#CNN reported no plane hit the Pentagon
1489 Dead
<http://infowars.com/articles/sept11/cnn_report_no_plane_pentagon.htm>
From Infowars Website:
Here is a video clip from CNN coverage on the morning of 9/11. CNN
reporter Jamie McIntyre says he inspected the Pentagon site and it is
obvious no plane crashed there.
JAMIE MCINTYRE: From my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of a
plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon.
The only site, is the actual side of the building that's crashed in.
And as I said, the only pieces left that you can see are small enough
that you pick up in your hand. There are no large tail sections, wing
sections, fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around which would
indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon
and then caused the side to collapse.
Even though if you look at the pictures of the Pentagon you see that
the floors have all collapsed, that didn't happenm immediately. It
wasn't until almost about 45 minutes later that the structure was
weakened enough that all of the floors collapsed.
--
Election 2004
The Triumph of the Swill
"The National Government will regard it as its first and foremost
duty to revive in the nation the spirit of unity and cooperation.
It will preserve and defend those basic principles on which our
nation has been built. It regards Christianity as the foundation
of our national morality, and the family as the basis of national
life."
Adolph Hitler, My New World Order,
Proclamation to the German Nation
at Berlin, February 1, 1933
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed, http://yahoogroups/subscribe/zepps_news
For essays (please contribute!)
http:yahoogroups/subscribe/zepps_essays
-
The Nuremberg Principles
Principle I. Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefore and liable to punishment.
Principle II. The fact that internal law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime under international law does not relieve the person who committed the act from responsibility under international law.
Principle III. The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsible government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law.
Principle IV. The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his
Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.
Principle V. Any person charged with a crime under international law has the right to a fair trial on the facts and law.
Principle VI. The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:
(a) Crimes against peace:
(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances; (ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).
(b) War Crimes:
Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation of slave-labour or for any other purpose of the civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.
(c) Crimes against humanity:
Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhumane acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial, or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime.
Principle VII. Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principle VI is a crime under international law.
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_news
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_essays
George Grapman
rebuilding had gone.
Doesn't your government stipend include aluminum foil for your window?
--
To reply via e-mail please delete 1 c from paccbell
Foxtrot
> The report was dated the following Feb. and indicated how well the
>rebuilding had gone.
> Doesn't your government stipend include aluminum foil for your window?
Heh heh. See that, Schlepp? Even your fellow lefties are
making fun of you.
IIRC Georgie is from San Francisco. If SF libs aren't with
you and your delusional conspiracies, you've got nowhere
to go!
Harry Hope
MikeSoja
><http://infowars.com/articles/sept11/cnn_report_no_plane_pentagon.htm>
>From Infowars Website:
>Here is a video clip from CNN coverage on the morning of 9/11. CNN
>reporter Jamie McIntyre says he inspected the Pentagon site and it is
>obvious no plane crashed there.
Fat, stupid, commie slob Bryan Jamieson throws his tin foil beanie
in with cheap propagandists and liars. What else is new?
The reporter McIntyre does NOT say that "no plane crashed" at the
Pentagon. He says that the plane did not crash NEAR the Pentagon,
but instead, "the entire plane crashed into the side of the
Pentagon".
See sig for an assortment of idiocies on the same subject uttered by
the same fat, stupid, commie slob Bryan Jamieson.
>JAMIE MCINTYRE: From my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of a
>plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon.
>The only site, is the actual side of the building that's crashed in.
>And as I said, the only pieces left that you can see are small enough
>that you pick up in your hand. There are no large tail sections, wing
>sections, fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around which would
>indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon
>and then caused the side to collapse.
>Even though if you look at the pictures of the Pentagon you see that
>the floors have all collapsed, that didn't happenm immediately. It
>wasn't until almost about 45 minutes later that the structure was
>weakened enough that all of the floors collapsed.
Mike Soja
Fat, stupid, commie slob Bryan Jamieson demonstrating
the brains that led him to Marxism:
"Something struck the Pentagon. That much is obvious. But is
was something much smaller than a 767. A missile, perhaps."
"Demonstrate that Flight 77 struck the Pentagon. Explain how a
757 could sustain level flight just ten feet from the ground for
several hundred yards, and explain how the plane could utterly
vanish, leaving only an unburned but crumpled engine cowling, in
a twenty foot hold."
"I don't have a theory as to what happened to Flight 77. But
I'm convinced it did not strike the Pentagon."
"It has again occurred to me that at the Pentagon, no such
aircraft remnants whatsoever were ever reported being
photographed, ever reported being seen by any eyewitnesses, or
ever reported being recovered from the site. Not to mention seat
fragments, luggage, body parts, etc. Zip."
"I'm disputing that it was even a plane that hit the Pentagon."
"[T]he one I find most troubling; that the plane struck a
utility pole on the way in and a wing sheared off. That should
have left a large amount of indisputable debris well outside the
building. It's also impossible to envision the plane not going
into a wild spin at that moment and immediately losing all
control, especially if the remaining engine was still powered
up."
"Nor do I have any solid conjectures on what DID hit the
Pentagon. It was too big for a shoulder mounted rocket, too
small to be any sort of manned vehicle, which leaves SAMs or
AGMs."
George Grapman
want to slight Soja who whenever the facts fail him has to resort to
that ,oh so clever, misspelling of my name.
MikeSoja
<sfge...@paccbell.net> posted:
> P.S. Proving that ignorance knows no political boundaries I do not
>want to slight Soja who whenever the facts fail him has to resort to
>that ,oh so clever, misspelling of my name.
I didn't even mention you in that post, Georgie.
???
Gotta run. The band is about to strike up the music, music,
music...
1490 Dead
<sfge...@paccbell.net> wrote:
> The report was dated the following Feb. and indicated how well the
>rebuilding had gone.
> Doesn't your government stipend include aluminum foil for your window?
Poor Georgie. Too cowardly to watch the clip, too stupid to avoid
trying to lie about it.
The clip is from the morning of 9/11/01, and is a part of CNN's live
coverage of the event at the Pentagon.
Can't the GOP hire a better class of fool than you?
George Grapman
> On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 16:46:59 GMT, George Grapman
> <sfge...@paccbell.net> wrote:
>
>
>> The report was dated the following Feb. and indicated how well the
>>rebuilding had gone.
>> Doesn't your government stipend include aluminum foil for your window?
>
>
> Poor Georgie. Too cowardly to watch the clip, too stupid to avoid
> trying to lie about it.
>
> The clip is from the morning of 9/11/01, and is a part of CNN's live
> coverage of the event at the Pentagon.
>
> Can't the GOP hire a better class of fool than you?
Funniest post on the net since Zep accused me of being a right wing
fanatic.
Obviously you either never read the link or , more likely, failed to
comprehend it.
Liberals,HATE.America!
"1489 Dead" <zepp1489#2211finestplanet.com> wrote in message
news:tk8121p7uo9jpvjvp...@4ax.com...
>
> <http://infowars.com/articles/sept11/cnn_report_no_plane_pentagon.htm>
>
> From Infowars Website:
> Here is a video clip from CNN coverage on the morning of 9/11. CNN
> reporter Jamie McIntyre says he inspected the Pentagon site and it is
> obvious no plane crashed there.
Cuckoo!! Cuckoo!! Cuckoo!!
1493 Dead
<sfge...@paccbell.net> wrote:
>1490 Dead wrote:
>> On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 16:46:59 GMT, George Grapman
>> <sfge...@paccbell.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> The report was dated the following Feb. and indicated how well the
>>>rebuilding had gone.
>>> Doesn't your government stipend include aluminum foil for your window?
>>
>>
>> Poor Georgie. Too cowardly to watch the clip, too stupid to avoid
>> trying to lie about it.
>>
>> The clip is from the morning of 9/11/01, and is a part of CNN's live
>> coverage of the event at the Pentagon.
>>
>> Can't the GOP hire a better class of fool than you?
>
> Funniest post on the net since Zep accused me of being a right wing
>fanatic.
> Obviously you either never read the link or , more likely, failed to
>comprehend it.
It's a video clip, you fucking moron!
1493 Dead
<sfge...@paccbell.net> wrote:
>1490 Dead wrote:
>> On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 16:46:59 GMT, George Grapman
>> <sfge...@paccbell.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> The report was dated the following Feb. and indicated how well the
>>>rebuilding had gone.
>>> Doesn't your government stipend include aluminum foil for your window?
>>
>>
>> Poor Georgie. Too cowardly to watch the clip, too stupid to avoid
>> trying to lie about it.
>>
>> The clip is from the morning of 9/11/01, and is a part of CNN's live
>> coverage of the event at the Pentagon.
>>
>> Can't the GOP hire a better class of fool than you?
>
> Funniest post on the net since Zep accused me of being a right wing
>fanatic.
> Obviously you either never read the link or , more likely, failed to
>comprehend it.
I notice that George also snipped out the link in question. Here it
is for anyone who wants to check it:
http://infowars.com/articles/sept11/cnn_report_no_plane_pentagon.htm
1493 Dead
Another cowardly American right winger makes his mating call!
George Grapman
the building but the reporter simply said there was no sign of a plane
from where he stood.
1493 Dead
<sfge...@paccbell.net> wrote:
> The headline to the link clams that CNN said that a plane never hit
>the building but the reporter simply said there was no sign of a plane
>from where he stood.
http://infowars.com/articles/sept11/cnn_report_no_plane_pentagon.htm
And don't hand me any more crap. You haven't visited the site. You're
making a fool out of yourself.
Riley The Dog
"1493 Dead" <zepp1493#2211finestplanet.com> wrote in message
news:8mm22157uh6h8adro...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 05:20:04 GMT, George Grapman
> <sfge...@paccbell.net> wrote:
>
>> The headline to the link clams that CNN said that a plane never hit
>>the building but the reporter simply said there was no sign of a plane
>>from where he stood.
>
> http://infowars.com/articles/sept11/cnn_report_no_plane_pentagon.htm
>
> And don't hand me any more crap. You haven't visited the site. You're
> making a fool out of yourself.
Au contraire mon ami. George has the context down perfectly.
Are you seriously claiming that CNN *emphatically* reported that
*no* Plane hit the pentagon on 9-11?
I know you think that, but I doubt that's what Jamie Macintyre was
trying to say.
El Kabong
>>>from where he stood.
HE SAID "FROM MY CLOSE-UP INSPECTION"
Transcript:
JAMIE MCINTYRE: From my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of a
plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon.
http://infowars.com/articles/sept11/cnn_report_no_plane_pentagon.htm
CNN reporter Jamie McIntyre says he inspected the Pentagon site and
it is obvious no plane crashed there.
Transcript:
JAMIE MCINTYRE: From my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of a
plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon.
The only site, is the actual side of the building that's crashed in.
And as I said, the only pieces left that you can see are small enough
that you pick up in your hand. There are no large tail sections, wing
sections, fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around which would
indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon
and then caused the side to collapse.
Even though if you look at the pictures of the Pentagon you see that
the floors have all collapsed, that didn't happenm immediately. It
wasn't until almost about 45 minutes later that the structure was
weakened enough that all of the floors collapsed.
+
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president
represents, more and more closely, the inner soul
of the people. On some great and glorious day the
plain folks of the land will reach their heart's
desire at last and the White House will be adorned
by a downright moron." --- H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
"The power of accurate observation is called cynicism
by those who have not got it." - G. B. Shaw
Want to know what's really going on in Iraq?
http://www.angelfire.com/co/COMMONSENSE/wakeup.html
The Rise and Fall of the Holy Roller Empire
The God-Awful Truth about Christian Zionism
http://www.angelfire.com/co/COMMONSENSE/armageddon.html
NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which has not
always been authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material
available to advance understanding of political, human rights, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues. I
believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107
lensm...@hotmail.com
Pentagon, but that the entire plane went INTO the Pentagon. He's
certainly NOT saying that no plane hit the Pentagon.
lensm...@hotmail.com
There are no large tail sections, wing
sections, fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around which would
indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon
and then caused the side to collapse.
