Shadow on 18/3/2006 at 09:30
The plane didn't hit the pentagon directly, it hit the ground in front of it.
paloalto on 18/3/2006 at 18:55
Then we are back with the immaculate lawn again.Just doesn't ad up.
Swiss Mercenary on 18/3/2006 at 20:03
The wings fold in. Airplanes don't punch cartoon silloettes in buildings.
Thief13x on 18/3/2006 at 23:59
I heard the airplane was much smaller, and yeah, the wings are hollow they wouldn't cause much damage.
cmon, remmember how Kennedy's assasination was a government conspiracy too? are your imaginations honestly so developed that you think that the government could pull something like this off, and initiate a highly unpopular bloody war in iraq for five years and counting without one snitch? I don't buy any of this. CGI is just too good these days
paloalto on 19/3/2006 at 01:37
I'm not talking about a sillloette,but some damage to the outer walls and windows beyond discoloration from the explosion.And if it slid across the ground like the eyewitnesses say impact speed at the wall would be less,meaning there would be more chunks of plane.
dh124289 on 19/3/2006 at 02:13
Quote:
I heard the airplane was much smaller, and yeah, the wings are hollow they wouldn't cause much damage.
The plane was a lot bigger than the damage to the outside of the Pentagon can account for.
As for your hollow wings idea... yeah they are hollow because they contain all the bloody fuel!!! So why no scorch marks on the sections of wall where the planes had to have impacted?
And the 6 ton engines were anything but hollow d00d...
Printer's Devil on 19/3/2006 at 03:16
You conspiracy wieners have absolutely no imagination! It is certainly possible that the plane was shot down close to the Pentagon, and that one of those engines (with part of a fuel-filled wing) collided with the building. That might more realistically account for the visible damage and would leave the passengers intact enough for indentification.
Does anyone have aerial photos of the area outside the general vicinity of the Pentagon on the day of the disaster? If federal agents were confiscating video footage from private CCTV cameras, then the odds are they were scooping up plane debris, too. And the conflicting story? Perhaps the government felt that admitting to shooting down their own citizens (albeit in self-defence) was not going to help the victims' families or their own cause, either.
Think a little, guys! If the Bush Administration was able to pull off a vast conspiracy as portrayed in that ridiculous "documentary", then why was their WMD argument so clumsy and unbelievable from the get-go? Remember the huge protests, even in New York, over the whole push to war in Iraq? I now return you to your original programming.
Tocky on 19/3/2006 at 04:19
I knew it! Snopes is in on it! I just knew they were pawns of the military- industrialist complex. They were established years ago by a super secret wing of the CIA and have been debunking myths for years with the sole intent of sounding genuine when this occasion arose. Thank heaven we have hippies to expose this heinous plot with completely psuedoscientific ponderings, doctored photos, and out the ass false and or misleading information. Only they can keep the capitalist pigs at bay without once questioning the intent behind the dubious machinations.
Gingerbread Man on 19/3/2006 at 08:16
Sadly there isn't a site where we can be told whether Snopes is true or not. I shall start such a website, and I shall call it Sepons, and it will consist of a page that says THEY MAKE IT ALL UP because seriously do they REALLY know that there isn't a gang of nutjobs trying to clone Jesus or that there AREN'T catfish the size of small buses in the Colorado river?
