UK Terror Plot

[Mister Bushice]

If 77 didn't crash in to the pentagon, exactly where did it crash?

Planes do not completely vaporize. There is always wreckage. Last I checked Kentucky is not exactly Area51.

[LTS TRN 2]

Oh yea, and the 9/11 Commission report also neglected to offer ANY excuse for the apparent STANDDOWN of NORAD that fateful day.

Read it, parrot, and see for yourself.

Meanwhile, carry on your tedious quibbling over whatever minutiae your're using to distract yourself.

[Luther]

Too serious? No, I won't take this under advisement as I like to rule instantly. I will stipulate that for years TVO believes our government is out to get him. But I will only stip it in this thread only. The board has talked to his parents and they wanted to stip it in the bud early in his life, but TVO smoked Camel's behind the gym in elementary school and it stipend his growth. That is why it got moved, IMO.

Rip City

[Moving Sale]

At 9:37:46, American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon, traveling at approximately 530 miles per hour.61 All on board, as well as many civilian and military personnel in the building, were killed.

There you go again. How do you know that? Because someone told you? Did you do any investigation before you made up your mind?

[Cuda]

{If} Ted Olson is available to testify.

If I get him on the stand he is toast.

BWAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


Yeah, compared to TVO, Ted Olson is a real dumbfuck.

No, really...

[Moving Sale]

If If If. We have to get you to stip that 77 didn't hit the pentagon before we get to what happened to the plane. One step at a time. If it did hit the building one would think you could show how that is possible given your unwavering stand that it did.

[Mister Bushice]

If If If. We have to get you to stip that 77 didn't hit the pentagon before we get to what happened to the plane. One step at a time. If it did hit the building one would think you could show how that is possible given your unwavering stand that it did.

I'm thinking at this point you have NO answers, since you repeatedly dodge and ignore this most basic question:

If Flight 77 didn't crash into the Pentagon, where did it end up?

You want anyone to buy into your theory, you have to back it up with a few facts. This is just as bad as the bible beaters saying "The bible is true because it says so - in the bible"

[Moving Sale]

And you've yet to come up with any ... evidence that support your story.

The lamp posts. The entry hole. The punchout hole. The lawn. The generator. The spools. The angle of entry.
All of them are wrong. I can go into why for the 100th time if you like....

MB,
That is not the most basic question. The most basic question is what happened at the pentagon. It is right there and so is all the evidence. Who the fuck knows where the plane went? Oh that right you are a fallacy boy too so you will just keep asking the same stupid illogical question. Gawd you side is full of tards.

[Mister Bushice]

Who the fuck knows where the plane went?

This is where your conspiracy theory falls apart. The plane was last spotted on Radar 38 miles from the pentagon, going at a high rate of speed towards the pentagon, at a low altitude. There is no record of it landing, there was no report from anyone of plane wreckage anywhere in the US or canada, there were no additional phone calls reported from anyone else on that plane to indicate they were still in the air after the pentagon crash.

Your on site questions about the lamp posts. The entry hole, The punchout hole, The lawn, The generator, The spools, The angle of entry may have explanations, I haven't spent any time on this subject to know, but the fact that neither you nor anyone else can account for the whereabouts of a very large plane filled with people certainly casts serious doubt on whatever specifics you find shaky at the crash site.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

Oh that right you are a fallacy boy

C'mon, who are you kidding - YOU'RE the one with the leotards and cape sporting that moniker.

Gawd you side is full of tards.

Considering that LTS is one "you" side, I'd be careful about hitting my glass walls with those stones being tossed around, tin-hat boy.

Nobody that tries to insinuate that people didn't die on 77 (remember, I dredged your exact quote up earlier, so don't even try to deny it this time...) deserves any credibility.

[Moving Sale]

The plane was last spotted on Radar 38 miles from the pentagon, going at a high rate of speed towards the pentagon, at a low altitude.