The conspiracy buffs are suggesting that this line shows that nothing
could have hit the Pentagon. As I read it, he's saying that the
evidence "would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of
Traceyl...
A jet engine has a shell of aluminum, but the rotor blades inside are super durable and would never burn in a fuel fire because they are made of stronger than steel Titanium. Yet, not only are the blades of the jet engine made of Titanium, but the core of the engine is as well. Did anyone see any engine parts, rotors, fans, etc. left over from the Pentagon fire? Were any of those parts removed, or exposed in the structure?
Remember, the wings of the plane position the engines away from where the main fuselage would impact the Pentagon.
El Kabong wrote:
On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 16:46:59 GMT, George Grapman <sfge...@paccbell.net> wrote:The report was dated the following Feb. and indicated how well the rebuilding had gone.
You moron, it was a live CNN report, you can see the smoke in the background. http://infowars.com/articles/sept11/cnn_report_no_plane_pentagon.htm Here is a video clip from CNN coverage on the morning of 9/11. CNN reporter Jamie McIntyre says he inspected the Pentagon site and it is obvious no plane crashed there. JAMIE MCINTYRE: From my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon. The only site, is the actual side of the building that's crashed in. And as I said, the only pieces left that you can see are small enough that you pick up in your hand. There are no large tail sections, wing sections, fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon and then caused the side to collapse. Even though if you look at the pictures of the Pentagon you see that the floors have all collapsed, that didn't happenm immediately. It wasn't until almost about 45 minutes later that the structure was weakened enough that all of the floors collapsed. + "As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron." --- H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956) "The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those who have not got it." - G. B. Shaw Want to know what's really going on in Iraq?
George Grapman
> On 27 Feb 2005 03:53:48 -0800, lensm...@hotmail.com posted:
>
>
>>As I see it, he's saying that the plane did not crash NEAR the
>>Pentagon, but that the entire plane went INTO the Pentagon. He's
>>certainly NOT saying that no plane hit the Pentagon.
>
>
>
> words from the clip to make an ARGUMENT against the ignorant claims
> that fat, stupid, commie slob Bryan Jamieson is making.
>
> Lensman has it exactly right: The reporter even stressed the word
> 'near' in the video clip, and plainly stated that the plain crashed
> directly into the building, rather than outside it.
>
> Get with it, George. Pay attention and we'll turn you into a
> semblance of a man with a brain, yet.
I recently noted that your intellect is limited to an unclever
misspelling of my name as you rarely have anything of substance. Thanks
for backing up my claim.
BrianEWilliams
happened to all the people that had been on that flight? Perhaps the
military-industrial complex had them exterminated. That would fit
pretty well with your view of the world, wouldn't it?
Also, let's say that Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon. What did? If
it was a missile, who fired it? If it was a small plane, who piloted
it? If you say the US fired the missile or piloted the plane, exactly
what would have motivated our leaders to do this on incredibly short
notice? I think two World Trade Center towers in flames was plenty of
justification for whatever Bush wanted to do. Why would he have to
manufacture more justification at a TREMENDOUS risk of impeachment,
jail, and even the death sentence if this alleged conspiracy came to
light?
Isn't is more likely that flight 77 DID hit the Pentagon, and it hit at
full speed which propelled all of the flight debris INTO the building
and thus out of site.
Here is some more information about this issue:
David Moffitt
> On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 13:12:06 GMT, "Traceyl..."
> <tracey12...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >It is interesting that there is no plane parts that can be seen in the
> >Pentagon fire. If nothing else, the two huge engines should have been
> >lying around in parts. Why? Although the aluminum body of any plane
> >will surely burn in a massive fuel fire, and it wil be crushed like a
> >beer can as it hits the Pentagon, still the incredible design of a
> >modern jet engine will never perish in the heat of a mere fuel fire.
> >
> >A jet engine has a shell of aluminum, but the rotor blades inside are
> >super durable and would never burn in a fuel fire because they are made
> >of stronger than steel Titanium. Yet, not only are the blades of the
> >jet engine made of Titanium, but the core of the engine is as well.
> >Did anyone see any engine parts, rotors, fans, etc. left over from the
> >Pentagon fire? Were any of those parts removed, or exposed in the
> >structure?
> >
> >Remember, the wings of the plane position the engines away from where
> >the main fuselage would impact the Pentagon.
>
> of a white wall and said that the picture was taken at the third ring
> in at the Pentagon. Aside from the fact that there were no
> corresponding holes in the facade of the Pentagon to show where the
> engines might have entered (in fact, there weren't even any broken
> windows) but the wall the engine was in front of was clearly
> whitewashed brick. There are no brick walls in the Pentagon building.
%%%% Why does it matter to a cowardly socialist Canadian?
"Suppose something happened here, and you had to scram to another country in
a hurry to save your ass. Would you renounce your American citizenship
after a few years?" --Zepp Jamieson 1997
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=3372a9c3.258180564%40news.snowcrest.net
1493 Dead
<sorry_n...@yahoo.com> wrote:
So where is the debris INSIDE the building? The only piece of
airplane wreckage shown was a bent and battered (but not burned) piece
of engine cowling. And a large object shrouded tightly in tarp that
they claimed was one of the engines.
In order to believe the story about a 767 hitting the building, you
have to believe that the plane was flying straight and level at full
throttle at an altitude of twelve feet, hit the building somewhat
obliquely (at about a 30 degree angle), left a hole only twelve feet
wide, without shattering windows. It hit hard enough to virtually
vaporize every thing, including titanium engine cores and the black
boxes, yet burned cool and clean that wooden furniture, computer
monitors, and even pieces of paper in offices immediately adjoining
the impact hole were unscathed.
Your questions about what became of the passengers, what exactly did
hit the Pentagon and so on are all very valid and legitimate ones.
But first things first. The claim that flight 77 hit the Pentagon is
a lie. No point in even considering the other questions until you
acknowedge that.
>
>Here is some more information about this issue:
>
>http://www.freedomfiles.org/war/pentagon.htm
-
MikeSoja
>As I see it, he's saying that the plane did not crash NEAR the
>Pentagon, but that the entire plane went INTO the Pentagon. He's
>certainly NOT saying that no plane hit the Pentagon.
Note to George Crapman: See, George, THAT'S how you do it. You use
words from the clip to make an ARGUMENT against the ignorant claims
that fat, stupid, commie slob Bryan Jamieson is making.
Lensman has it exactly right: The reporter even stressed the word
'near' in the video clip, and plainly stated that the plain crashed
directly into the building, rather than outside it.
Get with it, George. Pay attention and we'll turn you into a
semblance of a man with a brain, yet.
Clay
> It is interesting that there is no plane parts that can be seen in
the
> Pentagon fire.
Then, I guess it didn't happen. Forget about the site for sec,
maniac... let's go back to the airport. Is it your contention that no
airplane was hi-jacked?
Moron!!!
> If nothing else, the two huge engines should have been
> lying around in parts. Why? Although the aluminum body of any
plane
> will surely burn in a massive fuel fire, and it wil be crushed like a
> beer can as it hits the Pentagon, still the incredible design of a
> modern jet engine will never perish in the heat of a mere fuel fire.
I've listened to the WBAI-FM (NYC) version of this madness (the madness
being that nothing untoward happened on 9/11/01) and thought: "can
leftist, shit-for-brains idiots really be this stupid?" Thanks for the
answer.
> A jet engine has a shell of aluminum, but the rotor blades inside are
> super durable and would never burn in a fuel fire because they are
made
> of stronger than steel Titanium. Yet, not only are the blades of the
> jet engine made of Titanium, but the core of the engine is as well.
> Did anyone see any engine parts, rotors, fans, etc. left over from
the
> Pentagon fire? Were any of those parts removed, or exposed in the
> structure?
It would be nice... indeed a dream... if brain-injured (and the reason
for the injury has to do with last November's results) leftist spent
all of their time attempting to disprove what happened almost 4 years
ago. That would be NIRVANA for us Conservatives.
> Remember, the wings of the plane position the engines away from where
> the main fuselage would impact the Pentagon.
The complete stupidity of some on the left boggles the mind. It's an
amazing, amazing thing to behold. Thanks for the glimpse.
-C-
David Moffitt
> claiming NOTHING hit the Pentagon, incidently. Stop lying.
%%%% Why does it matter to a cowardly socialist Canadian?
"Suppose something happened here, and you had to scram to another country in
a hurry to save your ass. Would you renounce your American citizenship
after a few years?" --Zepp Jamieson 1997
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=3372a9c3.258180564%40news.snowcrest.net
> -
1493 Dead
<tracey12...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>It is interesting that there is no plane parts that can be seen in the
>Pentagon fire. If nothing else, the two huge engines should have been
>lying around in parts. Why? Although the aluminum body of any plane
>will surely burn in a massive fuel fire, and it wil be crushed like a
>beer can as it hits the Pentagon, still the incredible design of a
>modern jet engine will never perish in the heat of a mere fuel fire.
>
>A jet engine has a shell of aluminum, but the rotor blades inside are
>super durable and would never burn in a fuel fire because they are made
>of stronger than steel Titanium. Yet, not only are the blades of the
>jet engine made of Titanium, but the core of the engine is as well.
>Did anyone see any engine parts, rotors, fans, etc. left over from the
>Pentagon fire? Were any of those parts removed, or exposed in the
>structure?
>
>Remember, the wings of the plane position the engines away from where
>the main fuselage would impact the Pentagon.
One of the debunker websites showed a picture of a jet engine in front
of a white wall and said that the picture was taken at the third ring
in at the Pentagon. Aside from the fact that there were no
corresponding holes in the facade of the Pentagon to show where the
engines might have entered (in fact, there weren't even any broken
windows) but the wall the engine was in front of was clearly
whitewashed brick. There are no brick walls in the Pentagon building.
>
>
>
>
>
>
-
MikeSoja
C'mon, Georgie, you can slam the fat, stupid, commie slob Jamieson
better than that. Can't you?
When are you going to learn to fashion a decent argument, George?
Everything you need to rub stupid Jamieson's nose in it is right in
that video clip, and the web site even GIVES you a complete
transcript of the remarks, so you don't have to worry about links
and such.
I'm sure stupid, commie slob Jamieson has me killfiled, but I've
already jammed that stupid clip back at him with pointed comments.
Still, obviously the ignoramus still clings to his disgusting
conspiracy theory.
Jump in there, George, and give him hell. If you can.
MikeSoja
>A simple question. If Flight 77 didn't crash into the Pentagon, what
>happened to all the people that had been on that flight? Perhaps the
>military-industrial complex had them exterminated. That would fit
>pretty well with your view of the world, wouldn't it?
The fat, stupid, commie slob Bryan Jamieson (currently posting under
the appropriate pseudonym of XXX_Dead) has no theory about what else
might have crashed into the building. His stupidity does not
require him to think things all the way through, you see.
>Also, let's say that Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon. What did? If
>it was a missile, who fired it? If it was a small plane, who piloted
>it? If you say the US fired the missile or piloted the plane, exactly
>what would have motivated our leaders to do this on incredibly short
>notice? I think two World Trade Center towers in flames was plenty of
>justification for whatever Bush wanted to do. Why would he have to
>manufacture more justification at a TREMENDOUS risk of impeachment,
>jail, and even the death sentence if this alleged conspiracy came to
>light?
Rationality breaks down all over this conspiracy theory, and yet
there are plenty of chumps like Jamieson eager to shout to the world
how exceedingly stupid they are.
>Isn't is more likely that flight 77 DID hit the Pentagon, and it hit at
>full speed which propelled all of the flight debris INTO the building
>and thus out of site.
It's not even "likely", it's required.
>Here is some more information about this issue:
>http://www.freedomfiles.org/war/pentagon.htm
Well, there's another monument to someone's hard-worked stupidity.
How many hours to you think those idiots put into that shit?
Of course, not only is it a monument to some individual's
renouncement of reality, it's also a reflection on the audience
which the idiot undoubtedly knows he serves.
