T1B

OCmike wrote:

you're an anonymous note leaving pussy...

That reset will never not be funny.

Yeh, to put it in context, look at mvscal's 8000+ anonymous posts to this message board of shit he would never say to a person's face in real life.

Gunslinger wrote:

OCmike wrote:

you're an anonymous note leaving pussy...

That reset will never not be funny.

Yeh, to put it in context, look at mvscal's 8000+ anonymous posts to this message board of shit he would never say to a person's face in real life.

A valid point, but 99% of the people who post on any smack board don't talk that way to real people in real life. So really, who gives a shit?

OCmike wrote:

Gunslinger wrote:

OCmike wrote: That reset will never not be funny.

Yeh, to put it in context, look at mvscal's 8000+ anonymous posts to this message board of shit he would never say to a person's face in real life.

A valid point, but 99% of the people who post on any smack board don't talk that way to real people in real life. So really, who gives a shit?

so who are the bigger pussies?

Risa wrote:so who are the bigger pussies?

88 wrote:You can't answer a single question.

Nor can you. Difference is I asked first.

There are lots of hate-filled morons with whom you can discuss the fine differences between the holes produced in reinforced buildings by airplanes of varying size flying at 500+ mph. That has happened so many times now that we can accurately gauge exactly how big a hole should be when a 757 allegedly hits a building.

That is your defense? It never happened before so you have no idea what it would look like?

You are an idiot then.

A body in motion stays in motion....

Aw fuck it you are too far up Bush's ass to think straight.

OCmike wrote:88, as you can see all he does is answer questions with questions when you ask him to prove his assertions.

What question that 88 asked it relevant to the size of the hole?

That's what I thought.

Either that or he says that the burden is on you to prove that it DID get hit by a 757. A tactic that I give a solid "D-".

I see so it is okay for 88 to say I have to prove a plane didn't hit the building but it is not okay for me to ask him to prove it did.

Dumbass right wing fuckstain much?

mvscal wrote:Terrorism was never at any point in time a priority in his administration.

What a lying sack of shit you are.

mvscal wrote:Yes, I could really tell that terrorism was a "priority" for his administration by the way it covered up TWA 800 and blatantly ignored the evidence connecting Iraq to the first WTC bombing.

His "aggressive" action to bomb an..uh, aspirin factory also showed his "deep commitment" to battling terror.

Way to make terrorism a "priority", Bubba. Thanks for nothing.

But when civilians are used as human shields, they're just collateral damage that has to die in order to get at the bad guys who shouldn't have used them as human shields in the first place? too bad, how sad, bomb them?

(or, as one nurse was reporting over at dKos, run them over with tanks, Israeli style.)

why is it bubba's fault when intelligence is 'bad'...

but this administration gets a free pass over fake yellow cake documents and the targetting of a man's CIA Agent wife for not going with the fake nukes and nerve gas to be used on American soil game plan?

Killian wrote:

Moving Sale wrote: Why is the hole too small?

The front wheel well, that is laying near the hole in the inner most compromised ring.

Just a question. If it wasn't a 757, what of the eyewitness reports from the thousands in DC who saw a 757 screaming towards the Pentagon? Or the hundereds who saw it hit? Are they all in on the it too?

Bump

mvscal wrote: And when that lightweight aluminum body designed for powered flight collides with steel reinforced concrete designed to withstand explosive impacts, it disintegrates.

Then explain the punchout hole a few rings in.

Dumbass.

mvscal wrote:...covered up TWA 800 and blatantly ignored the evidence connecting Iraq to the first WTC bombing.