The 9-11 report says "At 9:29, the autopilot on American 77 was disengaged; the aircraft was at 7,000 feet and approximately 38 miles west of the Pentagon. At 9:32, controllers at the Dulles Terminal Radar Approach Control 'observed a primary radar target tracking eastbound at a high rate of speed.' This was later determined to have been Flight 77." So it was spotted 3 min after it was 38 miles out. Going how many miles a minute? And how long was it tracked by Dulles? According to the 911 report it was last spotted on radar. A lot closer than 38 miles. Can you even read? Or do you not believe the 911 report?

Not sure how you think you typing that it was spotted on radar 38 miles out does anything positive for your side.
Not sure why you have a hang up about this issue. Plane could be anywhere. If you care so much about being too stupid to get past a shit argument that you will not even LOOK at the physical evidence... that is not my problem. There are lots of places for a plane to go... there is no way 77 did the damage that was done to the pentagon. Bury your head if you must.

Jsc,
Lawyer or not it is nice to get facts right. Your report says 77 was seen on radar at by Dulles at 9:32, 3 min after the report says it was 38 miles out. The dude can't even read English and you are going to take his side?

Mike,
A) Show me one fallacy I have not admitted to.
B) Go stick you head in a beaker.


And 'on' thing you might want to try is spelling things right when you are running spelling smack you fucking tard.

[Moving Sale]

"there was no report from anyone of plane wreckage anywhere in the US or canada,"

BTW- That is not true either. According to some, the FAA had reports of a plane going down in Kentucky. You might have wanted to say no cedible* reports, but you didn't. Nice going tard.

Another BTW- ANY of you care to explain WTC 7? I thought so...


*Not that I will stip that they are not credible, but they are out there so you have KYOA again.

[Mister Bushice]

The plane was last spotted on Radar 38 miles from the pentagon, going at a high rate of speed towards the pentagon, at a low altitude.

The 9-11 report says "At 9:29, the autopilot on American 77 was disengaged; the aircraft was at 7,000 feet and approximately 38 miles west of the Pentagon. At 9:32, controllers at the Dulles Terminal Radar Approach Control 'observed a primary radar target tracking eastbound at a high rate of speed.' This was later determined to have been Flight 77." So it was spotted 3 min after it was 38 miles out. Going how many miles a minute?

Approximately 6 miles per minute, if the approximate 400 miles an hour is accurate. That would put it about 18-20 miles from The pentagon 3 minutes after the autopilot was disengaged and less than 5 minutes before impact, making it even more probable as the target, given that the plane would have been slowed down somewhat by the very low altitude it was flying and the drag produced by the ailerons and elevators that would have been needed to make sure it did not miss the target or tumble out of control, also given that the autopilot was no longer controlling it, inexperienced pilots were.

And how long was it tracked by Dulles? According to the 911 report it was last spotted on radar. A lot closer than 38 miles. Can you even read? Or do you not believe the 911 report?

What difference does it make if it is 38 or 19 miles out? If anything, the fact it was spotted on radar closer to the Pentagon that close to impact time reinforces its impact with the pentagon, not refutes it.

Not sure how you think you typing that it was spotted on radar 38 miles out does anything positive for your side.

Not sure how you think it was anything negative, given the time frame.

Not sure why you have a hang up about this issue. Plane could be anywhere.

Ok then. Where is it? It is the final link in your little puzzle. You come up with an alternate crash site, and you have instant credibility.
You merely say "It could be anywhere" and Dorothy, you're just not in Kansas anymore.

There are lots of places for a plane to go...

Name me one that could possibly be THIS plane, meaning it has to be the same type, same approximate number of dead bodies found at the crash site, and within flying range for the amount of fuel it would have had left. A plane that big would leave a big scar, and a trail of witnesses.
you should have no trouble coming up with a crash site of this size, not to mention the radar that must have continued tracking it. Unless of course, it crashed into the pentagon.

there is no way 77 did the damage that was done to the pentagon.