Bring up the subject of Flight 77 among acquaintances and find out
just how stupid and gullible they are, and reflect on the state of
education in America that can leave people bereft of the ability to
spot the simplest of flaws in arguments, bereft of the most basic
knowledge that might inform one, or inform one enough to begin a
rational process of information seeking about what might really
happen when a mostly aluminum plane slams into a heavily reinforced
concrete wall at high speed.
The implications for this country are not good, though maybe I see
too many of the nutters by hanging out in places like this one.
David Moffitt
> On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 03:51:05 GMT, George Grapman
> <sfge...@paccbell.net> wrote:
>
> >1490 Dead wrote:
> >> On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 16:46:59 GMT, George Grapman
> >> <sfge...@paccbell.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> The report was dated the following Feb. and indicated how well the
> >>>rebuilding had gone.
> >>> Doesn't your government stipend include aluminum foil for your
window?
> >>
> >>
> >> Poor Georgie. Too cowardly to watch the clip, too stupid to avoid
> >> trying to lie about it.
> >>
> >> The clip is from the morning of 9/11/01, and is a part of CNN's live
> >> coverage of the event at the Pentagon.
> >>
> >> Can't the GOP hire a better class of fool than you?
> >
> > Funniest post on the net since Zep accused me of being a right wing
> >fanatic.
> > Obviously you either never read the link or , more likely, failed to
> >comprehend it.
>
> I notice that George also snipped out the link in question. Here it
> is for anyone who wants to check it:
>
> http://infowars.com/articles/sept11/cnn_report_no_plane_pentagon.htm
%%%% Why does it matter to a cowardly socialist Canadian?
"Suppose something happened here, and you had to scram to another country in
a hurry to save your ass. Would you renounce your American citizenship
after a few years?" --Zepp Jamieson 1997
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=3372a9c3.258180564%40news.snowcrest.net
>
1493 Dead
wrote:
>
>"1493 Dead" <zepp1493#2211finestplanet.com> wrote in message
>news:8mm22157uh6h8adro...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 05:20:04 GMT, George Grapman
>> <sfge...@paccbell.net> wrote:
>>
>>> The headline to the link clams that CNN said that a plane never hit
>>>the building but the reporter simply said there was no sign of a plane
>>>from where he stood.
>>
>> http://infowars.com/articles/sept11/cnn_report_no_plane_pentagon.htm
>>
>> And don't hand me any more crap. You haven't visited the site. You're
>> making a fool out of yourself.
>
>
> Au contraire mon ami. George has the context down perfectly.
>Are you seriously claiming that CNN *emphatically* reported that
>*no* Plane hit the pentagon on 9-11?
I am indeed. Go watch it yourself.
>
>I know you think that, but I doubt that's what Jamie Macintyre was
>trying to say.
You have no clue what you're talking about. Try to pretend that you
actually could be bothered, and go to
http://infowars.com/articles/sept11/cnn_report_no_plane_pentagon.htm
-
David Moffitt
> On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 01:24:44 -0500, "Riley The Dog" <wo...@wag.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"1493 Dead" <zepp1493#2211finestplanet.com> wrote in message
> >news:8mm22157uh6h8adro...@4ax.com...
> >> On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 05:20:04 GMT, George Grapman
> >> <sfge...@paccbell.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>> The headline to the link clams that CNN said that a plane never hit
> >>>the building but the reporter simply said there was no sign of a plane
> >>>from where he stood.
> >>
> >> http://infowars.com/articles/sept11/cnn_report_no_plane_pentagon.htm
> >>
> >> And don't hand me any more crap. You haven't visited the site. You're
> >> making a fool out of yourself.
> >
> >
> > Au contraire mon ami. George has the context down perfectly.
> >Are you seriously claiming that CNN *emphatically* reported that
> >*no* Plane hit the pentagon on 9-11?
>
> I am indeed. Go watch it yourself.
> >
> >I know you think that, but I doubt that's what Jamie Macintyre was
> >trying to say.
>
> You have no clue what you're talking about. Try to pretend that you
> actually could be bothered, and go to
> http://infowars.com/articles/sept11/cnn_report_no_plane_pentagon.htm
%%%% Why does it matter to a cowardly socialist Canadian?
"Suppose something happened here, and you had to scram to another country in
a hurry to save your ass. Would you renounce your American citizenship
after a few years?" --Zepp Jamieson 1997
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=3372a9c3.258180564%40news.snowcrest.net
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>
David Moffitt
> On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 03:51:05 GMT, George Grapman
> <sfge...@paccbell.net> wrote:
>
> >1490 Dead wrote:
> >> On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 16:46:59 GMT, George Grapman
> >> <sfge...@paccbell.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> The report was dated the following Feb. and indicated how well the
> >>>rebuilding had gone.
> >>> Doesn't your government stipend include aluminum foil for your
window?
> >>
> >>
> >> Poor Georgie. Too cowardly to watch the clip, too stupid to avoid
> >> trying to lie about it.
> >>
> >> The clip is from the morning of 9/11/01, and is a part of CNN's live
> >> coverage of the event at the Pentagon.
> >>
> >> Can't the GOP hire a better class of fool than you?
> >
> > Funniest post on the net since Zep accused me of being a right wing
> >fanatic.
> > Obviously you either never read the link or , more likely, failed to
> >comprehend it.
>
> It's a video clip, you fucking moron!
%%%% Why does it matter to a cowardly socialist Canadian?
"Suppose something happened here, and you had to scram to another country in
a hurry to save your ass. Would you renounce your American citizenship
after a few years?" --Zepp Jamieson 1997
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=3372a9c3.258180564%40news.snowcrest.net
>
David Moffitt
> On 27 Feb 2005 06:47:06 -0800, "BrianEWilliams"
> <sorry_n...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >A simple question. If Flight 77 didn't crash into the Pentagon, what
> >happened to all the people that had been on that flight? Perhaps the
> >military-industrial complex had them exterminated. That would fit
> >pretty well with your view of the world, wouldn't it?
> >
> >Also, let's say that Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon. What did? If
> >it was a missile, who fired it? If it was a small plane, who piloted
> >it? If you say the US fired the missile or piloted the plane, exactly
> >what would have motivated our leaders to do this on incredibly short
> >notice? I think two World Trade Center towers in flames was plenty of
> >justification for whatever Bush wanted to do. Why would he have to
> >manufacture more justification at a TREMENDOUS risk of impeachment,
> >jail, and even the death sentence if this alleged conspiracy came to
> >light?
> >
> >Isn't is more likely that flight 77 DID hit the Pentagon, and it hit at
> >full speed which propelled all of the flight debris INTO the building
> >and thus out of site.
>
> So where is the debris INSIDE the building? The only piece of
> airplane wreckage shown was a bent and battered (but not burned) piece
> of engine cowling. And a large object shrouded tightly in tarp that
> they claimed was one of the engines.
%%%% Why does it matter to a cowardly socialist Canadian?
"Suppose something happened here, and you had to scram to another country in
a hurry to save your ass. Would you renounce your American citizenship
after a few years?" --Zepp Jamieson 1997
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=3372a9c3.258180564%40news.snowcrest.net
>
1493 Dead
1493 Dead
After leaving a hole just twelve feet wide at its widest. Nobody is
claiming NOTHING hit the Pentagon, incidently. Stop lying.
-
David Moffitt
> On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 05:20:04 GMT, George Grapman
> <sfge...@paccbell.net> wrote:
>
> > The headline to the link clams that CNN said that a plane never hit
> >the building but the reporter simply said there was no sign of a plane
> >from where he stood.
>
> http://infowars.com/articles/sept11/cnn_report_no_plane_pentagon.htm
>
> And don't hand me any more crap. You haven't visited the site. You're
> making a fool out of yourself.
%%%% Why does it matter to a cowardly socialist Canadian?
"Suppose something happened here, and you had to scram to another country in
a hurry to save your ass. Would you renounce your American citizenship
after a few years?" --Zepp Jamieson 1997
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=3372a9c3.258180564%40news.snowcrest.net
>
David Moffitt
> On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 22:36:26 -0600, "Liberals,HATE.America!"
> <gb...@liberalsuck.ced> wrote:
>
> >
> >"1489 Dead" <zepp1489#2211finestplanet.com> wrote in message
> >news:tk8121p7uo9jpvjvp...@4ax.com...
> >>
> >> <http://infowars.com/articles/sept11/cnn_report_no_plane_pentagon.htm>
> >>
> >> From Infowars Website:
> >> Here is a video clip from CNN coverage on the morning of 9/11. CNN
> >> reporter Jamie McIntyre says he inspected the Pentagon site and it is
> >> obvious no plane crashed there.
> >
>
> Another cowardly American right winger makes his mating call!
MikeSoja
<zepp1493#2211finestplanet.com> posted:
>On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 05:20:04 GMT, George Grapman
><sfge...@paccbell.net> wrote:
>> The headline to the link clams that CNN said that a plane never hit
>>the building but the reporter simply said there was no sign of a plane
>>from where he stood.
>http://infowars.com/articles/sept11/cnn_report_no_plane_pentagon.htm
>And don't hand me any more crap. You haven't visited the site. You're
>making a fool out of yourself.
The only fool here is you, Jamieson, you fat, stupid, commie slob.
The reporter, McIntyre specifically says, "[T]he entire plane
crashed into the side of the Pentagon".
What you've done is twist the statement, "[T]here's no evidence of a
plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon", into something the
reporter did not intend. The reporter's operative word in that
sentence was the word "near"(he heavily stresses the word in the
audio) and his entire statement was meant to convey the fact that
the plane did not crash outside the Pentagon and then slide into it,
but, according to his own inspection, crashed directly into the
building.
How stupid do you have to be, Jamieson, to put your big, fat, ugly
self behind such a transparent farce?
Here's the full transcript of the video clip:
JAMIE MCINTYRE: From my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of
a plane having crashed anywhere NEAR the Pentagon. [emphasis added
to match the audio - Soja]
The only site, is the actual side of the building that's crashed in.
And as I said, the only pieces left that you can see are small
enough that you pick up in your hand. There are no large tail
sections, wing sections, fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around
which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of
the Pentagon and then caused the side to collapse.
Even though if you look at the pictures of the Pentagon you see that
the floors have all collapsed, that didn't happenm immediately. It
wasn't until almost about 45 minutes later that the structure was
weakened enough that all of the floors collapsed.
//--------
MikeSoja
>It is interesting that there is no plane parts that can be seen in the
>Pentagon fire.
You mean there are no parts that can be seen by staring at your
computer monitor? Yeah, that IS interesting.
>If nothing else, the two huge engines should have been
>lying around in parts.
Could you see them from your desk if they smashed through the outer
wall of the Pentagon and went inside?
>Why? Although the aluminum body of any plane
>will surely burn in a massive fuel fire, and it wil be crushed like a
>beer can as it hits the Pentagon, still the incredible design of a
>modern jet engine will never perish in the heat of a mere fuel fire.
More than "mere fuel" burned at the Pentagon that morning. The fuel
started the fire, granted, but then everything in that section of
Pentagon burned with its own heat, too.
However, that still doen't mean that there were no engine parts to
be found within the building after the fire was out. The fact that
YOU never saw them means nothing to anyone.
>A jet engine has a shell of aluminum, but the rotor blades inside are
>super durable and would never burn in a fuel fire because they are made
>of stronger than steel Titanium. Yet, not only are the blades of the
>jet engine made of Titanium, but the core of the engine is as well.
>Did anyone see any engine parts, rotors, fans, etc. left over from the
>Pentagon fire?
Yes, actually, many people did.
>Were any of those parts removed, or exposed in the structure?
Yes, many people saw pieces of commercial jet liner within and
without the building.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=6&c=y
Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer
to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the
emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you
why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC,
Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of
the building. 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 found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is
backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the
building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew
members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"
//-- end excerpt
>Remember, the wings of the plane position the engines away from where
>the main fuselage would impact the Pentagon.
