camels and apostacised and had their eyes put out by fire, Allah reprimanded him and revealed: "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Apostle and strive with might and main for rnischief through the land is execution or crucifixion." Muslim 623: The Prophet said: "It is not permissible to take the life of a Muslim except in one of the three cases: the married adulterer, a life for a life (if the person is Muslim), and the deserter of Islam." Bukhari 9:89:271 A man embraced Islam and then reverted back to Judaism Mu'adh said: "I will not sit down unless you kill him as it is the verdict of Allah and His Apostle" Bukhari 4:52:260 Ali burnt some people (Zanadiqa, atheists 9:84:57) although the Prophet had said, "Don't punish anybody with Allah's punishment (Fire)" if a Muslim discards his religion, kill him" Islam does not allow apostasy. Apostasy or irtidad in Islam is equal to treason. The punishment prescibed by the shari'a for apostasy is death. That is why this girl is so afraid of her muslim family and culture! Honor killings have been documented and are part of the muslim culture. It is part of the same MADNESS that drives these animals to hi-jack jets and fly them into buildings...all for the glory of their allah! 9/11/01 was just ONE example of "true" muslims fighting for allah. This mindset of death and punishment has ALWAYS been part of the "true" muslim culture since their pedophole terrorist mohammad founded this cult.
I've got lots more...any time anybody wants to take a stab. Rebuttals to any points? Please...surely someone can offer an infallible argument to at least one point, and not contradict another. Not much of a debate.
Just got off work and I am about to start enjoying a little off Time. I'll answer your arguments,in deapth tomorrow morning and to make things clear I never contradicted myself. A quote from my debate coach in colledge. "they are hacks. They make up answers for every argument because that is what hacks do" this is a perfect example of his theory. Also You said lets only use our own words as evidence. That is beyond ridicules and only proves the futile nature of this "debate". You have no knoledge of any conspiercy outside of what you have read on the internet. You where not at any quartly meatings of the shadow government. Are not a secret cia spie ect ect ect. The same is really true for me. The difference is that I realize my own limitations. All I can use is primary source research to back up my points. Debates are not about opinions they are about facts. The fact is that Al Qeada was responsible for 911 if you have a cogent argument for why this is not true please post it in detail. Then I could negate it. I pawnd you on the options argument. Provided hard evidence about the pentagon. Any answer to the "we found the black box" argument or the man that said "I saw the impact damage form the planes, Or the picture of plane wreckage. You also said " they found plain wrekage 2 milles away in penselvaina. 1. I would like a source for that. A newspaper some pictures. 2. WTF does that have to do with anything. Again who cares that has nothing to do with anything. It would make sense that an object that is very heavy flying at hundreds of miles an hour would cause a huge explosion throwing wreckage all over the place. Also even if you could 100% prove that a missle or something else shot down flight 93 still does not mean that Al Qeada did not hyjack the plane. While callous would be a reaonable response to potential loss of life. Utilitarianism is a bitch, but cost benefit analysis is what the miltary does and they make these decision all the time. Like I said tomorow morning I will dedicate several hours to disacting what you have said and continue to explain how it eather A) is factually incorect or B) Even if it is true it does not matter. And p.s. Because your a clown this has been easy. Where is the proof TOM?
Is that what you are, a messenger? A messenger of what? You brought a story in here that was horse crap, and you expect to get away with it? Thats not a messenger. Thats an idiot.
Tom, I will look into it. If you have a case, I will be shocked, but will quickly admit it. To be honest, I have never really looked into the thing besides an Alex Jones comedy film called Loose Change. I can quickly admit when wrong.
You also said " they found plain wrekage 2 milles away in penselvaina. 1. I would like a source for that. A newspaper some pictures. 2. WTF does that have to do with anything. Again who cares that has nothing to do with anything. It would make sense that an object that is very heavy flying at hundreds of miles an hour would cause a huge explosion throwing wreckage all over the place. Also even if you could 100% prove that a missle or something else shot down flight 93 still does not mean that Al Qeada did not hyjack the plane. While callous would be a reaonable response to potential loss of life. Utilitarianism is a bitch, but cost benefit analysis is what the miltary does and they make these. ------------------------------------------------- Actually they (the Pennsylvania State Police) found wreckage over 8 miles away as well. "WTF" means that the plane was shot down, not crashed. means that the original and official story is false, means they lied. and as far as I know....PLANE WRECKAGE DOESN'T BOUNCE 8 MILES, OR EVEN 2, if you can believe it....
