Do you belive 9/11 was a inside job?

[QUOTE="MushroomWig"][QUOTE="PannicAtack"]You know who else wasn't there? You.

LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="MushroomWig"]Of course not, but thankfully the pictures speak for themselves. Check above, that was some impressive Pentagon Lawn, even a plane crash won't cause any visable damage, not like a normal plane crashGabuEx

Generally when a plane doesn't make contact with the ground, it doesn't do that to the ground...

Here's a question that no one has ever given me a good answer to, so I'll give you a chance to do so: we already know from the WTC that the conspirators were more than capable of getting planes to fly into not one, but two buildings. If they wanted the official story in the Pentagon to be "a plane crashed into it", why would they not just... crash a plane into it?

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="MushroomWig"]Lol, they found DNA because they told you so..obviously you have no idea since you weren't there to see it for yourself.MushroomWig

Fortunately, we have tons of witnesses who were there who testify to the effect that there was a plane that crashed into the Pentagon...

Were they all paid off by the government or something to say that?

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="MushroomWig"] Of course not, but thankfully the pictures speak for themselves. Check above, that was some impressive Pentagon Lawn, even a plane crash won't cause any visable damage, not like a normal plane crash;MushroomWig

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="MushroomWig"] Of course not, but thankfully the pictures speak for themselves. Check above, that was some impressive Pentagon Lawn, even a plane crash won't cause any visable damage, not like a normal plane crash;MushroomWig

[QUOTE="MushroomWig"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Fortunately, we have tons of witnesses who were there who testify to the effect that there was a plane that crashed into the Pentagon...

Were they all paid off by the government or something to say that?

LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="MushroomWig"] Yet somehow the witnesses near the Flight 93 crash who can testify that they saw an unmarked military drone the size of a cruise missile hit instead of a plane gets cast aside, why?PannicAtack

[QUOTE="MushroomWig"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Every crash is different. The Pentagon had a plane flown into it...it didn't crash and fall. There is a difference.

LJS9502_basic

Yet somehow the witnesses near the Flight 93 crash who can testify that they saw an unmarked military drone the size of a cruise missile hit instead of a plane gets cast aside, why?MushroomWig

This is a picture taken by someone who was there to see Flight 93 crash into the ground only moments before.

This is a seatbelt from Flight 93, and is among one of the many items that crews recovered from the plane that crashed in the first image above.

There are dozens of people who can testify to the fact that there was a plane that crashed into the field, so I will ask you the same question: were all of them paid off by the government?

[QUOTE="jamesgj"]

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"]Gee, never seen this before.

Operation Northwoods is something that was during a time of panic, didn't really involve mass murder, and most importantly, did not happen.

PannicAtack

Operation northwoods is a good example of the 911 ideals. Now it didn't happen, but they we're actually considering it, you are in denial son. I guess those 58,000 of our men back in the 60s died for a reason to, if you can find one I'd be happen to listen. Killing people isn't a problem for old people, they won't be in the line of fire.

Your right your reply made absolute no substance. I didn't make any substance either because people won't listen, because they don't want to. Why don't you go ask some homeless vets what they think of the south china sea and get back to me once you figure out why you said the death of 58,000 people is just "words" and "rhetoric".

who knows. its just sad because the government could take part of the attack.

MushroomWig

"Hani Hanjour may not have been up to the task, but a 757's flight control computer seems sufficient."

:lol:

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"]

[QUOTE="jamesgj"]

Operation northwoods is a good example of the 911 ideals. Now it didn't happen, but they we're actually considering it, you are in denial son. I guess those 58,000 of our men back in the 60s died for a reason to, if you can find one I'd be happen to listen. Killing people isn't a problem for old people, they won't be in the line of fire.

jamesgj

Your right your reply made absolute no substance. I didn't make any substance either because people won't listen, because they don't want to. Why don't you go ask some homeless vets what they think of the south china sea and get back to me once you figure out why you said the death of 58,000 people is just "words" and "rhetoric".

[QUOTE="McJugga"][QUOTE="mastershakez"]

It was a generalised statement, not specifically pertaining the to topic at hand. I've already stated in this thread that I will not be arguing over this topic. Believe whatever you want, and I will do the same.

mastershakez

That's actually pretty funny, because I almost added "inb4 cuz ya know your argument is wrong!" at the end of my post. I swear I feel like a psychic sometimes. Thanks for the larf.

You make ridiculous claims with nothing backing them up, and you were able to predict people would call you out on them?

I wish I had your intuition. =[

[QUOTE="MushroomWig"]Yet somehow the witnesses near the Flight 93 crash who can testify that they saw an unmarked military drone the size of a cruise missile hit instead of a plane gets cast aside, why?GabuEx

This is a picture taken by someone who was there to see Flight 93 crash into the ground only moments before.

This is a seatbelt from Flight 93, and is among one of the many items that crews recovered from the plane that crashed in the first image above.

There are dozens of people who can testify to the fact that there was a plane that crashed into the field, so I will ask you the same question: were all of them paid off by the government?

[QUOTE="racer8dan"]

unless you believe Oswald to be a lone shooter

GabuEx

Just for the record, it has been scientifically demonstrated that a bullet like the one Oswald fired, from a gun like the one Oswald used, fired from an elevation and distance away like the one at which Oswald would have been located, absolutely can do by itself the damage that was recorded to have been done.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="racer8dan"]

unless you believe Oswald to be a lone shooter

racer8dan

Just for the record, it has been scientifically demonstrated that a bullet like the one Oswald fired, from a gun like the one Oswald used, fired from an elevation and distance away like the one at which Oswald would have been located, absolutely can do by itself the damage that was recorded to have been done.