Darn it, then there are all these pesky witnesses mucking up your fable:

http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blflight77w.htm

Especially this one:

I can't believe what has happened. I live in Pentagon City (part of Arlington) and can see the Pentagon when I look out my window. I still can't believe it. I was supposed to have been going to the Pentagon Tuesday morning at about 11:00am (EDT) and was getting ready, and thank goodness I wasn't going to be going until later. It was so shocking, I was listening to the news on what had happened in New York, and just happened to look out the window because I heard a low flying plane and then I saw it hit the Pentagon. It happened so fast... it was in the air one moment and in the building the next... I still have a hard time believing it, but every time I look out the window, it seems to be more real than it did the time before...
K.M., Pentagon City, USA

Ouch! That one left a mark....

Bury your head if you must.

You mean like you are to the fact that there was a plane, which you say did not crash into the pentagon, yet you can't seem to give anything close to a reasonable possibility of where it may have ended up?

[Mister Bushice]

"there was no report from anyone of plane wreckage anywhere in the US or canada,"

BTW- That is not true either. According to some,

"According to Some"? WTF Is THAT? according to some fairies that whisper tales in your ear? According to some other tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorists? You talk about providing facts and you say "according to some"?????

the FAA had reports of a plane going down in Kentucky. You might have wanted to say no cedible* reports, but you didn't.

No need. I'll bet if I do a timeline check on air time from 14 miles from the pentagon to kentucky, those times will not come close to matching up, nor will the plane size, type or crash site particulars

*Not that I will stip that they are not credible, but they are out there so you have KYOA again.

Out there is not in here. If you want to use specualtion we're done. Bring some facts to support your argument or piss off.

[Moving Sale]

What difference does it make if it is 38 or 19 miles out?

I was pointing out that you were too dumb to even read your own damn source which makes anything you say about it highly suspect.

If anything, the fact it was spotted on radar closer to the Pentagon that close to impact time reinforces its impact with the pentagon, not refutes it.

Well duh! I was pointing out that you couldn't even get one fact about the 911 report right which makes anything you say about it highly suspect.

Where is it?

Sorry you are hung up on a fallacy. That is not my fault, nor is it my problem.

Ouch! That one left a mark....

The physical evidence is what it is. If you could refute it you wouldn't need to type this kind of desperate crap.

As for the FAA reports of a crash. They are what they are. You said there were no reports of a crash and there were. One more thing you know nothing about.

[Mister Bushice]

This is a prime example of how lawyers dodge issues. You'll notice not one attempt was made on his part to address the actual argument, instead he attempt to discredit, and totally ignored addressing the facts.

What difference does it make if it is 38 or 19 miles out?

I was pointing out that you were too dumb to even read your own damn source which makes anything you say about it highly suspect.

I quickly read jct post and commented, my error was one of misreasding, not of miscomprehension. You are focusing on meaningless minutia. Address the reality of the facts as they are presented.

But I know you won't, because they punch large holes in your claims.

If anything, the fact it was spotted on radar closer to the Pentagon that close to impact time reinforces its impact with the pentagon, not refutes it.

Well duh! I was pointing out that you couldn't even get one fact about the 911 report right which makes anything you say about it highly suspect.

Again, dodging the actual facts, and focusing on a minor error not related to the timeline. What matters what I say or how I say it, if the 911 report damns your point of view more than it does mine?

Where is it?

Sorry you are hung up on a fallacy. That is not my fault, nor is it my problem.

Shocker you won't address this one. The location of a missing plane is a fallacy? I'm done with you. Arguing with insane people is pointless.

Ouch! That one left a mark....

The physical evidence is what it is. If you could refute it you wouldn't need to type this kind of desperate crap.