So what? There is NO evidence that anything but American Airlines
Flight 77 with 59 passengers and crew and five hijackers crashed
into the Pentagon on the morning of September 11, 2001. Against the
mountain of evidence establishing that Flight 77 did crash into the
Pentagon, including scores of eye witnesses, only a moron would be
the least little bit confused on the matter.
David Moffitt
> On 27 Feb 2005 03:53:48 -0800, lensm...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >As I see it, he's saying that the plane did not crash NEAR the
> >Pentagon, but that the entire plane went INTO the Pentagon. He's
> >certainly NOT saying that no plane hit the Pentagon.
>
> Yes he is. Quite emphatically.
>
> http://infowars.com/articles/sept11/cnn_report_no_plane_pentagon.htm
%%%% Why does it matter to a cowardly socialist Canadian?
"Suppose something happened here, and you had to scram to another country in
a hurry to save your ass. Would you renounce your American citizenship
after a few years?" --Zepp Jamieson 1997
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=3372a9c3.258180564%40news.snowcrest.net
>
1487 Dead
Well, George, if you have that obsessive crackpot following you around
and whining loudly, maybe you aren't all bad at that.
Poor Soja is a chichiua in the name of fascism.
David Moffitt
"1487 Dead" <zepp#221114...@nospamzeppscommentaries.com> wrote in message
news:c20421daf18298ilo...@4ax.com...
%%%% Why does it matter to a cowardly socialist Canadian?
"Suppose something happened here, and you had to scram to another country in
a hurry to save your ass. Would you renounce your American citizenship
after a few years?" --Zepp Jamieson 1997
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=3372a9c3.258180564%40news.snowcrest.net
>
MikeSoja
<zepp#221114...@nospamzeppscommentaries.com> posted:
That's pretty brave of you, you fat, stupid, commie slob,
considering you can't bring yourself to respond directly to me.
And I daresay the "obsessive crackpot" is the fellow featured in my
sig.
Mike Soja
"There are no brick walls in the Pentagon building."
MikeSoja
>MikeSoja wrote:
>> On 27 Feb 2005 03:53:48 -0800, lensm...@hotmail.com posted:
>>>As I see it, he's saying that the plane did not crash NEAR the
>>>Pentagon, but that the entire plane went INTO the Pentagon. He's
>>>certainly NOT saying that no plane hit the Pentagon.
>> Note to George Crapman: See, George, THAT'S how you do it. You use
>> words from the clip to make an ARGUMENT against the ignorant claims
>> that fat, stupid, commie slob Bryan Jamieson is making.
>> Lensman has it exactly right: The reporter even stressed the word
>> 'near' in the video clip, and plainly stated that the plain crashed
>> directly into the building, rather than outside it.
>> Get with it, George. Pay attention and we'll turn you into a
>> semblance of a man with a brain, yet.
> I recently noted that your intellect is limited to an unclever
>misspelling of my name as you rarely have anything of substance.
You're stupidly lying, Georgie. I never "limit" myself to
misspelling your name, as you well know. I also thoroughly destroy
your weak, ignorant arguments.
Except in this case, I'm trying to HELP you make points against the
fat, stupid, commie slob Bryan Jamieson. And who knows, Crapman,
maybe if you master something simple, like setting Jamieson straight
on the Pentagon tin-foil conspiracy, you can work your way up to
challenging the tenets of Socialism, and thereby earn the right to
be addressed as a human being.
>Thanks for backing up my claim.
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT.
Thanks for making another empty statement. Crapman.
Mike Soja
"There are no brick walls in the Pentagon building."
MikeSoja
<zepp1493#2211finestplanet.com> posted:
>On 27 Feb 2005 03:56:46 -0800, lensm...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>This is the problematic line;
>>There are no large tail sections, wing
>>sections, fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around which would
>>indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon
>>and then caused the side to collapse.
>>The conspiracy buffs are suggesting that this line shows that nothing
>>could have hit the Pentagon. As I read it, he's saying that the
>>evidence "would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of
>>the Pentagon and then caused the side to collapse."
>After leaving a hole just twelve feet wide at its widest. Nobody is
>claiming NOTHING hit the Pentagon, incidently. Stop lying.
"[T]welve feet wide". That's precious. It's fat, stupid, commie
slob Bryan Jamieson's incredible shrinking hole! I don't know if my
quotes are exhaustive, but Jamieson's "hole" is plainly growing
smaller the further he waddles away from September 11, 2001.
Note that stupid, scumbag Jamieson likes to misspell "hole" when he
talks about the Pentagon...
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 07:38:15 -0700
Message-ID: <dhcvn0df6280hvcsa...@4ax.com>
"In the case of the Pentagon, the whole was, at it's widest point,
thirty-five feet across."
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 05:50:40 -0700
Message-ID: <2avcf0hrlh74qmjvc...@4ax.com>
"Explain how a 757 could sustain level flight just ten feet from the
ground for several hundred yards, and explain how the plane could
utterly vanish, leaving only an unburned but crumpled engine
cowling, in a twenty foot hold."
Today's hole:
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 07:03:26 -0800
Message-ID: <c7o321pdf26eifbja...@4ax.com>
"After leaving a hole just twelve feet wide at its widest."
Of course, the "real" hole was at least seventy-five feet across,
more than enough to admit the fuselage and engines of a Boeing 757,
and to undermine the structure so thoroughly that an entire section
collapsed. Amazingly, the section that collapsed was approximately
78 feet across, too. What a coincidence, eh?
See sig for more stupid, commie Jamieson laughs.
MikeSoja
<zepp1493#2211finestplanet.com> posted:
>One of the debunker websites showed a picture of a jet engine in front
>of a white wall and said that the picture was taken at the third ring
>in at the Pentagon. Aside from the fact that there were no
>corresponding holes in the facade of the Pentagon to show where the
>engines might have entered (in fact, there weren't even any broken
>windows) but the wall the engine was in front of was clearly
>whitewashed brick. There are no brick walls in the Pentagon building.
Fat, stupid, commie slob Bryan Jamieson waddles himself a few yards
further from reality.
LOL.
No broken windows. No brick walls in the Pentagon! Amazing.
The pictures at the end of these links seem to belie Jamieson's
obese stupidity.
Pictures from page:
http://www.freedomfiles.org/war/pentagon.htm
Pictures of bricks:
http://members.shaw.ca/freedomsix/pics/pentagon-punchout.gif
http://members.shaw.ca/freedomsix/pics/punchout-path.jpg
Pictures of broken windows:
http://members.shaw.ca/freedomsix/pics/pent-foam-small.jpg
http://members.shaw.ca/freedomsix/pics/pent_collapse_look.jpg
http://members.shaw.ca/freedomsix/pics/collapse-note-pylons-a.jpg
See new addition to Jamieson's sig-parade.
Mike Soja
"There are no brick walls in the Pentagon building."
lensm...@hotmail.com
enough that you pick up in your hand. There are no large tail
sections, wing sections, fuselage, nothing like that
anywhere around
which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of
the Pentagon and then caused the side to collapse
I think he's deliberately mis reading this to say that there's nothing
around the site that would indicate a plane hitting the builidng.
whereas most of us think he's saying the fact that there's no debris
shows that nothing hit the ground NEAR the Pentagon and the entire
MikeSoja
Of course, McIntyre has no doubts himself about which plane hit the
Pentagon (hint: It was in all the papers). These quotes were put
together by someone who claims to be "open minded", which means
Weeeee Oooooooo, but one presumes the quotes are accurate.
http://pentagonresearch.com/debris.html
//--excerpt
The following quotes are from JAMIE MCINTYRE, Sr. Pentagon
Correspondent. He was the first reporter on the scene and took a lot
of video. The quotes are taken from several different interviews.
Jamie has no question about a plane impacting the Pentagon in the
full context of the interviews. He has been honest in describing the
size and quality of the debris and his experience though. He also
filed Freedom of Information Act requests for the videos that had
been confiscated and was denied.
Jamie McIntyre, correspondent of CNN at the Pentagon, was in his
office at the time of the crash. "I immediately ran on the spot of
the crash. Hundreds of pieces from the plane were strewn on the
ground, including a piece of the fuselage and a partial cockpit
windshield identified by CNN."
"First of all, as you said, I was there that day. I went and looked.
I saw the plane wreckage. There were thousands of pieces of this
plane all over the ground near the Pentagon as I went out there that
day."
"I could see parts of the airplane that crashed into the building,
very small pieces of the plane on the heliport outside the building.
The biggest piece I saw was about three feet long, it was silver and
had been painted green and red, but I could not see any identifying
markings on the plane. I also saw a large piece of shattered glass.
It appeared to be a cockpit windshield or other window from the
plane."
"You know, it might have appeared that way, but from my close-up
inspection, there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere
near the Pentagon. The only site is the actual site of the building
that's crashed in, and as I said, the only pieces left that you can
see are small enough that you can pick up in your hand. There are no
large tail sections, wing sections, fuselage, nothing like that
anywhere around, which would indicate that the entire plane crashed
into the side of the Pentagon and then caused the side to collapse.
Now, even though if you look at the pictures of the Pentagon you see
that the floors have all collapsed; that didn't happen
immediately....."
//--end excerpt
"There are no brick walls in the Pentagon building."
Jeffrey Scott Linder
>On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 22:36:26 -0600, "Liberals,HATE.America!"
><gb...@liberalsuck.ced> wrote:
>
>>
>>"1489 Dead" <zepp1489#2211finestplanet.com> wrote in message
>>news:tk8121p7uo9jpvjvp...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>> <http://infowars.com/articles/sept11/cnn_report_no_plane_pentagon.htm>
>>>
>>> From Infowars Website:
>>> Here is a video clip from CNN coverage on the morning of 9/11. CNN
>>> reporter Jamie McIntyre says he inspected the Pentagon site and it is
>>> obvious no plane crashed there.
>>
>>Cuckoo!! Cuckoo!! Cuckoo!!
>
>Another cowardly American right winger makes his mating call!
And you were quick to answer. Lonely are you?
JSL
1496 Dead
Stop projecting, Jeffy. You ain't gittin any off this boy.
>
>JSL
Jeffrey Scott Linder
Is that supposed to be some sort of insult? What are you? A
homophobe?
JSL
1493 Dead
Linder) wrote:
Do you always take "no" as an insult, Jeffy? I bet date rape was a
large part of your high school extracirriculum.
>
>JSL
ocon...@slr.orl.lmco.com
1493 Dead wrote:
[snip]
> In order to believe the story about a 767 hitting the building, you
> have to believe that the plane was flying straight and level at full
> throttle at an altitude of twelve feet,
Or hit the ground at least once before reaching the building, and
striking one of the engines on the ground (it'd be hard not to).
This would initiate wing failure and begin the break up before any of
the
plane reached the building.
> hit the building somewhat obliquely (at about a 30 degree angle),
Caused by impacting the wings at different times generating a
net rotation of the fuselage.
> left a hole only twelve feet wide, without shattering windows.
The hole was a variety of sizes. It wasn't some Road Runner
cartoon where the hole is going to be the shape of the cayote.
Without an explosion, there is little reason for windows to break.
Houses collapse from tornados and have intact windows. Windows
tend not to be structurally connected to the building. (For
good reason, it can cause them to crack as the building settles.
Seems I remember some building in Boston where they tried to
connect the windows to the primary structure and they started to
pop out during high winds.)
> It hit hard enough to virtually
> vaporize every thing, including titanium engine cores and the black
> boxes, yet burned cool and clean that wooden furniture, computer
> monitors, and even pieces of paper in offices immediately adjoining
> the impact hole were unscathed.
Ya ever been in the Pentagon? This was a section that had been
recently hardened. They are specifically designed to prevent
spreading of damage from fire and explosions.
1493 Dead
>
>1493 Dead wrote:
>[snip]
>> In order to believe the story about a 767 hitting the building, you
>> have to believe that the plane was flying straight and level at full
>> throttle at an altitude of twelve feet,
>
> Or hit the ground at least once before reaching the building, and
>striking one of the engines on the ground (it'd be hard not to).