And I'M a nut for thinking a 757 did not hit the pentagon?

~~~~~
Or when he asked for more counterterror money and the repubs said "no."

Killian wrote:
The front wheel well, that is laying near the hole in the inner most compromised ring.

English please.

If it wasn't a 757, what of the eyewitness reports from the thousands in DC who saw a 757 screaming towards the Pentagon? Or the hundreds who saw it hit? Are they all in on the it too?

Bump[/quote]
Thousands? Hundreds? How about you back that up?

Let me see physical evidence or some 'eyewitnesses' who rarely get things right.

mvscal wrote:

Moving Sale wrote:

mvscal wrote: And when that lightweight aluminum body designed for powered flight collides with steel reinforced concrete designed to withstand explosive impacts, it disintegrates.

Then explain the punchout hole a few rings in.

Dumbass.

Math.

You can't have it both ways. Either it had the energy to go thru the rings which would have given it enough energy to make a bigger hole or it didn't

So now we know you know nothing about math as well as being a stupid fucking racist.

mvscal wrote:

Moving Sale wrote:

mvscal wrote:...covered up TWA 800 and blatantly ignored the evidence connecting Iraq to the first WTC bombing.

And I'M a nut for thinking a 757 did not hit the pentagon?

No, just a garden variety idiot.

And yet I'm still smarter than you.

That is not what your equation says. Do you even know what your equation says?

Because a racist shitstain says so? Ha.

The difference in the 'm' between the body and the wings is not great enough to have the wings not make a mark and the body end up making a punchout hole a few rings in.

Care to try again you stupid shit?

Moving Sale wrote:

Killian wrote:
The front wheel well, that is laying near the hole in the inner most compromised ring.

English please.

If it wasn't a 757, what of the eyewitness reports from the thousands in DC who saw a 757 screaming towards the Pentagon? Or the hundreds who saw it hit? Are they all in on the it too?

Bump
Thousands? Hundreds? How about you back that up?

Let me see physical evidence or some 'eyewitnesses' who rarely get things right.

Sure.

Eyewitnesses

That list has well over 100, and that's just those who are quoted.

Another Eyewitness List

May be the same list, I didn't have time to double check.

Here's a link to seperate news sources, citing the finding of the black boxes:

Black Boxes

As for the wheel well, the center of the landing gear, or the portion that the tire went around, was the perfect size to punch a hole in the inter-most damaged ring. And in some of the footage of the clean-up, you can see the wheel well laying near the hole.

I'll have to wait until tomorrow to see what conspiracy bullshit you find to explain all of this, or what rational you use to dismiss these links, but I can't wait!

Moving Sale wrote:Because a racist shitstain says so? Ha.

The difference in the 'm' between the body and the wings is not great enough to have the wings not make a mark and the body end up making a punchout hole a few rings in.

Care to try again you stupid shit?

You're not onto that load of horseshit again, are you?

Why don't you go play in traffic or something?

mvscal wrote:The wings were sheered off immediately.

And yet the spools in front of the building are intact. Nice try dumbass.

Quite frankly, it's astonishing that the hole was as large as it was.

Then what made the punchout hole.

The only thing your moronic conspiracy theory has proven is how credulous a tool you are.

What CT? All I said was the mark is smaller than the plane.

Killian,

I read the first ‘eyewitness account did you? That guy didn’t even see the plane. The second one? Guy says he saw the wing hit the ground from the 19th floor of the USA today building? Have you been to the pentagon? Do you know how far away that is? How about the third one? Didn’t see the plane either. Nice list tard.

So what did the black boxes say? I thought so.

The wheel made the punchout? Did you see GEDcal equation? The hole os like 8ft tall. Care to try again?

I’m not the one with the CT. I asked a simple question. You are the one falling all over yourself trying to prove your wack job theory that 19 A-rabs did it.

Can YOU answer the question as to why the mark is smaller than a 757?

Moving Sale wrote:Killian,

I read the first ‘eyewitness account did you? That guy didn’t even see the plane. The second one? Guy says he saw the wing hit the ground from the 19th floor of the USA today building? Have you been to the pentagon? Do you know how far away that is? How about the third one? Didn’t see the plane either. Nice list tard.

So what did the black boxes say? I thought so.

The wheel made the punchout? Did you see GEDcal equation? The hole os like 8ft tall. Care to try again?

I’m not the one with the CT. I asked a simple question. You are the one falling all over yourself trying to prove your wack job theory that 19 A-rabs did it.

Can YOU answer the question as to why the mark is smaller than a 757?

It's like dejavu with you all over again. I remember it like yesterday. You made the claim and I posted about 4 or 5 pictures of where planes crashed into buildings and there were no signs of the wings. Fucking eerie if you think about it.

I'm reading this and thinking: "Did I do this before?" and I did.





Then I showed you plane wreck in Italy and ask you to explain why the wing damage stopped at the change of structure type:



To which the thread ends.

Moving Sale wrote:I’m not the one with the CT. I asked a simple question. You are the one falling all over yourself trying to prove your wack job theory that 19 A-rabs did it.

isn't there even a conspiracy theory about those dudes, and who was really on those planes? something about some dudes that were supposed to have been on the planes having turned up very much alive elsewhere?