Yet;

Compared to

MushroomWig

So, just for the record and so we're on the same page, are you indeed saying that the people who took the two photographs I showed, along with all of the cleanup crews who have more or less recovered all of Flight 93, are lying?

[QUOTE="MushroomWig"]

LJS9502_basic

Yeah there was a shooter in the book depository, oswald or not, but the evidence of multiple shooters is WAY too strong to dismiss. And the government is still saying one shooter and people still believe it:lol:

racer8dan

If it has been physically shown that one bullet under the exact same configurations could do all of the damage observed - the negation of which being the primary point people offer against the single-shooter idea - then why would we, as Occam's Razor puts it, multiply entities beyond necessity?

[QUOTE="MushroomWig"]

Yet;

Compared to

GabuEx

So, just for the record and so we're on the same page, are you indeed saying that the people who took the two photographs I showed, along with all of the cleanup crews who have more or less recovered all of Flight 93, are lying?

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="MushroomWig"]

MushroomWig

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="MushroomWig"]

Yet;

Compared to

MushroomWig

So, just for the record and so we're on the same page, are you indeed saying that the people who took the two photographs I showed, along with all of the cleanup crews who have more or less recovered all of Flight 93, are lying?

OK, and all of the witnesses that testify to the effect that a plane crashed into the Pentagon are also lying?

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="MushroomWig"]

MushroomWig

[QUOTE="MushroomWig"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]

So, just for the record and so we're on the same page, are you indeed saying that the people who took the two photographs I showed, along with all of the cleanup crews who have more or less recovered all of Flight 93, are lying?

GabuEx

OK, and all of the witnesses that testify to the effect that a plane crashed into the Pentagon are also lying?

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="MushroomWig"] Completely.MushroomWig

OK, and all of the witnesses that testify to the effect that a plane crashed into the Pentagon are also lying?

Afraid so.MushroomWig

OK, and, for the record, why did they lie?

[QUOTE="MushroomWig"]Afraid so.GabuEx

OK, and, for the record, why did they lie?

[QUOTE="racer8dan"]

Yeah there was a shooter in the book depository, oswald or not, but the evidence of multiple shooters is WAY too strong to dismiss. And the government is still saying one shooter and people still believe it:lol:

GabuEx

If it has been physically shown that one bullet under the exact same configurations could do all of the damage observed - the negation of which being the primary point people offer against the single-shooter idea - then why would we, as Occam's Razor puts it, multiply entities beyond necessity?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BedFdcI72NM

Here's another interesting video, worth a look, skip to 1:07 if you want.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTVH--eqWg4

Wow, what's with all the "yes" votes? :lol:McJugga

When you shoot something, it gets pushed towards the bullets travel direction NOT the opposite

racer8dan

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="MushroomWig"]Afraid so.MushroomWig

OK, and, for the record, why did they lie?

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="MushroomWig"]Afraid so.MushroomWig

OK, and, for the record, why did they lie?

[QUOTE="MushroomWig"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]

OK, and, for the record, why did they lie?

Dasacant

[QUOTE="Dasacant"][QUOTE="MushroomWig"] It could be a number of reasons, they were threatened, they were government agents, they were bribed..there could be a number of reasons. That picture being faked clearly shows that whoever took it was willingly working with whoever wanted it to happen.LJS9502_basic

It could be a number of reasons, they were threatened, they were government agents, they were bribed..there could be a number of reasons. That picture being faked clearly shows that whoever took it was willingly working with whoever wanted it to happen.MushroomWig

OK, and one final question: all of the witnesses that you say testify in favor of your version of the story, why did they not meet the same fate?

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="Dasacant"] Wanted what to happen? What is the point of all of this, why did they go through so much trouble to fake crash this plane?MushroomWig

[QUOTE="racer8dan"]

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Just for the record, it has been scientifically demonstrated that a bullet like the one Oswald fired, from a gun like the one Oswald used, fired from an elevation and distance away like the one at which Oswald would have been located, absolutely can do by itself the damage that was recorded to have been done.

LJS9502_basic

Conspiracy or not, I am curious as to why some files are to be released only after 2029 (if they haven't released all of them already)

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="Dasacant"] Wanted what to happen? What is the point of all of this, why did they go through so much trouble to fake crash this plane?MushroomWig

[QUOTE="MushroomWig"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]I asked that already. He did not answer.

LJS9502_basic

The motive is pretty obvious - Iraq, Afganastan, oil, the patriot act and god knows what else.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="MushroomWig"] I have no idea, ask the government. ;)MushroomWig

The motive is pretty obvious - Iraq, Afganastan, oil, the patriot act and god knows what else.

He meant - at least I believe he meant - the motive behind faking a plane crash rather than having an actual plane crash, like with the WTC.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="MushroomWig"] I have no idea, ask the government. ;)MushroomWig

The motive is pretty obvious - Iraq, Afganastan, oil, the patriot act and god knows what else.

LOL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XY02Qkuc_f8&feature=fvw

[QUOTE="MushroomWig"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Why would I ask the government when all evidence points to the contrary. This is your theory....what is the motive? If you haven't a motive...you haven't a conspiracy.;)LJS9502_basic

The motive is pretty obvious - Iraq, Afganastan, oil, the patriot act and god knows what else.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="MushroomWig"]

The motive is pretty obvious - Iraq, Afganastan, oil, the patriot act and god knows what else.

MushroomWig

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="MushroomWig"]

The motive is pretty obvious - Iraq, Afganastan, oil, the patriot act and god knows what else.

MushroomWig