>This would initiate wing failure and begin the break up before any of
>the
>plane reached the building.
One of the arguments used by people who support the plane theory is
that witnesses reported that the plane struck an object on the way
in-- a light pole -- and one of the wings sheared. That should prove
beyond all doubt that it was a plane. So where is the debris? And
how did a 757 under power continue to fly more or less straight and
level and just a few feet off the ground?
>
>> hit the building somewhat obliquely (at about a 30 degree angle),
>
> Caused by impacting the wings at different times generating a
>net rotation of the fuselage.
>
>> left a hole only twelve feet wide, without shattering windows.
>
> The hole was a variety of sizes. It wasn't some Road Runner
>cartoon where the hole is going to be the shape of the cayote.
>Without an explosion, there is little reason for windows to break.
>Houses collapse from tornados and have intact windows. Windows
>tend not to be structurally connected to the building. (For
>good reason, it can cause them to crack as the building settles.
>Seems I remember some building in Boston where they tried to
>connect the windows to the primary structure and they started to
>pop out during high winds.)
>
There's still the matter of where the wings (and engines) went. The
hole was 14' across at it's widest point. So where did the wings go?
That's the significance of the unshattered windows. Nothing struck
them directly.
Then too, we have the matter of the fuel burning. In New York, said
fuel burned so intensely that it caused two steel skyscrapers to
collapse within a hour of impact (and recently, a 35 story steel
skyscraper in Madrid Spain burned to a skeleton, and did not
collapse), but in the case of the Pentagon, a similarly fueled fire
did not cause glass to break, not even on computer monitors feet from
the location of the fire, or even cause paper to ignite.
>> It hit hard enough to virtually
>> vaporize every thing, including titanium engine cores and the black
>> boxes, yet burned cool and clean that wooden furniture, computer
>> monitors, and even pieces of paper in offices immediately adjoining
>> the impact hole were unscathed.
>
> Ya ever been in the Pentagon? This was a section that had been
>recently hardened. They are specifically designed to prevent
>spreading of damage from fire and explosions.
So where did the plane go? Planes sometimes fly into mountains, which
are even more hardened against damage from fire and explosions, and
there's plenty of debris.
MikeSoja
<zepp1493#2211finestplanet.com> posted:
>There's still the matter of where the wings (and engines) went. The
>hole was 14' across at it's widest point. So where did the wings go?
Whoops!! Fat, stupid, commie slob Jamieson just can't seem to get
the size of that hole right! His hole has gone from 35' to 20' to
12' and now it's up again a tad to 14'. Someone tell Jamieson the
hole was a good 75 feet across, about the same size as the section
of the Pentagon that collapsed (imagine that!), and that everything
on a 757 except the outer lengths of wings fit inside it.
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 07:38:15 -0700
Message-ID: <dhcvn0df6280hvcsa...@4ax.com>
"In the case of the Pentagon, the whole was, at it's widest point,
thirty-five feet across."
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 05:50:40 -0700
Message-ID: <2avcf0hrlh74qmjvc...@4ax.com>
"Explain how a 757 could sustain level flight just ten feet from the
ground for several hundred yards, and explain how the plane could
utterly vanish, leaving only an unburned but crumpled engine
cowling, in a twenty foot hold."
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 07:03:26 -0800
Message-ID: <c7o321pdf26eifbja...@4ax.com>
"After leaving a hole just twelve feet wide at its widest."
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 07:23:02 -0800
Message-ID: <rpo3219veemuvdvkl...@4ax.com>
"In order to believe the story about a 767 hitting the building, you
have to believe that the plane was flying straight and level at full
throttle at an altitude of twelve feet, hit the building somewhat
obliquely (at about a 30 degree angle), left a hole only twelve feet
wide, without shattering windows."
Mike Soja
Jeffrey Scott Linder
>On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 13:46:28 GMT, linde...@osu.edu (Jeffrey Scott
>Linder) wrote:
>
>>1496 Dead <zepp#221114...@nospamzeppscommentaries.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 15:21:16 GMT, linde...@osu.edu (Jeffrey Scott
>>>Linder) wrote:
>>>
>>>>1493 Dead <zepp1493#2211finestplanet.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 22:36:26 -0600, "Liberals,HATE.America!"
>>>>><gb...@liberalsuck.ced> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"1489 Dead" <zepp1489#2211finestplanet.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:tk8121p7uo9jpvjvp...@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <http://infowars.com/articles/sept11/cnn_report_no_plane_pentagon.htm>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From Infowars Website:
>>>>>>> Here is a video clip from CNN coverage on the morning of 9/11. CNN
>>>>>>> reporter Jamie McIntyre says he inspected the Pentagon site and it is
>>>>>>> obvious no plane crashed there.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Cuckoo!! Cuckoo!! Cuckoo!!
>>>>>
>>>>>Another cowardly American right winger makes his mating call!
>>>>
>>>>And you were quick to answer. Lonely are you?
>>>
>>>Stop projecting, Jeffy. You ain't gittin any off this boy.
>>
>>Is that supposed to be some sort of insult? What are you? A
>>homophobe?
>
>Do you always take "no" as an insult, Jeffy?
I didn't see the word "no" anywhere in there Zepp.
>I bet date rape was a
>large part of your high school extracirriculum.
Then you would be wrong. Remember, there is more to life than your
limited experiences.
JSL
Jeffrey Scott Linder
>On 1 Mar 2005 07:23:17 -0800, ocon...@slr.orl.lmco.com wrote:
>
>>
>>1493 Dead wrote:
>>[snip]
>>> In order to believe the story about a 767 hitting the building, you
>>> have to believe that the plane was flying straight and level at full
>>> throttle at an altitude of twelve feet,
>>
>> Or hit the ground at least once before reaching the building, and
>>striking one of the engines on the ground (it'd be hard not to).
>>This would initiate wing failure and begin the break up before any of
>>the
>>plane reached the building.
>
>One of the arguments used by people who support the plane theory is
>that witnesses reported that the plane struck an object on the way
>in-- a light pole -- and one of the wings sheared. That should prove
>beyond all doubt that it was a plane. So where is the debris?
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/911_pentagon_eyewitnesses.html
>And how did a 757 under power continue to fly more or less straight and
>level and just a few feet off the ground?
Ever hear of ground effect Zepp?
>>
>>> hit the building somewhat obliquely (at about a 30 degree angle),
>>
>> Caused by impacting the wings at different times generating a
>>net rotation of the fuselage.
>>
>>> left a hole only twelve feet wide, without shattering windows.
>>
>> The hole was a variety of sizes. It wasn't some Road Runner
>>cartoon where the hole is going to be the shape of the cayote.
>>Without an explosion, there is little reason for windows to break.
>>Houses collapse from tornados and have intact windows. Windows
>>tend not to be structurally connected to the building. (For
>>good reason, it can cause them to crack as the building settles.
>>Seems I remember some building in Boston where they tried to
>>connect the windows to the primary structure and they started to
>>pop out during high winds.)
>>
>There's still the matter of where the wings (and engines) went. The
>hole was 14' across at it's widest point. So where did the wings go?
14'? What happened to 35'?
MikeSoja
<zepp1493#2211finestplanet.com> posted:
>So where is the debris INSIDE the building? The only piece of
>airplane wreckage shown was a bent and battered (but not burned) piece
>of engine cowling.
Fat, stupid, commie slob Jamieson has his head lodged firmly inside
his own asshole. How else could he not have seen the plethora of
pictures of aircraft parts, as well as the scores of eyewitness
recountings of the mounds of parts? The wheel hub? A wheel strut?
Plastic from an inner jet wall? Some kind of engine rotor? Etc.?
>And a large object shrouded tightly in tarp that
>they claimed was one of the engines.
>In order to believe the story about a 767 hitting the building, you
>have to believe that the plane was flying straight and level at full
>throttle at an altitude of twelve feet, hit the building somewhat
Why twelve feet, fatso? Why not twenty? How do you know it was
"straight and level"? Why not a very shallow angle? Just making it
up as you go?
>obliquely (at about a 30 degree angle),
The angle was closer to 45 degrees, but you aren't liable to know
that with your head jammed up your ass.
> left a hole only twelve feet wide,
The "hole" was the same width as the section of building that
collapsed, which, believe it or not, makes sense. A twelve foot
hole would not have resulted in a collapse eighty feet wide.
Even the informed conspiracy nuts put the width of the hole at close
to 75 feet.
>without shattering windows.
Plenty of windows were shattered, even though they were of a
specially produced shatterproof variety. Again, Jamieson reveals
himself to be completely in the dark, as he has been for years.
>It hit hard enough to virtually
>vaporize every thing, including titanium engine cores and the black
>boxes,
Engine parts and the black boxes were found!!! They weren't
vaporized. Fat, stupid, commie slob Jamieson again demonstrates he
isn't aware of the most basic facts of the matter. His head is
FIRMLY up his FAT ass.
>yet burned cool and clean that wooden furniture, computer
>monitors, and even pieces of paper in offices immediately adjoining
>the impact hole were unscathed.
Imagine that. Things outside the damaged area was undamaged.
>Your questions about what became of the passengers, what exactly did
>hit the Pentagon and so on are all very valid and legitimate ones.
>But first things first. The claim that flight 77 hit the Pentagon is
>a lie. No point in even considering the other questions until you
>acknowedge that.
Jamieson is a fucking retard.
Mike Soja
"The claim that flight 77 hit the Pentagon is a lie."
ocon...@slr.orl.lmco.com
> > Or hit the ground at least once before reaching the building, and
> >striking one of the engines on the ground (it'd be hard not to).
> >This would initiate wing failure and begin the break up before any
of
> >the
> >plane reached the building.
>
> One of the arguments used by people who support the plane theory is
> that witnesses reported that the plane struck an object on the way
> in-- a light pole -- and one of the wings sheared. That should prove
> beyond all doubt that it was a plane. So where is the debris?
As I understand it, it was mostly inside the building. There was
alot strewn across the lawn too.
> And how did a 757 under power continue to fly more or less straight
and
> level and just a few feet off the ground?
This is fairly easy to do. At the speed it was going, it was
going to go pretty straight no matter what. They aren't highly
maneuverable anyway, they're passenger planes, not fighter jets.
[snip]
> > The hole was a variety of sizes. It wasn't some Road Runner
> >cartoon where the hole is going to be the shape of the cayote.
> >Without an explosion, there is little reason for windows to break.
> >Houses collapse from tornados and have intact windows. Windows
> >tend not to be structurally connected to the building. (For
> >good reason, it can cause them to crack as the building settles.
> >Seems I remember some building in Boston where they tried to
> >connect the windows to the primary structure and they started to
> >pop out during high winds.)
> >
> There's still the matter of where the wings (and engines) went. The
> hole was 14' across at it's widest point. So where did the wings go?
That number is in dispute. But the wings were supposedly already
collapsing rearward which would allow them to enter a hole signficantly
narrower than the wingspan.
>
> That's the significance of the unshattered windows. Nothing struck
> them directly.
The windows that remained.
> but in the case of the Pentagon, a similarly fueled fire
> did not cause glass to break, not even on computer monitors feet from
> the location of the fire, or even cause paper to ignite.
Different building, different size, different structure, and one
specifically hardened to attack.
> > Ya ever been in the Pentagon? This was a section that had been
> >recently hardened. They are specifically designed to prevent
> >spreading of damage from fire and explosions.
>
> So where did the plane go?
In, around and up (in flames)
> Planes sometimes fly into mountains, which
> are even more hardened against damage from fire and explosions, and
> there's plenty of debris.
And the debris isn't contained in a closed space with a
hot fire. There wasn't much debris of the one that crashed in
Pennsylvania. It was moving too fast and got consumed by
the ground.
1499 Dead
>
>1493 Dead wrote:
>> On 1 Mar 2005 07:23:17 -0800, ocon...@slr.orl.lmco.com wrote:
>[snip]
>> > Or hit the ground at least once before reaching the building, and
>> >striking one of the engines on the ground (it'd be hard not to).
