Posted on 03/10/2002 9:55:18 PM PST by CalConservative
Wait, let me see. On one hand we have hundreds of witnesses who saw a jetliner crash into the Pentagon.
On the other hand we have, what, a hundred or so people who saw a white; no, yellow; no orange; no blue streak coming from the south; no, soutwest; no, east; no, north.
When you have hundreds of people, accompanied by other evidence (pictures, plane debris, etc), who all saw the EXACT SAME THING, it is an easier thing to believe.
So you cowardly ignore all the other unanswerable questions.
SO let's hear it, once and for all, WHAT IS YOUR EXACT THEORY?
You aren't even worthy of the tinfoil-hat moniker.
The proof is in the MSNBC footage. Click on start and let the frames run until the final one, then grab the frame indicator with your mouse, dragging it back to the start position.
With your cursor still on the frame indicator, move it back and forth between frames one and two, like an animator would flip cartoon pages.
Above and behind the right post, you will see the tail of the jet, along with a dust trail, that disappears in the second frame.
The second frame, taken perhaps a second? later, shows the beginning of the explosion and the dust trail now goes all the way to the front of the explosion.
The plane skidded along the ground, across the lawn and into the building in that short time, it was moving so fast.
NO, NO, NO! You've got it all wrong. Those guys are putting the debris OUT, so gullible people like us will take pictures of it and think a plane hit the building.
Great pictures, BTW.
This story is so ridiculous it is not even worth my spending the words to debunk it. Besides, Snopes did a better job of it than I ever could at this page:
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm
(I really wish people would check Snopes before wasting FR bandwidth.)
Same goes for the one that crashed in Penn. Nothing but a big crater in the ground. I found that weird
Okay!
I'd like to try to put an end to your misery; since you've only been here since the end of October of 2001, you probably
do not know that THIS POSTER is Barbara Olson, who died on this plane.
She was a Freeper.....and a Freeper friend.
Tell it to people who might believe you.......over at DU.
Thanks. A number of those threads were nuked.
Ted was totally unconvincing after her death and is now hanging out with some 25 year old doll... not exactly what you would expect.
To the contrary, it makes sense.
I too went through a traumatic event last year, and could not repeat the same level of "convincing" each & every time I recounted the tale to someone. Eventually someone commented on how dispassionately I told the story, and I pointed out that I simply had no more emotional energy to expend on it.
As for the "25 year old doll": not an uncommon way to cope. He just lost his wife, and was smacked in the face with his own mortality; many deal with this at a base level by seeking to procreate rather promptly.
A plane would have messed up the grass directly in front of the building which it did not (not open for discussion).
Oh, suddenly a point is not open for discussion without any evidence? PROVE IT. When a TFHer stops discussion cold on a point, that's ususally regarding the best proof he's wrong.
A plane would have gone through 3 rings of the building which MSNBC just reported... look at the picture below and previous pictures and you'll see the demolition only took out the first ring.
I look at the top-down photo, and it's plain as day that the impact punctured the first ring, and continued to puncture & damage the inner rings with progressively less damage. Comparing before & after shots makes it plain. That the structures were strong substantially lessened the damage per ring, but there is damage nonetheless.
none that saw both plane and explosion...
BS. That few saw both is reasonable, as it came in low and fast; few are observant enough to react & watch. We've even got it on video (the parking lot camera).
This theory is not comforting but it is the only thing I can come up with that is realistic.
And it's downright pathetic. Why COULDN'T a terrorist hijack a plane and drive it into the biggest building in DC? There are indeed people on this planet who hate the USA that much, hijackings do happen, and it's hard to not hit the Pentagon if you're trying to hit it.
That bears repeating: WHY _NOT_ A TERRORIST-DRIVEN CRASH??? Just because you, and armchair conspiracist, can't immediately explain a few bits of photos & burrowcrap drivel doesn't mean it didn't happen. Just because someone's tone of voice seems a bit off, and few millimeters of photo look odd, doesn't mean squat. I've seen car crashes in person, examined them, and realized that nuanced "evidence" is more likely misunderstood than proof of my impressions.
This conspiratorial drivel is just pathetic. "It wasn't terrorists crashing planes...it must be the Mossad & CIA who planted thousands of pounds of explosives at one of the nation's most secure sites, stole an airliner, flew it toward the point but missed at the last second, then made it and all the passengers disappear in-flight, and faked surveilance camera footage, and got most of the crash patterns right, and managed to keep absolutely everyone who knew silent, and and..., all just to hide a little blackmail" SHEESH! This drivel is pathetic. I do not rightly apprehend the mindset which rejects the simple and obvious in favor for the incredibly complex yet pointless.
How right you are. But I prefer "like flies on s**t", it's more descriptive.
What nonsense it that? That a jetliner crashed into the Pentagon?
I leave the thread!
Then why are you still here?
Of course, you can make a post telling me why you won't answer the questions, but you won't answer the questions.
You are a coward.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.