But let's continue!!! Popular Mechanics claims that "hundreds of witnesses saw a Boeing 757 hit the building.They do not seem to have been to interested in analyzing the believability of some of these statements. PM quotes structural engineer Allyn Kilsheimer, who says: "It was absolutely a plane... I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them... I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I stood on a pile of debris that we later discovered contained the black box... I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?" The absurdity of this statement. Besides the fact that few people, aside from pathologists, would pick up body parts, the tail section of a Boeing 757 is over 20 feet long and quite heavy." Also, I might add, if he held the tail section in his hand, why didn't we see a tail section in the photographs immediately following the event? A more disturbing aspect of this eyewitness' account, however, concerns the editing of his words between PM's March 2005 magazine article and the book which appeared in the summer of 2006. In March 2005, Kilsheimer reportedly said "and I found the black box." Researchers, however, noted that the two black boxes were found, according to the official story, by two firefighters three days later. At what school of journalistic ethics did the PM authors learn that, if part of a statement you have quoted from one of your star witnesses turns out to be false ('I found the black box'), you may simply change that part of the statement (to 'I stood on a pile of debris that we later discovered contained the black box')?" This modification is especially interesting in light of PM's James Meigs' complaint that few of the documents put out by alternative conspiracy theorists 'handle factual material with enough care to pass muster at a high-school newspaper.' Once again, the official conspiracy theorists are found to illustrate the very sins of which they accuse their opponents.
Tom, I will look into it. If you have a case, I will be shocked, but will quickly admit it. To be honest, I have never really looked into the thing besides an Alex Jones comedy film called Loose Change. I can quickly admit when wrong. __________________ Please do that. HONEST debate is all I am hoping for. Oh..and the comedy film you refer to isn't "by Alex Jones". I know you'll quickly admit that was wrong.
It does appear that the phone call did not happen, however that does not explain her wherabouts. Or the others on board. Orsthe familys of the passangers....is every single one of them conspiring in an underground bunker somewhere? My biggest problem with the Pentagon thing is lack of wing damage to the building....that does trouble me. Also, the gas turbine engine they found ( I make them for a living ) was not correct to the plane.....and they only found one of them. They are made of inconel, hastalloy, waspalloy and high temp nickle based stainless steel alloys.......no fire is hot enough to " melt them " except a special furnace used to pour the forgings......definatly not a kerosene fire. I have questions like everybody. I am not however a truther. Just a truth seeker.
There is clearly good evidence that plane parts were photographed in the Pentagon. But that they were parts from a Boeing 757 is highly and vigorously contested by many students of this event. What passes for the official story is that somehow this airplane hit the building, went into this tiny hole,(12 feet across) which forced the wings back, and so they folded up and slipped inside the building. The fire chief in charge of putting out the fire was asked if he saw any plane parts inside. He said no big pieces, no fuselage, no engine, nothing like that. So the people who try to defend this story respond by saying the fire was so hot it vaporized the plane. It not only melted the steel and the aluminum, but it vaporized them; and that's why they disappeared. We've since learned that a lot of the bodies in the WTC were so destroyed that they were not able to identify them using any modern techniques. Yet this fire in the Pentagon that was hot enough to vaporize steel and aluminum left the bodies so they could be identified.
It does appear that the phone call did not happen, however that does not explain her wherabouts. Or the others on board. Orsthe familys of the passangers....is every single one of them conspiring in an underground bunker somewhere? --------- Thank you for that at least. I don't claim to have the answers to it all Jack. I do however claim that the "official" story is chock full of lies and inconsistencies, and in almost every chapter of these stories you can find major flaws from Norad's response (or non response more accurately) and at least 3 different versions of their "timeline of events" for that day, to supposed hijackers alive and well, to pieces of 93 scattered 8 miles, eyewitnesses like firefighters, police, employees of WTC1 testimony saying they clearly heard explosions, to the simple freefall physics, and on and on and on, it's everywhere.
By the way...anybody wanna take a shot at explaining anything about the "war games" that were taking place that day? You know..the ones that simulated plane flying into buildings, the ones that "noone could have ever imagined", or is that "conspiracy theory" made up stuff too?