>> >This would initiate wing failure and begin the break up before any
>of
>> >the
>> >plane reached the building.
>>
>> One of the arguments used by people who support the plane theory is
>> that witnesses reported that the plane struck an object on the way
>> in-- a light pole -- and one of the wings sheared. That should prove
>> beyond all doubt that it was a plane. So where is the debris?
>
> As I understand it, it was mostly inside the building. There was
>alot strewn across the lawn too.
Kinda hard to imagine how it could do both at once, don't you think?
>
>> And how did a 757 under power continue to fly more or less straight
>and
>> level and just a few feet off the ground?
>
> This is fairly easy to do. At the speed it was going, it was
>going to go pretty straight no matter what. They aren't highly
>maneuverable anyway, they're passenger planes, not fighter jets.
With a wing gone? Less than twenty-five feet off the ground?
>
>[snip]
>> > The hole was a variety of sizes. It wasn't some Road Runner
>> >cartoon where the hole is going to be the shape of the cayote.
>> >Without an explosion, there is little reason for windows to break.
>> >Houses collapse from tornados and have intact windows. Windows
>> >tend not to be structurally connected to the building. (For
>> >good reason, it can cause them to crack as the building settles.
>> >Seems I remember some building in Boston where they tried to
>> >connect the windows to the primary structure and they started to
>> >pop out during high winds.)
>> >
>> There's still the matter of where the wings (and engines) went. The
>> hole was 14' across at it's widest point. So where did the wings go?
>
> That number is in dispute. But the wings were supposedly already
>collapsing rearward which would allow them to enter a hole signficantly
>narrower than the wingspan.
Show where the number is disputed, and in what way.
Why would the wings be collapsing inward prior to stricking the
building?
>
>>
>> That's the significance of the unshattered windows. Nothing struck
>> them directly.
>
> The windows that remained.
>
Including the ones the wings should have struck.
>> but in the case of the Pentagon, a similarly fueled fire
>> did not cause glass to break, not even on computer monitors feet from
>> the location of the fire, or even cause paper to ignite.
>
> Different building, different size, different structure, and one
>specifically hardened to attack.
Was the paper and computer monitors and office furniture hardened
against attack, too?
>
>> > Ya ever been in the Pentagon? This was a section that had been
>> >recently hardened. They are specifically designed to prevent
>> >spreading of damage from fire and explosions.
>>
>> So where did the plane go?
>
> In, around and up (in flames)
>
With nothing to show for it but a crumpled but unburnt engine cowling.
>> Planes sometimes fly into mountains, which
>> are even more hardened against damage from fire and explosions, and
>> there's plenty of debris.
>
> And the debris isn't contained in a closed space with a
>hot fire. There wasn't much debris of the one that crashed in
>Pennsylvania. It was moving too fast and got consumed by
>the ground.
A hot fire that couldn't destroy pieces of paper, computer monitors,
and wooden chairs?
1499 Dead
Linder) wrote:
>1493 Dead <zepp1493#2211finestplanet.com> wrote:
>
>>On 1 Mar 2005 07:23:17 -0800, ocon...@slr.orl.lmco.com wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>1493 Dead wrote:
>>>[snip]
>>>> In order to believe the story about a 767 hitting the building, you
>>>> have to believe that the plane was flying straight and level at full
>>>> throttle at an altitude of twelve feet,
>>>
>>> Or hit the ground at least once before reaching the building, and
>>>striking one of the engines on the ground (it'd be hard not to).
>>>This would initiate wing failure and begin the break up before any of
>>>the
>>>plane reached the building.
>>
>>One of the arguments used by people who support the plane theory is
>>that witnesses reported that the plane struck an object on the way
>>in-- a light pole -- and one of the wings sheared. That should prove
>>beyond all doubt that it was a plane. So where is the debris?
>
>http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/911_pentagon_eyewitnesses.html
>
>>And how did a 757 under power continue to fly more or less straight and
>>level and just a few feet off the ground?
>
>Ever hear of ground effect Zepp?
So you are tryng to persuade us that a 757, under power, with a wing
gone, was behaving like a skipping stone?
1499 Dead
Linder) wrote:
I don't suppose you would.
>
>>I bet date rape was a
>>large part of your high school extracirriculum.
>
>Then you would be wrong. Remember, there is more to life than your
>limited experiences.
>
Yes, and fortunately, you are a part of that life I haven't
expereinced.
>JSL
Steven Canyon
<zepp1493#2211finestplanet.com> wrote:
>
>Your questions about what became of the passengers, what exactly did
>hit the Pentagon and so on are all very valid and legitimate ones.
>But first things first. The claim that flight 77 hit the Pentagon is
>a lie. No point in even considering the other questions until you
>acknowedge that.
<ROTFLMAO> Zepp has a history of alcoholism... I think he's had a
relapse.
Did Zepp Jamieson think he was going to get away with posting as "Greywolf the Wanderer" long ago?
The similarities are too many to be a coincidence.
Let's examine what "each" of them said
First, Greywolf was born in the UK and then lived in Canada, as did Jamieson.
Then, Greywolf lived in Santa Barbara, as did Jamieson.
Greywolf used to be a bbs sysop in Santa Barbara, as was Jamieson.
Greywolf has a house full of cats and 3 dogs, as does Jamieson
Greywolf used to work at an airport, so did Zepp
Greywolf has samoyeds, as does Jamieson.
Greywolf has a samoyed named Monk, so does Jamieson
Greywolf says he is dyslexic, as does Jamieson.
--
Greywolf's used Jamieson's account and even used Jamieson's computer
Greywolf claims to be a writer, as does Jamieson
Greywolf says that he's a wiccan and Jamieson seems to do a lot of writing about wiccans, even claiming to know several.
Greywolf's favorite quote is "evolution in action, Zepp uses that term all the time, even using it for one of his "commentaries."
Greywolf's an alcoholic who stopped drinking, Jamieson says *he* quit drinking a long time ago
are Greywolf and Zepp the same person?
Now what about all those homosexual fantasy stories that he wrote about the startrek characters as "Greywolf?" "Greywolf" cheerfully described himself as either bisexual or "gay as a three dollar bill."
ocon...@slr.orl.lmco.com
1499 Dead wrote:
> On 1 Mar 2005 10:28:19 -0800, ocon...@slr.orl.lmco.com wrote:
>
> >
> >1493 Dead wrote:
> >> On 1 Mar 2005 07:23:17 -0800, ocon...@slr.orl.lmco.com wrote:
> >[snip]
> >> > Or hit the ground at least once before reaching the building,
and
> >> >striking one of the engines on the ground (it'd be hard not to).
> >> >This would initiate wing failure and begin the break up before
any
> >of
> >> >the
> >> >plane reached the building.
> >>
> >> One of the arguments used by people who support the plane theory
is
> >> that witnesses reported that the plane struck an object on the
way
> >> in-- a light pole -- and one of the wings sheared. That should
prove
> >> beyond all doubt that it was a plane. So where is the debris?
> >
> > As I understand it, it was mostly inside the building. There was
> >alot strewn across the lawn too.
>
> Kinda hard to imagine how it could do both at once, don't you think?
No, not at all. Lighter materials would tend to be everywhere
(it's velocity vector is easily changed due to its low inertia)
Heavier materials tend to continue traveling in the same direction
since there are no available forces large enough to significantly
alter their direction.
[snip]
> >> There's still the matter of where the wings (and engines) went.
The
> >> hole was 14' across at it's widest point. So where did the wings
go?
> >
> > That number is in dispute. But the wings were supposedly already
> >collapsing rearward which would allow them to enter a hole
signficantly
> >narrower than the wingspan.
>
> Show where the number is disputed, and in what way.
Well, let's start with the fact that you've posted something
like 3 different numbers.
>
> Why would the wings be collapsing inward prior to stricking the
> building?
'Cause the engines, that were attached to them, hit the ground
causing a very large aft force on the wing (which is designed
[primarily for verticle loads).
[snip]
> > Different building, different size, different structure, and one
> >specifically hardened to attack.
>
> Was the paper and computer monitors and office furniture hardened
> against attack, too?
No, they were contained in hardened rooms.
> >
> >> > Ya ever been in the Pentagon? This was a section that had been
> >> >recently hardened. They are specifically designed to prevent
> >> >spreading of damage from fire and explosions.
> >>
> >> So where did the plane go?
> >
> > In, around and up (in flames)
> >
> With nothing to show for it but a crumpled but unburnt engine
cowling.
There was actually more than that found.
>
> >> Planes sometimes fly into mountains, which
> >> are even more hardened against damage from fire and explosions,
and
> >> there's plenty of debris.
> >
> > And the debris isn't contained in a closed space with a
> >hot fire. There wasn't much debris of the one that crashed in
> >Pennsylvania. It was moving too fast and got consumed by
> >the ground.
>
> A hot fire that couldn't destroy pieces of paper, computer monitors,
> and wooden chairs?
Not in rooms not directly affected by fire.
MikeSoja
<zepp1493#2211finestplanet.com> posted:
>One of the arguments used by people who support the plane theory is
>that witnesses reported that the plane struck an object on the way
>in-- a light pole -- and one of the wings sheared. That should prove
The plane hit at least FIVE light poles. Fat, stupid, commie slob
Jamieson probably went to the same Physics school that drooling
idiot Kurt Lochner did, so his visualization of what happens when an
aircraft weighing over 200,000 lbs and moving at over 500 feet per
second meets something like modern light poles (which are designed
to break and collapse when struck by two ton *automobiles* moving at
highway speeds) is more likely drawn from images of a cartoon
Roadrunner hitting a stop sign and being stopped in his tracks.
>beyond all doubt that it was a plane. So where is the debris?
Debris was scattered all over the lawn in front of the Pentagon,
tubby. Pull your fat stupid head out of your fat ugly ass and go
find the many pictures which show it.
Here's but one page: http://pentagonresearch.com/debris.html
Some part of the plane even landed in someone's car as they drove
by, to be found later.
> And
>how did a 757 under power continue to fly more or less straight and
>level and just a few feet off the ground?
The thing was moving at over 500 feet per second. That's nearly a
quarter mile in two seconds. You could fire a cinder block at 500
feet per second in a level trajectory from 75 feet high two tenths
of a mile from the Pentagon and the cinder block would still hit the
building before it hit the ground. Even if Flight 77 lost part of
one or both wings (and there is no evidence that the wings were more
than minimally damaged until the absolutely final second) in the
second or two before impact it would still have more *flight*
characteristics than the cinder block, and wouldn't immediately
succumb to gravity's effects.
>There's still the matter of where the wings (and engines) went. The
>hole was 14' across at it's widest point. So where did the wings go?
The hole was at least 75 feet across. The engines on a Boeing 757
are only about 45 feet apart.
>That's the significance of the unshattered windows. Nothing struck
>them directly.
So YOU say, but you're a fucking retard, if I may speak with
restrained understatement. There were PLENTY of broken windows,
shatterproof as they were, and yes, there were PLENTY of unbroken
windows, but to repeatedly state that there was some kind of excess
of unbroken windows is far south of truthful (though typical of
you.)
>Then too, we have the matter of the fuel burning. In New York, said
>fuel burned so intensely that it caused two steel skyscrapers to
>collapse within a hour of impact (and recently, a 35 story steel
>skyscraper in Madrid Spain burned to a skeleton, and did not
>collapse),
It's been estimated that the fuel in the aircrashes burned off
almost immediately, and that the subsequent fires consisted of all
the material which THEN burned, much of it at higher temperatures
than jet fuel burns. Again, it only makes SENSE, which is why an
idiot like fat, stupid, commie slob Bryan Jamieson can't understand
it.
>but in the case of the Pentagon, a similarly fueled fire
>did not cause glass to break, not even on computer monitors feet from
>the location of the fire, or even cause paper to ignite.
Jamieson doesn't *know* any of that. He's making it up.
>> Ya ever been in the Pentagon? This was a section that had been
>>recently hardened. They are specifically designed to prevent
>>spreading of damage from fire and explosions.
