Replies

What's his theory? He was kind enough to reveal it in several posts on a previous Pentagon thread.

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.