The physical evidence can be argued, has been argued, no one questions the results but government conspiracy freak nutcases. You have repeatedly been unable to even give a reasonable explanation of where the plane went ( FYI "It could be anywhere" only works for a missing key, wallet, or sock.)

Until you do, you have no basis for an argument, since you are missing the keystone of your argument. All the "Physical" evidence you purport as fact is actually speculation, as no one really knows everything that physically happens to a plane full of people and fuel when it crashes at high speed into a concrete building.

I recall a fire that occurred at a school I worked at years ago. It destroyed everything, melted it, the buildings look like they had been bombed. File cabinets melted, the entire kitchen - stainless steel stove, sink, commercial refrigerator - all gone without a trace, melted into nothing as if they were never there, just from the heat of a fire caused by burning brush and high winds.

So oddities at a crash site are just not all that surprising to me, especially given the preponderance of evidence that 77 DID crash there, what with the dozens of eye witnesses ( which I noticed you also dodged nicely) and the timeline( which you also did not explain away)


So if you've got nothing new to add, CASE DISMISSED DUE TO LACK OF EVIDENCE.

As for the FAA reports of a crash. They are what they are. You said there were no reports of a crash and there were. One more thing you know nothing about.

If you want to continue this here's what you will do:

Link us to some proof there was a crash within flying range, a crash that was of undetermined origin. If you do that you also solve that persnickety problem of where your airplane went if it didn't crash into the pentagon.

If you don't do this^ we're done here, and you are just another kook.

[LTS TRN 2]

Enough!

WTF is up with all this tedious parsing over the Pentagon strike?

Look, the neocons got their Reichstag Fire (and resulting catastrophe--just like their mentors), and yes, indeed there remain a robust list of bizarre peculiarities surrounding the incident--


--like Cheney's comment to Mineta to let the plane continue unobstructed on its way to the Pentagon!!

--and...the fact that NO witnesses anywhere have testified that they actually saw a plane--let alone an airliner-- fly through a major urban area at under 100 feet!!--

or...that NO identifiable pieces of ANY plane were recovered from the Pentagon site....



But seriously, LET IT GO

The topic here is the current FAKE terror threat, the U.K. airline plot.


Guess what? There is apparently NO EVIDENCE against any of these guys, and they're ALL going to be released.

This same Homeland ScareUs bullshit was duly rolled out last year out here in the backwoods town of Lodi, where, after finally admitting they had NOTHING, the FBI let the father go--but locked up the (partially retarded) son on perjury because of conflicting denials during his weeks long interrogation (without lawyer or any due process).

GOT FASCISM?

Has it really come to this? Lieb The Hebe gets his ass kicked, and Rove immediately rolls out this pathetic "plot" on hold.

Let's see...."liquid explosives" are going to be shaken (not stirred) in insulated coffee cups and ignited with the flash from disposable cameras?....THIS is the plot?

Uh....are you Rove-parrot, ditto-head crypto-Nazis ever surprised that EVERYTHING this demented (unelected) cabal has initiated has gone TOTALLY wrong?

Just wondering

[Mike the Lab Rat]

The location of a missing plane is a fallacy?

Moving Sale: "Fallacy!! Fallacy!!"


Bushice: "You keep using that word.
I do not think it means what you think
it means."

[Moving Sale]

The physical evidence can be argued, has been argued, no one questions the results but government conspiracy freak nutcases.

Then you might want to just crawl back into your cave.

Mike,
I 'does not follow' that just because...... Aw fuck it.

'The pancake theory' is good science how?

[Moving Sale]

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science ... 27842.html

Like I didn't see that coming?

WTC 7 Collapse
"... falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner."
And yet it fell straight down. If demo crews use gravity to pull buildings away from other buildings when taking them down, how did WTC7 fall straight down? With 5 and 6 left (kinda) standing in between 7 and 1,2? And WTC7 was across the street?

No math to explain how that could be true just this shit...

"NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research."
Believe? Requires more research? This is science?