>So where did the plane go? Planes sometimes fly into mountains, which
>are even more hardened against damage from fire and explosions, and
>there's plenty of debris.
LOL. Mountains are not shells of stone with internal columns
holding them up. Perchance fat, stupid, commie slob Bryan Jamieson
doesn't know that.
Mike Soja
"The claim that flight 77 hit the Pentagon is a lie."
Jeffrey Scott Linder
Form level flight to skipping like a stone with a wing gone?
Ahhh...so now two things have changed, or you don't know what ground
effect is.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/911_pentagon_eyewitnesses.html
All those people get together and compare notes before recounting what
they saw Zepp? Where did all those people go that boarded the plane?
>>>>
>>>>> hit the building somewhat obliquely (at about a 30 degree angle),
>>>>
>>>> Caused by impacting the wings at different times generating a
>>>>net rotation of the fuselage.
>>>>
>>>>> left a hole only twelve feet wide, without shattering windows.
>>>>
>>>> The hole was a variety of sizes. It wasn't some Road Runner
>>>>cartoon where the hole is going to be the shape of the cayote.
>>>>Without an explosion, there is little reason for windows to break.
>>>>Houses collapse from tornados and have intact windows. Windows
>>>>tend not to be structurally connected to the building. (For
>>>>good reason, it can cause them to crack as the building settles.
>>>>Seems I remember some building in Boston where they tried to
>>>>connect the windows to the primary structure and they started to
>>>>pop out during high winds.)
>>>>
>>>There's still the matter of where the wings (and engines) went. The
>>>hole was 14' across at it's widest point. So where did the wings go?
>>
>>14'? What happened to 35'?
I guess it was an inconvenient question.
JSL
1493 Dead
All in a 14 foot hole. Amazing. So the engines plunged right into
the building, somehow not creating any holes, while the light stuff
hit the same hole, bounced back and disintegrated? (Except for one
piece of engine cowling). A lot of what looks like office paperwork
got blown out of that hole.
Incidently, how come the Pentagon smoke was so much lighter than that
issuing from either of the twin towers?
>
>[snip]
>> >> There's still the matter of where the wings (and engines) went.
>The
>> >> hole was 14' across at it's widest point. So where did the wings
>go?
>> >
>> > That number is in dispute. But the wings were supposedly already
>> >collapsing rearward which would allow them to enter a hole
>signficantly
>> >narrower than the wingspan.
>>
>> Show where the number is disputed, and in what way.
>
> Well, let's start with the fact that you've posted something
>like 3 different numbers.
>
>>
>> Why would the wings be collapsing inward prior to stricking the
>> building?
>
> 'Cause the engines, that were attached to them, hit the ground
>causing a very large aft force on the wing (which is designed
>[primarily for verticle loads).
Let me see if I have this right. The wing mounted engines hit the
ground, but the fuselage didn't?
How?
>[snip]
>> > Different building, different size, different structure, and one
>> >specifically hardened to attack.
>>
>> Was the paper and computer monitors and office furniture hardened
>> against attack, too?
>
> No, they were contained in hardened rooms.
They were visible from outside cameras, open to the air, through the
hole where the building was struck.
>
>> >
>> >> > Ya ever been in the Pentagon? This was a section that had been
>> >> >recently hardened. They are specifically designed to prevent
>> >> >spreading of damage from fire and explosions.
>> >>
>> >> So where did the plane go?
>> >
>> > In, around and up (in flames)
>> >
>> With nothing to show for it but a crumpled but unburnt engine
>cowling.
>
> There was actually more than that found.
>
Really? Well, where is it? Where are the photos? Where is the
investigation report? Incidently, why was the FAA, which normally
oversees all plane crashes and hijackings, prevented from
investigating any of the crashes on 9/11?
>>
>> >> Planes sometimes fly into mountains, which
>> >> are even more hardened against damage from fire and explosions,
>and
>> >> there's plenty of debris.
>> >
>> > And the debris isn't contained in a closed space with a
>> >hot fire. There wasn't much debris of the one that crashed in
>> >Pennsylvania. It was moving too fast and got consumed by
>> >the ground.
>>
>> A hot fire that couldn't destroy pieces of paper, computer monitors,
>> and wooden chairs?
>
> Not in rooms not directly affected by fire.
These room were directly exposed to the location of the fire, plainly
visible to witnesses.
1493 Dead
Linder) wrote:
Ah. This should be good. Tell us about ground effect, then, Jeffy.
>
>http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/911_pentagon_eyewitnesses.html
>All those people get together and compare notes before recounting what
>they saw Zepp? Where did all those people go that boarded the plane?
>
What about all the people who didn't see evidence of a plane,
including the CNN reporter at the scene? What about the peole who saw
the plane strike a light pole or something in the parking lot?
>>>>>
>>>>>> hit the building somewhat obliquely (at about a 30 degree angle),
>>>>>
>>>>> Caused by impacting the wings at different times generating a
>>>>>net rotation of the fuselage.
>>>>>
>>>>>> left a hole only twelve feet wide, without shattering windows.
>>>>>
>>>>> The hole was a variety of sizes. It wasn't some Road Runner
>>>>>cartoon where the hole is going to be the shape of the cayote.
>>>>>Without an explosion, there is little reason for windows to break.
>>>>>Houses collapse from tornados and have intact windows. Windows
>>>>>tend not to be structurally connected to the building. (For
>>>>>good reason, it can cause them to crack as the building settles.
>>>>>Seems I remember some building in Boston where they tried to
>>>>>connect the windows to the primary structure and they started to
>>>>>pop out during high winds.)
>>>>>
>>>>There's still the matter of where the wings (and engines) went. The
>>>>hole was 14' across at it's widest point. So where did the wings go?
>>>
>>>14'? What happened to 35'?
Yeah, what happened to that?
>
>I guess it was an inconvenient question.
It's the answer that was inconvenient. You get 35' only after the two
storeys above the impact point collapse in -- at least a half an hour
later.
>
>JSL
MikeSoja
Remember!)" <kurt_l...@hotmail.com> posted:
>MikeStupid <mso...@newsguy.com> whimpered again about:
>> 1493 Dead posted:
>> > One of the arguments used by people who support the plane theory is
>> > that witnesses reported that the plane struck an object on the way
>> > in-- a light pole -- and one of the wings sheared. That should prove
>>The plane hit at least FIVE light poles[..]
>Cite?
Are YOU ready to state that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon,
Kurtsy?
MikeSoja
<zepp1493#2211finestplanet.com> posted:
>Let me see if I have this right. The wing mounted engines hit the
>ground, but the fuselage didn't?
>How?
Er, the engines hang down several feet below the fuselage?
MikeSoja
Remember!)" <kurt_l...@hotmail.com> posted:
>MikeStupid <mso...@newsguy.com> whimpered again about:
>>weighing over 200,000 lbs and moving at over 500 feet per second[..]
>Try over 800 ft/sec, and your 'weight' is off a bit too..
You're a fucking moron, Kurt. You've got the plane going faster
than it was capable of going and 200 mph faster than the black box
reported it as going at the time of impact.
And there is NOTHING wrong with my weight figure.
1499 Dead
<kurt_l...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Kurt, here's another cite for the physics involved in the Pentagon
situation: http://www.apfn.org/apfn/math_physics.htm
Incidently, the data and recordings from the black boxes have never
been released. So Soja is lying when he claims the boxes show the
plane's cruising speed.
>MikeStupid <mso...@newsguy.com> whimpered about being corrected by:
>>
>> Kurt Lochner (Weasel Remember!) was again laughing at the pathetic 'math' of:
>> >
>> >MikeStupid <mso...@newsguy.com> deleted:
>> > >
>> > > 1493 Dead posted:
>> > >
>> > > > One of the arguments used by people who support the plane theory is
>> > > > that witnesses reported that the plane struck an object on the way
>> > > > in-- a light pole -- and one of the wings sheared. That should prove
>> > >
>> > >The plane hit at least FIVE light poles[..]
>> >
>> > Cite?
>> >
>> > >Fat, stupid, commie slob Jamieson probably went to the same
>> > >Physics school that drooling idiot Kurt Lochner did,
>> >
>> > Still can't answer even a simple question about a rate of a rate
>> > of change in water flow from a water tank of finite dimensions?
>> >
>> > Ever hear of taking a derivative, Mikey? *>LOL!<*
>> >
>> > >weighing over 200,000 lbs and moving at over 500 feet per second[..]
>> >
>> > Try over 800 ft/sec, and your 'weight' is off a bit too..
>>
>>You're a fucking moron[..]
>
>Says the 'arithmetically-challenged' right-wing loon..
>
>>You've got the plane going faster than it was capable of going
>
>http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread79655/pg1
>
>Typical Cruise Speed: 0.80 Mach (573.6mph / 956kmh)
>
>573(mph) * 5280(ft/mi) divided by 3600 sec/hour = 840fps
>
>>and 200 mph faster than the black box reported it as going [..]
>
>Numbers and cite, as you've already been proven incompetent, again..
>
>>And there is NOTHING wrong with my weight figure.
>
>With only 58 passengers and six flight crew/attendents, as opposed
>to being able to carry 239 passengers? Seems a bit high to me,
>but the maximum takeoff weight is 255,000lbs with the minimum
>(empty) weight being 134,090lbs.. See the cites at..
>
>http://www.boeing.com/assocproducts/aircompat/acaps/753sec2.pdf (page 3)
>
>You know, besides you not being able to do a simple derivative in
>a very simple, and common, freshman physics problem, you also have
>similar deficiencies with simple arithmetic..
>
>--Better put your running shoes back on.. *>LOL!<*
>
>"And remember, I never said I knew "so much about physics".
> All I said was that I knew more physics than you!"
>
> --Mike Soja, before he turned and ran away.
Jeffrey Scott Linder
Look it up if you don't know Zepp. Its rather obvious you don't.
>>http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/911_pentagon_eyewitnesses.html
>>All those people get together and compare notes before recounting what
>>they saw Zepp? Where did all those people go that boarded the plane?
>>
>
>What about all the people who didn't see evidence of a plane,
>including the CNN reporter at the scene?
He never said there was no evidence of a plane Zepp. I suggest you
re-read the transcript for content this time.
>What about the peole who saw
>the plane strike a light pole or something in the parking lot?
What about it?
A plane can't strike a light pole? Is it going to bring it down like
a stone?
What happened to all those people that boarded the plane Zepp? Where
are they? Certainly there were some loyal Democrats on that plane who
would jump at the chance to bring Bush down.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> hit the building somewhat obliquely (at about a 30 degree angle),
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Caused by impacting the wings at different times generating a
>>>>>>net rotation of the fuselage.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> left a hole only twelve feet wide, without shattering windows.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The hole was a variety of sizes. It wasn't some Road Runner
>>>>>>cartoon where the hole is going to be the shape of the cayote.
>>>>>>Without an explosion, there is little reason for windows to break.
>>>>>>Houses collapse from tornados and have intact windows. Windows
>>>>>>tend not to be structurally connected to the building. (For
>>>>>>good reason, it can cause them to crack as the building settles.
>>>>>>Seems I remember some building in Boston where they tried to
>>>>>>connect the windows to the primary structure and they started to
>>>>>>pop out during high winds.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>There's still the matter of where the wings (and engines) went. The
>>>>>hole was 14' across at it's widest point. So where did the wings go?
>>>>
>>>>14'? What happened to 35'?
>
>Yeah, what happened to that?
You tell me Zepp. You have posted several different numbers. Which
one are you going with today?
>>
>>I guess it was an inconvenient question.
>
>It's the answer that was inconvenient. You get 35' only after the two
>storeys above the impact point collapse in -- at least a half an hour
>later.
Ahhh...so the size of the hole is...well what exactly?
JSL
1499 Dead
Linder) wrote:
Ah, so rather than explain what you claim you know, you want me to
explain what you think I don't know.
That's why you aren't considered very good at debate.
>
>
>>>http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/911_pentagon_eyewitnesses.html
>>>All those people get together and compare notes before recounting what
>>>they saw Zepp? Where did all those people go that boarded the plane?
