9/11 Truthers

[Eilonnwy]

Kyu, I'm being lazy again, but can you tell me what the explanation is for the rather small hole that a jetplane supposedly made when it hit the Pentagon?

This Page was listed in the sources link Adrian posted, which debunks the missile argument.

Long story short, the wings are made of thin aluminum. They crashed into the walls, and there is evidence of that, but did not do as much damage as the body did because it's a flimsy weak part of the plane (If you're talking about impact strength) so it's affect is less significant.

[leo-rcc]

To illustrate:



This is a photo of the aftermath of a Boeing 747 from El-Al crashing into the Groeneveen and Klein-Kruitberg flats in the Bijlmermeer in Amsterdam.

The hole is also much narrower than the plane's wingspan.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

@Leo

Thanks for posting that photo.Fascinating.

Just to make sure understand is roughly correct:. If a plane such as a large passenger jet hits a wide but relatively thin building such as in that photo (or say the Pentagon) the wings sheer off,while the fusilage punches a relatively small hole. (?) Much like backing a car at speed through narrow steel frame doorway:doors come off or are bent flat against the body of the car..

[Eilonnwy]

Not just sheer off, but depending on the impact they shatter. So there is wing debris, just in many pieces.

In the end, planes are built for flying, not for crashing into buildings. (True story) The wings are built to support the plane in flight, not to slice through buildings.

[Kyuuketsuki]

Only people that hold the same opinion as you are smart. Only people who hold a different opinion than you are idiots. How does it feel to be the smartest man in the world?

I'm not (nowhere near) ... just a lot smarter than you it seems!

Oh, I didn't know that you telling me that all claims of truthers having been debunked was a statement with such finality.

Way to twist what I said ... since when did "You've been repeatedly told" equate to "I've repeatedly told you"?

Kyu

---

@Leo

Thanks for posting that photo.Fascinating.

Just to make sure understand is roughly correct:. If a plane such as a large passenger jet hits a wide but relatively thin building such as in that photo (or say the Pentagon) the wings sheer off,while the fusilage punches a relatively small hole. (?) Much like backing a car at speed through narrow steel frame doorway:doors come off or are bent flat against the body of the car..

Indeed ... it's also worth noting that the Pentagon (being military) was much more solidly built!

Kyu

[Matt85]

I'm starting to come around. But how about the guy they paraded around as Bin Laden which didn't even look like him claiming responsibility for the attack. I think that one is a bit sus.

[Eilonnwy]

I'm starting to come around. But how about the guy they paraded around as Bin Laden which didn't even look like him claiming responsibility for the attack. I think that one is a bit sus.

Took me less than a minute to find the answer:

http://www.911myths.com/html/fake_video.html

Have you even bothered to really look for the answer? If you're just working off Loose Change and then stop looking, of course there's not going to be an answer, because you never actually bothered to fact check.

[Pippy]

Have you bothered to look for the answer? If you're just working off of 911myths.com, and then take it as perfect truth, than there's not going to be an answer, because you never actually bothered to fact check.

I see no difference between 911truth.com, and 911myths.com. They both represent interpretations of the evidence. They are both hearsay and not actual sense experience.

It's not that we are quoting silly web sites, and you are quoting unshakable truth. We are all quoting silly web sited form both sides of the argument. We don't know fully what happened, we may never.

Allow your mind to reason it out, learn some history, but don't just read web sites and shit and quote them and maintain a superiority over truthers for doing the same.

-Pip

[Eilonnwy]

Do you even know what hearsay is? The page I linked to COMPARED IMAGES and showed how it was most definitely Bin Laden. That's not hearsay, it's evidence. EVIDENCE. Go look it up.

[Pippy]

But it is a newer form of hearsay. It might not be the right word entirely, but it gets the point across. That I did not take those pictures, and the ease of creating or modifying those pictures leads me to be skeptical of it's absolute truth.

I am a natural skeptic, something I am not allowed to be unless I am an atheist. You guys also took the term free thinker, of which I also most surely am.

Notice that I am not posting links of other peoples work trying to "prove" my theory on 9/11? Because I don't base my ideas on other peoples work. I make up my own mind. You guys can post all the myth busting that you want, but to me it is a waste of time.

I don't give everything (or much) on 9/11truth.com credit. Therefor, I should also not give everything on 9/11myths.com credit either. They both have an agenda, and could be lying.

I am not outsourcing my opinions and then claiming pictures on the internet as solid, unquestionable truth. I think you guys need a stronger definition of truth, because that is pretty flimsy. You are acting in the way that truthers get slammed for. Just taking it all in and spitting it all out without any skepticism. That you are on the other side of the argument does not justify that.

Like I said before, lets discuss American foreign policy, American middle eastern policy, Israel, history, the people in charge at that time... That seems more full and reliable than pics on the net.

Try to make an actual point, not just post borrowed material from the web.
Thanks,
-Pip