Reply With Quote
So why did they even bother hitting the Pentagon? What if they missed and hit the nice side of the Pentagon?
Most people had never heard of building 7 either. Most people still haven't.
The World Trade Center Towers 1 and 2 were very well-known landmarks.I'm talking about well-known landmarks like the Statue of Liberty, the Empire State Building, the Washington Monument, or the Whitehouse.
People got very upset on 9/11.People would get vwery upset if those national reasure were damaged, not some old church.
So why did they even bother hitting the Pentagon? What if they missed and hit the nice side of the Pentagon?
so why the Pentagon?
FL93 was never going to DC. You just made that up. The flight path shows that it turned directly towards NYC just before it was shot down.
WTC 7 had a water sprinkler system, and was made of steel and concrete. Steel and concrete do not burn you fool. And the building was built to fire code. Not likely much of a fire could get going there.
You have got a nice story going.
How about you put it all together in one nice summation, including who did it, why and how.
OK, then. I have two requests:
(1) Show me where flight 93 was headed. Don't just tell me it was going to NYC. Show me the path. I think you'll see it was heading for DC.
(2) Answer my previous question. Why WTC7? Why was that a more "thrilling" target than the Capitol or the White House?
eh, who cares?
you want to spend the rest of your life arguing about this?
2nd time: burning debris from WTC 1 is what fell onto WTC 7.
and when you say "Steel and concrete do not burn you fool", do you mean that steel and concrete do not burn or that steel and concrete do not burn me fool?
Dude. How many times do I have to repeat myself. FL93 was supposed to fly into the WTC along with FL11 and FL175. But FL93 got stuck in the runway for 43 minutes, so it did not take off until much later than the other hijacked flights. By the time FL93 was hijacked, about 9:25, it was too late for it to get back to WTC 7, and make the story believable that it was not intercepted. The fact that FL77 was not intercepted by 9:38 is a stretch in itself, considering that people were calling from the planes reporting the hijackings by 8:20.
Think about it.
A plane flies into the WTC at 8:46. CNN can get a live camera there in two minutes, at 8:48, and all the other networks there by 8:51, but the military can't get plane to NYC until after 10 PM?
On top of that, CNN did not have advance warning that the planes were intercepted, they only knew anything after the plane hit the tower, while the authorities knew of the hijacking by 8:20.
So anyways, WTC 7 is sitting there loaded with explosives, so they blew it up before anyone found the explosives.
Please. Stay on topic.
You're displaying the same knowledge of the criminal justice system as you have of most other issues. The tainted evidence against him as well as the motives of investigating officers created reasonable doubt. I know damn good and well he did it, and if I'd been on that jury I'd have voted to acquit because the state failed to meet their burden of proof. Being found not guilty is not the same thing as actually being innocent.
If you ever want to be taken seriously, you should read the above two sentences and find out where your mistake is.
flight 93 flight path
http://images.google.com/images?um=1...=Search+Images
Why would that stupid little building be loaded with explosives again? If you think someone was going to be able to hit it with a plane then you've clearly never been to that area of Manhattan.
FL93 turns towards New York City, shot down, spirals out of control into the ground.
FL93 was shot in the air at 9:58, per the phone records.
It's clearly headed toward Washington DC. Isn't that the definition of self-ownership?
You sound like a Nazi!
No, it turned towards NYC. It is right on the map.
No, it's headed directly toward Washington DC; put a ruler on the straight line. If you and all your discussion of time lines don't understand the reason for the change in the path at the end, then I'll use your own logic to tell you that the plane was intended to crash into a field in Stony Creek, Pennsylvania to add to the "Thriller Movie" effect.
Have you ever seen what an explosion does to a girder? It certainly doesn't remain vertical and it definitely doesn't have a straight cut. That cut was made by a torch. A torch will make a straight cut like that not a shaped charge that expands out from a point in all directions.
WTC7 actually had two sprinkler systems. One on the upper floors had its own supply and may well have worked on 9/11. The system for the lower floors was supplied by the public water mains in lower Manhattan, which were most assuredly not working after the collapses of the twin towers.So why would any building made of concrete and steel ever have a sprinkler system? According to you, they would all be completely fireproof.Steel and concrete do not burn you fool. And the building was built to fire code. Not likely much of a fire could get going there.
Why were the fire alarms turned off in WTC 7 at 6:47 A.M.?
Nice timing.
They were not turned off.
Nice lying.
Open mouth insert foot.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