>>>
>>
>>What about all the people who didn't see evidence of a plane,
>>including the CNN reporter at the scene?
>
>He never said there was no evidence of a plane Zepp. I suggest you
>re-read the transcript for content this time.
Why didn't you post it, Jeffy? After all, I have, several times now.
It doesn't back you up, does it.
>
>>What about the peole who saw
>>the plane strike a light pole or something in the parking lot?
>
>What about it?
>A plane can't strike a light pole? Is it going to bring it down like
>a stone?
Well, some witness say a wing sheared off at that point. So where is
the wing?
>
>What happened to all those people that boarded the plane Zepp? Where
>are they? Certainly there were some loyal Democrats on that plane who
>would jump at the chance to bring Bush down.
Well, that's the million dollar question, isn't it? Where are those
people?
Gary DeWaay
> And I daresay the "obsessive crackpot" is the fellow featured in my
> sig.
OMFG!
You can't get IRONY like this just anywhere!
Gawd I love Usenet.
--
Gary
"Pay no attention to the naked gay conservative male prostitute sitting in
the middle of the family values white house living room."
Gary DeWaay
> >Remember, the wings of the plane position the engines away from where
> >the main fuselage would impact the Pentagon.
>
> One of the debunker websites showed a picture of a jet engine in front
> of a white wall and said that the picture was taken at the third ring
> in at the Pentagon. Aside from the fact that there were no
> corresponding holes in the facade of the Pentagon to show where the
> engines might have entered (in fact, there weren't even any broken
> windows) but the wall the engine was in front of was clearly
> whitewashed brick. There are no brick walls in the Pentagon building.
>
Umm Zepp... what blew up the Pentagon, and what happened to the missing
jet, if indeed a jet did not fly into the Pentagon?
Gary DeWaay
>
> Your questions about what became of the passengers, what exactly did
> hit the Pentagon and so on are all very valid and legitimate ones.
> But first things first. The claim that flight 77 hit the Pentagon is
> a lie. No point in even considering the other questions until you
> acknowedge that.
>
Ok, you answered my question. Seems to me you would have to explain what
happened to the plane and its passengers before you consider it hitting
the Pentagon as a lie?
IIRC, from the radar trails, the plane that hit the Pentagon was prolly
looking for the WH but the Pentagon was easier to find, for obvious
reasons.
1499 Dead
<dewaay2...@sio.midco.net> wrote:
>'s at 1493 Dead <zepp1493#2211finestplanet.com> wisdom:
>
>
>>
>> Your questions about what became of the passengers, what exactly did
>> hit the Pentagon and so on are all very valid and legitimate ones.
>> But first things first. The claim that flight 77 hit the Pentagon is
>> a lie. No point in even considering the other questions until you
>> acknowedge that.
>>
>
>
>Ok, you answered my question. Seems to me you would have to explain what
>happened to the plane and its passengers before you consider it hitting
>the Pentagon as a lie?
No, all I need to consider it a lie is the evidence we already have.
1499 Dead
<dewaay2...@sio.midco.net> wrote:
>'s at 1493 Dead <zepp1493#2211finestplanet.com> wisdom:
>
>
>> >Remember, the wings of the plane position the engines away from where
>> >the main fuselage would impact the Pentagon.
>>
>> One of the debunker websites showed a picture of a jet engine in front
>> of a white wall and said that the picture was taken at the third ring
>> in at the Pentagon. Aside from the fact that there were no
>> corresponding holes in the facade of the Pentagon to show where the
>> engines might have entered (in fact, there weren't even any broken
>> windows) but the wall the engine was in front of was clearly
>> whitewashed brick. There are no brick walls in the Pentagon building.
>>
>
>Umm Zepp... what blew up the Pentagon, and what happened to the missing
>jet, if indeed a jet did not fly into the Pentagon?
The theory I've heard most often is that it was either a drone, or
perhaps a SAM.
MikeSoja
<zepp#221114...@nospamzeppscommentaries.com> posted:
>On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 10:22:37 -0600, "Kurt Lochner (Weasel Remember!)"
><kurt_l...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Kurt, here's another cite for the physics involved in the Pentagon
>situation: http://www.apfn.org/apfn/math_physics.htm
Yeah, the "physics" there ought to just about the right speed for
drooling idiot "physicist" Kurt Lochner.
>Incidently, the data and recordings from the black boxes have never
>been released. So Soja is lying when he claims the boxes show the
>plane's cruising speed.
Screw you, Jamieson. I'm exposing your lies all over this issue,
and all you can do is gibber through faux physicist Kurt Lochner at
me.
The minimum figure I've seen for the speed of Flight 77 is 345 mph,
based on a Fox News story (available online, no less) stating the
figure came from initial analysis of the recoverd flight data
recorder, and 345 mph is plenty to get the plane from the highway to
the façade of the Pentagon even if you chop both wings off at the
root, which seems to be just one of your idiotic theories of late.
If the plane was going faster it only makes your bleating about
aluminum light poles all the stupider.
MikeSoja
<zepp#221114...@nospamzeppscommentaries.com> posted:
The hole is too big. There are too many pieces of Boeing 757 lying
around. The destruction is too great. Your "theory" is fucking
fat, stupid, commie slob ignorance.
Mike Soja
"There are no brick walls in the Pentagon building."
"The claim that flight 77 hit the Pentagon is a lie."
MikeSoja
Remember!)" <kurt_l...@hotmail.com> posted:
>My estimate is that the wings likely did fold into the body, as a
>result of the engine cowlings dragging on the ground. There also
>seems to be some confusion, on both your parts, about what the
>angle of entry was..
Too bad you aren't interested in helping Greywolf, 'er, Jamieson
understand what an idiot he's being on the matter, Kurtsy. If you
can't do that then you are just part of the confusion-brigade, and
no use to anybody.
Isle Of The Dead
>
> So, to sum it all up, I think you're a noisome, blithering moron
> who has no formal training or knowledge in most of the subjects
An Oklahoma bumpkin with an opinion.
Who'd a thunk it?
Hey, Super Braniac! Perhaps your massive knowledge of
all subjects can help me with a Waco question?
What happened to all four of the video tapes that were
running during the initial BATF assault? Perhaps your
physics background can explain how all four disappeared
into hyperspace simultaneously?
1493 Dead
wrote:
>On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 11:35:46 -0800, 1499 Dead
><zepp#221114...@nospamzeppscommentaries.com> posted:
>
>>On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 13:02:11 -0600, Gary DeWaay
>><dewaay2...@sio.midco.net> wrote:
>
>>>Umm Zepp... what blew up the Pentagon, and what happened to the missing
>>>jet, if indeed a jet did not fly into the Pentagon?
>
>>The theory I've heard most often is that it was either a drone, or
>>perhaps a SAM.
>
>The hole is too big. There are too many pieces of Boeing 757 lying
>around. The destruction is too great. Your "theory" is fucking
>fat, stupid, commie slob ignorance.
Did you get all that from the black box recording too, Mikey?
Ha ha ha.
-
David Moffitt
"1493 Dead" <zepp1493#2211finestplanet.com> wrote in message
news:atuc21l8333l4taeu...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 16:26:10 -0500, MikeSoja <mso...@newsguy.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 11:35:46 -0800, 1499 Dead
> ><zepp#221114...@nospamzeppscommentaries.com> posted:
> >
> >>On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 13:02:11 -0600, Gary DeWaay
> >><dewaay2...@sio.midco.net> wrote:
> >
> >>>Umm Zepp... what blew up the Pentagon, and what happened to the missing
> >>>jet, if indeed a jet did not fly into the Pentagon?
> >
> >>The theory I've heard most often is that it was either a drone, or
> >>perhaps a SAM.
> >
> >The hole is too big. There are too many pieces of Boeing 757 lying
> >around. The destruction is too great. Your "theory" is fucking
> >fat, stupid, commie slob ignorance.
>
> Did you get all that from the black box recording too, Mikey?
>
> Ha ha ha.
%%%% Why does it matter to a cowardly socialist Canadian?
"Suppose something happened here, and you had to scram to another country in
a hurry to save your ass. Would you renounce your American citizenship
after a few years?" --Zepp Jamieson 1997
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=3372a9c3.258180564%40news.snowcrest.net
MikeSoja
<zepp1493#2211finestplanet.com> posted:
>On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 16:26:10 -0500, MikeSoja <mso...@newsguy.com>
>wrote:
>>On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 11:35:46 -0800, 1499 Dead
>><zepp#221114...@nospamzeppscommentaries.com> posted:
>>>On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 13:02:11 -0600, Gary DeWaay
>>><dewaay2...@sio.midco.net> wrote:
>>>>Umm Zepp... what blew up the Pentagon, and what happened to the missing
>>>>jet, if indeed a jet did not fly into the Pentagon?
>>>The theory I've heard most often is that it was either a drone, or
>>>perhaps a SAM.
>>The hole is too big. There are too many pieces of Boeing 757 lying
>>around. The destruction is too great. Your "theory" is fucking
>>fat, stupid, commie slob ignorance.
>Did you get all that from the black box recording too, Mikey?
>Ha ha ha.
Ha ha ha. You're the one sporting theories about drones and SAMs.
Scores, maybe hundreds, of people saw a jetliner slam into the
Pentagon just at the same time a jetliner with 64 people disappeared
from the world forever, and you're sporting theories about drones
and SAMS.
But, Jamieson, at least we now know why you said...
Date: Thu, 05 Aug 2004 22:03:50 -0700
Message-ID: <n746h0p541246vt0t...@4ax.com>
"Did you get to squeal like a piggy on your canoe trip?"
Ha ha ha!
1499 Dead
wrote:
>On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 18:51:41 -0800, 1493 Dead
><zepp1493#2211finestplanet.com> posted:
>
>>On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 16:26:10 -0500, MikeSoja <mso...@newsguy.com>
>>wrote:
>
>>>On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 11:35:46 -0800, 1499 Dead
>>><zepp#221114...@nospamzeppscommentaries.com> posted:
>
>>>>On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 13:02:11 -0600, Gary DeWaay
>>>><dewaay2...@sio.midco.net> wrote:
>
>>>>>Umm Zepp... what blew up the Pentagon, and what happened to the missing
>>>>>jet, if indeed a jet did not fly into the Pentagon?
>
>>>>The theory I've heard most often is that it was either a drone, or
>>>>perhaps a SAM.
>
>>>The hole is too big. There are too many pieces of Boeing 757 lying
>>>around. The destruction is too great. Your "theory" is fucking
>>>fat, stupid, commie slob ignorance.
>
>>Did you get all that from the black box recording too, Mikey?
>
>>Ha ha ha.
>
>Ha ha ha. You're the one sporting theories about drones and SAMs.
>
>Scores, maybe hundreds, of people saw a jetliner slam into the
>Pentagon just at the same time a jetliner with 64 people disappeared
>from the world forever, and you're sporting theories about drones
>and SAMS.
Actually, there are surprisingly few eyewitnesses, and they're all
over the map on what they did see. Was it a plane? Was it a missile?
Did it have windows? Was it AA or not? Accounts differ.
Eyewitnesses aren't a good source of evidence.
Where are the plane parts, Mikey? Why don't we have those black box
recordings you tried to assure us you had?
>
>But, Jamieson, at least we now know why you said...
>
>Date: Thu, 05 Aug 2004 22:03:50 -0700
>Message-ID: <n746h0p541246vt0t...@4ax.com>
>
>"Did you get to squeal like a piggy on your canoe trip?"
>
Because you remind me of a pig, perhaps?
-
David Moffitt
"1499 Dead" <zepp1499#2211finestplanet.com> wrote in message
news:ms2d2154hdatq8l3d...@4ax.com...
%%%% Why does it matter to a cowardly socialist Canadian?
"Suppose something happened here, and you had to scram to another country in
a hurry to save your ass. Would you renounce your American citizenship
after a few years?" --Zepp Jamieson 1997
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=3372a9c3.258180564%40news.snowcrest.net
>
> >