What are plane wings made of? What is their construction?
Went thru half a dozen light poles just fine.
Are light poles reinforced concrete?
How is hitting the ground any different than hitting a wall of steel beams? How did the nose cone of that plane come out the other side? You havenât explained anything. 
Donât be silly, Starling. You are just moving from one petty detail to another, trolling as a rear-guard action.
Letâs cut to the chase. Here are two articles.
The first one argues that the physical evidence is NOT INCONSISTENT with the govât narrative that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. Even so, he admits that the evidence does not conclusively prove that the aircraft was a 757, much less that it was Flight 77. OUr inability to prove anything beyond this point based on the physical evidence is constrained by the LACK OF TRANSPARENCY involved in the cleanup and the unwillingness of the govt to give up any info at all, beyond its narrative which we are supposed to swallow.
The second one is probably even more to your liking.
1 Like
If wings crumple and fold on impact with a building, then that plane flying into the WTC that cuts holes into the building in the shapes of wings? Well, THATâs fake.
You canât have it both ways.
I donât know that the nose cone did come out the other sideâŚ
If you have different planes, different velocities, different structures, different materials, different circumstances, etc, YES, yes you can have it both ways.
Have none of you take a physics class in your lives?
1 Like
Right. The wings cut through steel on the WTC, but they crumpled with concrete AND LEFT NO MARKS AT ALL at the Pentagon.
1 Like
So your basis for skepticism is lack of transparency from the government about the details of a terrorist attack on the Pentagon? Can you think of a reason (or twenty) why the government wouldnât want to publicly disclose information of a breech of the headquarters of the US Department of Defense?
Again, flight 77 and all itâs passengers went missing. Where the fuck did it go?! You are trading speculation and unfounded theories about it in favour of physical evidence pointing to it being the plane that they picked out the rubble of the Pentagon.
Now Spoon, you are sitting there with nothing but conspiracy bullshit and you are telling ME to not be silly? Really?
So the answer is no, you have not taken a physics course. Seriously, this is high school shit. I know because I learned about these things in highschool.
But tell me Lotus, what science do you have to support your claim that the circumstances in the WTC and the Pentagonâs crashes would be the same?
Youâre playing runaround. You have cycled through about 20 different approaches to your argument, everything from âNo one could cover up something so heinousâ to âthe physics are different,â âSIlverstein was talking about getting the firemen out. He just doesnât understand the English language,â and "âIâm going to pretend I never saw that link about the money trial because that might actually offer some strong circumstantial evidence that I couldnât refute.â All you are doing is presenting the official story as evidence. You have not presented a single compelling argument for toeing the government line.
Your argument puts me in mind of your insistence that Trumpâs comment about grabbing women was just locker room talk, and that, of course, if they let him, then they wanted it.
1 Like
No, Iâm not playing runaround. I may be talking over your head because Iâm referring to something called SCIENCE which doesnât seem to be your strong suit.
So if I talk about multiple things and provide an explanation for each one, thatâs 20 different approaches? Those are 20 different points. HAHA
The official story makes sense. What doesnât make sense is the convoluted, super involved conspiracy shit you people are going on about. See even right now, you are just throwing monkey shit when you are challenged because you canât back up the theories you subscribe to with anything tangible.
Nice try with the Trump red herring. Not falling for it.
Youâre not talking over my head. Youâre arrogant. You think because you took a physics class in high school, you understand more than actual physicists and engineers who argue over this very topic? Kind of like your thinking that since you took one course in womenâs studies you know everything about feminism and every feministâs thinking. Like I said, youâre arrogant. Your intelligence doesnât measure up to your opinion about yourself.
We all do it. I donât see why some people always take the hook, in Starlingâs case.
Can you clarify that comment for me please?
BTW, Starling, even if it WAS a plane that hit the Pentagon, and the plane didnât leave any marks on the ground, and itâs wings did crumple without making marks on the building, and the plane debris pretty much disappearedâŚ
Well, none of that is proof of any kind that 9/11 wasnât an inside job.
So in a way, this argument is completely pointless given what weâve been arguing about for days.
I donât see you ârunaroundingâ any worse than many of us have done (and in some cases continue to do.) You notice that Iâve gotten used to arguing stuff with you and I still do it (albeit kind of casually) and donât take the hook and get invested in winning or losing an argument that realistically cannot have a winner.
Iâm only wondering why a couple of posters get hooked into these conversations and lose their temper. Thatâs all. Weâre all just here to have a little fun and jerk each otherâs chain a little.
I see a lot of speculation from people who never stepped foot on any of these sites. How do you measure that against people who actually accessed the site? Why you you give those peopleâs speculation the same weight as those who actually pulled bodies of flight crew members from the wreckage or who sifted through the rubble?
Conspiracy theory mentality isnât limited to those without professional designations BTW. You also talk about following the money. Follow how much money these people make on books and talks and swag from pimping this bullshit.
1 Like
I have noticed a bad habit of some to misuse terms frequently. Like if itâs said it must be true. Thatâs entertaining
I enjoy questioning things and helping people find the fail points in their arguments. I also learn another side to an issue which I enjoy as well as having an opportunity to use my brain that sometimes doesnât work. That is a joy for me.