Popular Mechanics STAND-DOWN RESPONSE In a feeble attempt to address the charge of a stand-down order by the US military to not intercept the planes, and bolster the 'incompetence' theory, Popular Mechanics says this: "One of the first steps the hijackers took after seizing control of the four aircraft was to turn off the jets' transponders. At the time of the hijackings, there were 4,500 planes in the skies over the continental US. Without transponder data..., controllers were forced to search for the missing aircraft among all the identical radar blips." This is a major lie because it paints a picture of 4,500 radar blips being on each ATC's screen. But in reality, the radar scopes only cover a limited, local region and it is absurd to think that any single controller would be responsible for monitoring a screen with thousands of blips. Also, the four planes that had been hijacked would NOT have looked identical to the other blips, because only the hijacked jets would have been void of transponder data (a 4-digit code number and the plane's altitude). So they would have stuck out like a sore thumb....so was the US military's defense of the homeland during the Cold War based on the assumption that Soviet pilots would have the courtesy to leave their transponders on?
Popular mechanics Hani Hanjour Folks in the "truth" movement (or "truthers"/aka the boogeyman) are united in united in realizing the absurdity of the official story's composite claim: that the Pentagon was struck by AA 77 under the control of Hani Hanjour. Many people, including experienced pilots have rejected this story, by which Hanjour, by all accounts a terrible pilot, executed a 270-degree downward spiral drop in a few minutes, then circled around the Pentagon in a 330-degree turn in order to hit the unoccupied section at ground level, traveling only a few yards above I-395. Several pilots, like veteran Ralph Omholt, have gone on the record to say that this series of events, especially performed by a terrible amateur, are "too ridiculous to consider." Pilot Russ Wittenberg has also gone on the record with similar remarks, saying that "For a guy to just jump into the cockpit and fly like an ace is impossible. The PM book does not even attempt to debunk this aspect of the story. The PM authors like to claim that their case is supported by experts. But for their entire section on the 'hijackers' flying skills,' they quote only one flight instructor, and he speaks only to the issue of whether the hijackers could have pointed their planes towad their targets, not to the issue of whether Hanjour could have flown the trajectory allegedly taken by AA 77 in its final few minutes." They omit testimony like that of Wittenberg and Omholt and knowing they can't defend this part of the story.
Popular Mechanics "witnesses" PM claims that "hundreds of witnesses saw a Boeing 757 hit the building." The most extensive list of alleged witnesses of which I am aware contains only 152 people, and only some of them claim to have seen an airliner hit the Pentagon. A study of these, moreover, found that only 31 of them provided "explicit, realistic and detailed claims," that 24 of these 31 alleged witnesses "worked for either the Federal Government or the mainstream media," and that 21 of these testimonies contained "substantial errors or contradictions." Witness testimony, therefore, cannot establish the claim that Flight 77 or any airliner struck the Pentagon.
Question If you ridicule others who have sincere doubts and who know factual information that directly contradicts the official report and who want explanations from those who hold the keys to our government, and have motive, means, and opportunity to pull off a 9/11, but you are too lazy or fearful, or whatever to check into the facts yourself, what does that make you? Where is the damage to the wall of the Pentagon from the wings? Where are the big pieces that always break away in an accident? Where is all the luggage? Where are the miles and miles of wire, cable, and lines that are part and parcel of any large aircraft? Where are the steel engine parts? Where is the steel landing gear? Where is the tail section that would have broken into large pieces?
WTC7 question WTC Building 7 was 610 feet tall, 47 stories. It would have been the tallest building in 33 states. Although it was not hit by an airplane, it completely collapsed into a pile of rubble in less than 7 seconds at 5:20 p.m. on 9/11, seven hours after the collapses of the Twin Towers. However, no mention of its collapse appears in the 9/11 Commission's "full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks." And 8 years after 9/11, the Federal government has yet to publish its promised final report that explains the cause of its collapse
Recap So...I've mentioned thus far (and I've got tons more) as points of contention: 1) NORAD's "response" 2) The FAA's "response" 3) Norm Mineta's testimony 4) P-56 secure Pentagon airspace 5) Pentagon E-rings/aluminum balls 6) Cell phone technology 2001 7) Passenger manifest 8) Wreckage up to 8 miles away 9) Popular Mechanics 10) Vaporized steel/aluminum 11) War Games 12) Military Stand-down 13) Hani the expert pilot 14) Whittled away witness list 15) WTC7 fall down, go boom all by itself It'd be real easy to pick any ONE of these topics debate it. Surely I can't be right on all of these...can I?