"But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down."
9.8 m/s/s.

"There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation"
Only 2?

"apparently damaged" "would likely have been" "Our current working hypothesis is that"
WTF?

"were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse."
Remember... 9.8 m/s/s.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

Just a "lack of credibility reminder":

When speaking of the passengers and crew of Flight 77, Moving Sale said:

No proof they are dead. No proof, if they are dead, that they died on 911. No proof, if they are dead, that they died when '77 hit the pentagon.' Just a list of 64 people that may or may not be dead. Try harder next time.

No possible other explanation for the disappearance of those passengers/crew was offered by "Non Compos Mentis One." The plausibilty of all those folks being whisked away and then the government somehow pulling off an elaborate hoax to either convince those folks' friends/relatives that their loved ones were dead (when they weren't) or to relocate and hide those same folks, is never addressed by T1B's less-hinged Oliver Stone. In the latter scenario, trying to imagine that all those people would buy into participating in such a stunt, knowing the pain it would cause their families, strains credibility. Oh, wait - maybe their relatives are such patriots that they know that their family members aren't dead, just living under assumed identities. And they decided to go along with the coverup, pretending their friends and relatives were dead....'cuz the "Bushies" asked them to do so. The massive scale of of such a coverup, with the necessary cooperation of so many people who would have to keep silent, is frigging ridiculous.

"Where are the bodies?" He demands, as if that is required as incontrovertible proof...knowing full well that he'd then go into a "PROVE THEY ACTUALLY DIED IN THE CRASH!!!" follow-up (actually, he mentions that already), which would probably then be followed by requests for the names, credentials, and political affiliations of the coroners, firefighters, police, forensic experts at the scene and afterwards involved in the investigation.

MS is so steeped in hatred of the Bush administration that he is willing to insinuate the most bizarre, elaborate hoaxes and grand coverups, based on nothing but speculation and innuendo. No rationale is given for the Bush administration's alleged treason. But then again, none needs to be given, right MS? After all, the "Bushies" are just plain evil....and so must all those who were complicit in the elaborate and unproven plot in which you are expecting us to believe.

[Moving Sale]

MS is so steeped in hatred of the Bush administration that he is willing to insinuate the most bizarre, elaborate hoaxes and grand coverups, based on nothing but speculation and innuendo.

Says who? Can you read? Do you care to read or do you just type whatever the fuck you want without care for its truthfulness? I have said many times that it could well be that AQ (or somebody else) flew something other (and more sophisticated) than a plane into the pentagon and that Bush is being a good president by keeping that a national security secret. He sure as hell would cover it up to help the American people in the long run wouldn't he. Isn't that his job?

It is a non sequitur to say that, because you and I don't know where the plane is, it must have crashed into the pentagon. That is a fallacy and you know it. Well you actually are probably too stupid to know that, but you should.

So Mr. Science guy... that I have not told you where 77 is has nothing to do with WTC7 now does it? Care to explain WTC7? Do you even know anything about it?

[Moving Sale]

L - R: Moving Sale, T1B

:P

Claiming BODE on the strength of what your side has posted so far?

I Laughed!

[Mike the Lab Rat]

It is a non sequitur to say that, because you and I don't know where the plane is, it must have crashed into the pentagon.

It is a non sequitur to say that we" don't know where the plane is" when it was frigging right where we saw it. It is absurd.

That is a fallacy and you know it.
Well you actually are probably too
stupid to know that, but you should.

Every time you post, I just mentally hear your words coming out of Vizzini's lisping mouth. Hell, I'm waiting for you to bust out with with an "INCONTHIEVABLE!"

So Mr. Science guy... that I have not told you where 77 is has nothing to do with WTC7 now does it? Care to explain WTC7? Do you even know anything about it?

