9/11 "Truther" gets verbally assaulted by Patridge Family

Apparently AGS hasn't done any research. That one is by far, the most debunked lunacy out there.

AGS, didn't you once say that facts mattered? Oh, wait, no..that wasn't you, was it?

 

Are you saying that crumpling of the plain would cause the plain (and thus the hole) to be smaller as it passed through the concrete, rather than larger?

 

Whatever he's saying is irrelevant (and I don't think he even knows what he's saying to be honest) because there should have been a lot more damage to the front of that building.
There should have been a lot more wreckage.
It's all massive lie.
Damn these sheeple.

 

Quite the contrary. I'm saying a similar plane that is about a 13' cylinder will create about a 13' foot hole on impact. The wings will disintegrate almost immediately. For some reason, people expect to see this gigantic hole, with wing imprints as well; as if planes are designed to go through concrete and steel. Lo and behold. About a 13' hole is what the plane created. Its almost like a plane actually crashed into the building!

Given than a plane has to fly through the air; it is not going to be solid. It is not meant or designed to impact with a building. So expecting a ton of Debris outside the building, given the speed is not rational. There is a ton of debris pictures from inside the pentagon, inside the rings, etc. But alas, who cares. Sheeple! All of us!

 

A toast! To sheep and green jello!

 

Only 14.99!



Also a good place to store food.

Even foil to protect your necklace, which might be controlled by 'the man'.

 

Bullshit.

What about the 2 engines? They would have caused massive damage flying at (as we are told) 500 MPH.

Say we can swallow the wing crumpling bullshit the engines are the key, there was no damage consistent with that, and that is why the Pentagon story is flawed. The 2 engines (being the size and weight that they are) would have damaged the front of the building even more than the fuselage.
But nothing.
Because as I said before it was never a commercial airliner that hit that building.
Damn sheeple.

 

As usual, you aren't thinking too hard are you?

Here are some others for you, AGS. Even though this is all very silly.


This is just to the right of the impact area. This is where the right engine passed on its way to the pentagon.


Another image. Same area. Further back. Explain how a missile damages the generator on the way to the target. Come on. Think a little.

 

It's only a huge generator that would theoritically blow backwards not forwards.

ahh, but who am I to say the government didn't do it....lol.

It's the 'MAN'.

 

Here's pretty pictures for AGS. With spooky music to make it more convincing. Top left video is the one of interest.

http://www.itap.purdue.edu/enablingthefuture/video/

No need to thank the sheeple for your new found enlightenment!

 

I guess if Tom cruise can be blown sideways by a missile impact behind him in MI3, a generator can be below backyards by a similar explosion

 

Makes you think....hmmm...lol

 

You sheeple piss me off!

Eyewitnesses saw a plane:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/wtccrash/story/0,1300,550486,00.html

http://www.massnews.com/past_issues/2001/dec 2001/1201bauer.htm

Link to an image that doesn't allow hotlinking.

I *think* I see an engine imprint in the above image, but someone can try to find it too

 

Those wacky people at purdue....

Nice vid...I've read from them, but not seen that video.

 

You sheeeeple need to take a look at this, especially question 7.
It is simply not conducive with the damage you would expect from a jetliner hitting it.
Jesus H Christ wake up peeps.

http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm

 

You realize question number 5 shows a faulty angle of impact right?

I showed you the answer to number 7 above Just gotta read, man.

Has a plane hit the pentagon before, so there is historical evidence to show "what you'd expect?"

 

AGS, here's an excellent video to add to your archive! Oh yes, they are just over there losing

 

Notice...



The flap track fairing.

Along with a forward movement of the heavy generator...there's a gouges along the top of the generator. What could have done that? A flap track faring?

Oh it must be a huge dummy jet airliner...because the 'man' did it. lol

 

I'm reading all these questions, actually. they are funny.

It didnt. There was damage to inner rings as well.

While the plane is about 44 feet tall (14.9 yards), this includes the landing gear, when its on the ground, as well as the rear tail fin. The plane itself (where the mass is) is about 13 feet tall and wide. Perfectly in line with the hole created. Unless the plane flies with its landing gear down, and backs into the building, 44 feet tall is irrelevant. The fuselage height and width is all that really matters.

Pretty picture! http://www.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=101

This question starts with a fallacy. It didn't hit "only" the ground floor of the first ring. In this photo, no. But other photos. Yes.

Uh. who knows. who cares? fire retardent, maybe? I'm not even sure why this is relevant at all.

5 answered above in my previous post

Read the question he was asked. If the aircraft is destroyed, how is supposed to tell them what it was? Ask some eye witnesses, perhaps?

Not in this photo. but in others, its clearly visible.

If this is AGS "proof", its pretty lacking. But I doubt he'll come back with an intelligent post. Just call everyone sheeple.

 

LOL, another poor post.

So some General goes over and tells everyone over there that all is fine and the troops are supposed to believe him, what a load of absolute rubbish.
That ain't gonna make it onto my site buddy.

I know you are racing towards the 10K post mark GT but lets keep it real please buddy.