Aeronautical Engineer says Official 9/11 Story Not Possible

In article ,
Newps wrote:

TRUTH wrote:

Where are the facts? You point to ONE fact that shows flight 77 hit the
Pentagon.

I guess airliner parts laying on the lawn don't count.

....and hundreds of witnesses (the plane flew over a very busy highway).

Not to mention the bodies.

And not to mention that the people who did it *took credit for the act*.

Chad Irby wrote in
:

In article ,
TRUTH wrote:

Well, if you're not smart enough to understand what's in those sites,
then it's obivous what version you're going to take: the absurd
factless version

I note that you couldn't manage to come up with any answers for
anything anyone says, other than to dredge up Yet Another Crazy Expert
who manages to miss the obvious.



Where is the evidence showing the government's version?

Note: basic scientific laws CANNOT be changed

Chad Irby wrote in
:

In article ,
Newps wrote:

TRUTH wrote:

Where are the facts? You point to ONE fact that shows flight 77 hit
the Pentagon.

I guess airliner parts laying on the lawn don't count.

...and hundreds of witnesses (the plane flew over a very busy
highway).

Not to mention the bodies.

And not to mention that the people who did it *took credit for the
act*.




What you said is not factual. If you think it is, prove it. Show me the
evidence.

TRUTH wrote:

The conclusion I draw from your comment is that many people are too
embarrassed to admit possible government involvement in 9/11, so they
refuse to thing it, reagrdless of overwhelming evidence.

The conclusion I draw is that you're unable to face the *actual truth*
for whatever half-assed reason you might have.

Graham

Pooh Bear wrote in
:



TRUTH wrote:

The conclusion I draw from your comment is that many people are too
embarrassed to admit possible government involvement in 9/11, so they
refuse to thing it, reagrdless of overwhelming evidence.

The conclusion I draw is that you're unable to face the *actual truth*
for whatever half-assed reason you might have.

Graham





Okay, where is the evidence? Show it, and be specific.

TRUTH wrote:

Where are the facts? You point to ONE fact that shows flight 77 hit the
Pentagon.

Not much point if you simply deny them which is frankly the only 'argument'
you have.

You can't construct a meaningful case by simply dismissing all the actual
evidence out of hand - unless you're a complete loony of course.

Graham

TRUTH wrote:

Jim Logajan wrote in
:

TRUTH wrote:
Where are the facts? You point to ONE fact that shows flight 77 hit
the
Pentagon.

Photos and facts as presented by snopes:

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

See he

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/flight77.htm

http://www.oilempire.us/bogus.html

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com

also,

www.911truth.org
www.911busters.com
www.911review.com
www.911proof.com
www.911truthseekers.org
www.911blimp.net
www.911blogger.com

just to name a few

The difference is that Snopes is credible.

The kook sites aren't.

Graham

Pooh Bear wrote in
:



TRUTH wrote:

Where are the facts? You point to ONE fact that shows flight 77 hit
the Pentagon.

Not much point if you simply deny them which is frankly the only
'argument' you have.

You can't construct a meaningful case by simply dismissing all the
actual evidence out of hand - unless you're a complete loony of
course.

Graham






ha, that's a poor attempt to prove the kooky government verison correct.

You can't provide the proof because there is no proof. And there is
PLENTY proof showing otherwise.

Do you really wish to take the side of looney wackos who believe a
proofless verison? You think there is proof? Okay, where? Where is it?

Pooh Bear wrote in
:



TRUTH wrote:

Jim Logajan wrote in
:

TRUTH wrote:
Where are the facts? You point to ONE fact that shows flight 77 hit
the
Pentagon.

Photos and facts as presented by snopes:

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

See he

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/flight77.htm

http://www.oilempire.us/bogus.html

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com

also,

www.911truth.org
www.911busters.com
www.911review.com
www.911proof.com
www.911truthseekers.org
www.911blimp.net
www.911blogger.com

just to name a few

The difference is that Snopes is credible.

The kook sites aren't.

Graham





Calling them kook sites shows a predetermination on your part to believe
the governments version. Do you also believe in Martians?

TRUTH wrote:

I am not a scientist..........But I can use science to disprove the absurd
government version

It is painnfully clear that science is way over your head.

You couldn't 'scientifically' find your way out of a brown paper bag.

Graham