That's not the issue I brought up, but thanks for following your usual m.o. of trying to draw your opponent off on a tangent to avoid your inability to address a problem in your own arguments. You tried casting doubt on whether the passengers and crew of flight 77 were even frigging DEAD. My point is that for you to even make this boneheaded point shows you for the utter whackjob you are, and that therefore your arguments as a whole are suspect. You are so interested in casting "reasonable doubt" on the government's case that you are making some of the stupidest arguments possible (short of alien abduction).

The only person who is remotely buying your claptrap is someone who is more paranoid than you. Nice going, counselor.

[BSmack]

MS is so steeped in hatred of the Bush administration that he is willing to insinuate the most bizarre, elaborate hoaxes and grand coverups, based on nothing but speculation and innuendo. No rationale is given for the Bush administration's alleged treason. But then again, none needs to be given, right MS? After all, the "Bushies" are just plain evil....and so must all those who were complicit in the elaborate and unproven plot in which you are expecting us to believe.

The motive is the only element TiVO has to go with. The economy has been VERY good to Bush's core companies. But that's as far as it goes for me. They are greedy opportunists, not conspirators.

[LTS TRN 2]

M-Rat,

first, NO ONE saw a airliner fly into the pentagon. There are NO witnesses. Explain this!

Second, there was NO identifiable airliner wreckage recovered from the site. NONE. Explain this.

Yer turn.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

M-Rat,

first, NO ONE saw a airliner fly into the pentagon. There are NO witnesses. Explain this!

Second, there was NO identifiable airliner wreckage recovered from the site. NONE. Explain this.

Yer turn.

Nope, go back to the issue I brought up and stop ignoring it.

Explain what happened to the crew and passengers of Flight 77. MS says that there's no proof they are dead, so therefore, they must be alive. If so, where are they? In a holding tank somewhere? (ooooh, maybe they're in Gitmo!!!) Or have they assumed new identities after a "brain wipe?" Or did they do a "witness protection" bit and assume new identities while still knowing "what REALLY happened?"

Secondly, your argument about "no witnesses" is utter horseshit. You don't need to have eyewitnesses to prove an event occurred. If you did, you'd pretty much hamstring a hell of a lot of science, especially geology, biology, & physics. Just because no one happened to be looking right at the Pentagon when the plane hit doesn't mean it didn't hit it.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

There are hundreds if not thousands of people who witnessed the event, you stupid fuck.

wait for it......wait for it...

NAME ONE!!!!.....pant, pant, pant....NAME ONE!!!!.....

C'mon, mvs, you KNOW that one is coming....

[Cuda]

Explain what happened to the crew and passengers of Flight 77. MS says that there's no proof they are dead, so therefore, they must be alive. If so, where are they? In a holding tank somewhere? (ooooh, maybe they're in Gitmo!!!) Or have they assumed new identities after a "brain wipe?" Or did they do a "witness protection" bit and assume new identities while still knowing "what REALLY happened?"

Explains everything!

[Mister Bushice]

M-Rat,

first, NO ONE saw a airliner fly into the pentagon. There are NO witnesses. Explain this!

Wrong.

Darn it, then there are all these pesky witnesses mucking up your fable:

http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blflight77w.htm

Especially this one:
Quote:
"I can't believe what has happened. I live in Pentagon City (part of Arlington) and can see the Pentagon when I look out my window. I still can't believe it. I was supposed to have been going to the Pentagon Tuesday morning at about 11:00am (EDT) and was getting ready, and thank goodness I wasn't going to be going until later. It was so shocking, I was listening to the news on what had happened in New York, and just happened to look out the window because I heard a low flying plane and then I saw it hit the Pentagon. It happened so fast... it was in the air one moment and in the building the next... I still have a hard time believing it, but every time I look out the window, it seems to be more real than it did the time before..."
K.M., Pentagon City, USA

#1. Answered. There were plenty of witnesses

Second, there was NO identifiable airliner wreckage recovered from the site. NONE. Explain this.

Yer turn.

I quite clearly recall seeing a picture with a section of the fuselage lying on the grass.

Also, with a fire that hot ( 3000 deg. C at optimal conditions) , most of the planes fuselage would have melted, along with everything else inside the plane, leaving very little behind. As I said before, I personally witnessed a fire where an entire stainless steel kitchen disappeared, lmelted by the heat of the fire. I imagine that the pentagon fire with jet fuel was much hotter than a basic structural fire caused by brush.

Satisfied?

[Mike the Lab Rat]

Satisfied?

No, of course "that side" will never be satisfied with any evidence that remotely supports the opposing view. They're willing to engage in the most jaw-droppingly ridiculous speculation, innuendo, and mind-numbing nitpicking just because they can't fathom the thought that radical ragheads pulled this off and not "the Bushies." Remember, we're dealing with folks so blinded by hatred of the Bush administration and/or the U.S in general that even if they do accept that Islamic terrorists pulled off 9/11, that somehow, we're STILL to blame for "provoking" it.

[Moving Sale]

It is a non sequitur to say that we "don't know where the plane is" when it was frigging right where we saw it.

Huh? Way to use 'stupid' as your second language.
Your argument is a fallacy. Not sure why you don't get that, but it is. Just because I can not (or will not) provide an alternative explanation does not mean that your explanation makes any sense when all of the physical evidence is brought in.

If I can't produce the plane it must have hit the pentagon.
I can't produce the plane.
Therefore it must have hit the pentagon.

It's Calssic N/S.

1. If A then B.
2. Not A.
3. Therefore, not B.

Fuck you are a dumbshit.

That's not the issue I brought up,

I brought up a new one. Care to address it science guy? No of course you don't.

your inability to address a problem in your own arguments.

I just did you flaming ignoramus. Your argument is a classic fallacy. That IS me addressing the flaw you say you found in my argument. Gawd you are dumb.

My point is that for you to even make this boneheaded point shows you for the utter whackjob you are, and that therefore your arguments as a whole are suspect.

Why? Because the 911 report *has* to be true because... why? It is not like I am claiming the Earth is flat. I have questions about some physical evidence that was presented to me by my government. So fucking what? You want to think that dismissing me is okay just because there is NO WAY the government would lie. Puuuulease

You are so interested in casting "reasonable doubt" on the government's case that you are making some of the stupidest arguments possible...

Name one fallacy boy.

The only person who is remotely buying your claptrap is someone who is more paranoid than you. Nice going, counselor.

I know I have lumped you in with some of the dolts on your side, but that doesn't make it any less of a fallacy. At least I own up to it.

And don't go all #'s on me either... unless you can somehow prove that this board is a representative cross-section of America.

You know Statistics right? I think it's one of them there sciences. Oh no wait its Math and Math is not a science.

[Mister Bushice]

If I can't produce the plane it must have hit the pentagon.
I can't produce the plane.
Therefore it must have hit the pentagon.

Even worse, you don't even have anything close to a possible theory on where it went.

And then there are the dozens of pesky witnesses. You have not even addressed that.

Face it, if this was a court case you would not win. There is far too much evidence against your case than there is for it.

[Jimmy Medalions]

TVDwarf doesn't care about whether or not he'd win the case. His sole goal here is to try and appear smart.

Someone needs to tell him he's doing a shitty job.

[Moving Sale]

M-Rat,

first, NO ONE saw a airliner fly into the pentagon. There are NO witnesses. Explain this!

Wrong.

Darn it, then there are all these pesky witnesses mucking up your fable:
Especially this one:
Quote:
"...I heard a low flying plane and then I saw it hit the Pentagon. It happened so fast... it was in the air one moment and in the building the next... I still have a hard time believing it, but every time I look out the window, it seems to be more real than it did the time before..."
K.M., Pentagon City, USA

That is why it is such a stupid argument. Of course there are people who say they saw a plane. I would be more suprised if there were not.
LTS TRN 2,
You might be right about part of this, but you are a fucking tard when it comes to forming a decent argument. You are as bad a Mike and Jsc and 88... and that is saying something.

#1. Answered. There were plenty of witnesses

Second, there was NO identifiable airliner wreckage recovered from the site. NONE. Explain this.

Yer turn.

I quite clearly recall seeing a picture with a section of the fuselage lying on the grass.

Not identifiable as part of 77 you didn't/

Also, with a fire that hot ( 3000 deg. C at optimal conditions) , most of the planes fuselage would have melted, along with everything else inside the plane, leaving very little behind. As I said before,

Science? Did I just see science? Too bad pictures show lots of metal and stuff inside the building that was not melted, but it was nice to see you at least TRIED a little science.

I personally witnessed a fire where an entire stainless steel kitchen disappeared, melted by the heat of the fire.

Did they teach you in Statistics class that *one* kitchen sink is a good representative sample of what would happen to a big ole jet plane? Tard Tard Tard.

I imagine that the pentagon fire with jet fuel was much hotter than a basic structural fire caused by brush.

You imagine? Yes I guess you do imagine? You probably imagine a lot of things in relation to 911.

Satisfied?

Did I just hear Mike pop in? I bet he said something dumb.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

Your argument is a fallacy.

Your argument is a classic fallacy.

that doesn't make it any less of a fallacy.

Name one fallacy boy.

Hmmmmm....."Moving Sale?"

Jeez, if you're gonna put the puck in front of the net like that, I have to knock it in....

For future reference, the definition of the word "fallacy" doesn't involve "any argument Moving Sale doesn't like or can't refute."

[Moving Sale]

I was right, he did write something stupid.

Satisfied?

No, of course "that side" will never be satisfied with any evidence that remotely supports the opposing view.

Bullshit. Two planes hit the WTC. Try and convince me otherwise? Won't happen. 93 crashed in Penn. Don't believe me? I can prove it did. "Ragheads," as you like to call them, want our heads on a platter. They bombed the Cole and the WTC before 911, what make you think they won't do it again? So what? That does not explain to me why WCT7 fell as it did. And you are too ignorant of simple science concepts to prove it, or you're too lazy, or you can't because it didn't happen the way the government says it happened. Go ahead and lump me in with all the others fallacyboy.

They're willing to engage in the most jaw-droppingly ridiculous speculation, innuendo, and mind-numbing nitpicking just because they can't fathom the thought that radical ragheads pulled this off and not "the Bushies." Remember, we're dealing with folks so blinded by hatred of the Bush administration and/or the U.S in general that even if they do accept that Islamic terrorists pulled off 9/11, that somehow, we're STILL to blame for "provoking" it.

Lies Lies Lies. Put words in my mouth much?

I know I know you were typing to MB who was typing to LTS.

Save it.

[Moving Sale]

Jeez, if you're gonna put the puck in front of the net like that, I have to knock it in....

For future reference, the definition of the word "fallacy" doesn't involve "any argument Moving Sale doesn't like or can't refute."

Claiming BODE? I Laughed!

You want a link to the page that shows your stupid
"If MS can't produce the plane it must have hit the pentagon.
MS can't produce the plane.
Therefore it must have hit the pentagon."
argument is shit? No of course you don't. You are happy to just go on being stupid and dropping shit like a fallacy isn't: "any argument Moving Sale doesn't like or can't refute." What a tard you turned out to be.

Go suck an Erlenmeyer flask.

[Moving Sale]

TVDwarf doesn't care about whether or not he'd win the case.

I don't really care about anything I type on T1B, so long as the check from Cheney clears.

Sin,
mvskkkal

[Moving Sale]

Oooops. what I meant was...

"If I can produce the plane then it must not have hit the pentagon.
I can't produce the plane
Therefore it must have* hit the pentagon.

* I left the double negative out."

My Bad.