Don't know how big those planes are, but the first and last clearly show wing marks. The second was what? A Cessna? What angle did it hit at? Did they find the wings?

Still does not explain how the spools at the pentagon were not hit.

BTW- Good post Gunslinger. Way to stay on topic and use actual evidence to answer my question. You Right Wing Tards could learn a thing or two from his last post.

Risa wrote:

Moving Sale wrote:I’m not the one with the CT. I asked a simple question. You are the one falling all over yourself trying to prove your wack job theory that 19 A-rabs did it.

isn't there even a conspiracy theory about those dudes, and who was really on those planes? something about some dudes that were supposed to have been on the planes having turned up very much alive elsewhere?

Could be. I'm not pushing a CT. I just want a couple of simple questions answered.

Chick's gotta be British.

If the airliner didn't hit the Pentagon I wonder where it is or where it went. Most likely slipped out under radar and dissappeared in The Burmuda Triangle.

Y2K wrote:If the airliner didn't hit the Pentagon I wonder where it is or where it went. Most likely slipped out under radar and dissappeared in The Burmuda Triangle.

So if a lemon hit a wall you would ask what happened to a missing grapefruit?

Van,
Nice post you page stretching yahoo.

Moving Sale wrote:Don't know how big those planes are, but the first and last clearly show wing marks. The second was what? A Cessna? What angle did it hit at? Did they find the wings?

Still does not explain how the spools at the pentagon were not hit.

I don't give a fucking shit about the spools.

The first is the hit of a B52 bomber on the Empire State Building. The only
reason the left wing clipping shows is because of windows.

The second is the Tampa crash. It's a Cesna and clearly an example of how
a building doesn't give a shit about who you are. You'd think a small Cesna
would put some kind of marks somewhere else, like for instance the other fucking
windows! But they don't.

The next is an Italian airliner where you clearly see the wing marks. You clearly
see the wing marks END as soon as the building changed its construction style.

You are talking about the Pentagon. I showed you 3 pictures (feel free to search
the Indianapolis crash of a hotel) and all of them were skyscrapers. Now you want
to discuss a building that is only 4 stories tall and based on Earth. End of discussion.
If we see major changes of destruction on a skyscraper away from Earth clearly
showing how the wings don't matter for shit, then we can understand why a
structure only 40 feet mounted to the ground could give a shit about wings.

88 wrote:B52?

Shut up, he's on a roll.

B25 you cocksucker.

Gunslinger wrote: You clearly see the wing marks END as soon as the building changed its construction style.

The wings didn't hit the 'changed construction style' you dolt. That pic shows a mark BIGGER than the plane.

None of them show that a plane has the ability to make a mark smaller then itself and still have the energy to make a punchout hole a few rings into the pentagon. The closest one is the tampa crash but a cessna isn't a 757 now is it?

Your 'evidence' is shit.

Y2K wrote:If the airliner didn't hit the Pentagon I wonder where it is or where it went. Most likely slipped out under radar and dissappeared in The Burmuda Triangle.

or what about all the missing passengers on board? don't you think their families would wonder where they are if the plane never crashed.

fukken HI-LAR-IOUS!!

keep at it midget boy. someday you'll pound that square peg into that round hole.

Eye of the Tiger, man. Eye of the Tiger.

Use a couple of law treatises to hold the sheet of paper taut.

heh heh

88,
You might want to stick to taking care of your Down's Syndrome havin' kid and just chuck the whole T1B posting thing because you are a fucking dumbass and are going to need all the time you can muster to help that special guy out.

But just in case somebody who doesn't have faulty genes is reading this and thinkin' that your wooden dowel story has some merit, the weight difference between the wings and the body precludes the wings from not making a mark and the body making an 8ft tall punchout hole a few rings in. The one dowel would have to have the KE needed to make a punchout hole in the back of the NY phone book while the other dowel didn't make a mark for your 'story' to ring true.

titlover wrote: someday you'll pound that square peg into that round hole.

How is the view from Bush's colon?

Just FYI:

There are several sites and theories dedicated to the opinion that there was a conspiracy surrounding the WTC collapse. Everything from UFO's to long range missiles. Not that I give much merit to the theories, but interesting fodder anyway. Returns close to 5 miilion links when you search for "WTC terrorist attack" on Yahoo.



Missle attack?

Yahoo search....

or what about all the missing passengers on board? don't you think their families would wonder where they are if the plane never crashed.

word

haven't any of you fukkers ever seen a cartoon? everybody knows that when the coyote plunges 1000 ft to the desert floor, he makes a hole with a pattern exactly in the shape of his body. a 757 slamming into the side of a reinforced concrete building would do the exact same thing. had a 757 actually hit the pentagon, it would have left a hole in it's exact shape.

this is known as warner brothers 2nd law of ballistic collision.

smackaholic wrote:haven't any of you fukkers ever seen a cartoon?

I've read one of your post. Close enough?

Moving Sale wrote:

Gunslinger wrote: You clearly see the wing marks END as soon as the building changed its construction style.

The wings didn't hit the 'changed construction style' you dolt. That pic shows a mark BIGGER than the plane.

None of them show that a plane has the ability to make a mark smaller then itself and still have the energy to make a punchout hole a few rings into the pentagon. The closest one is the tampa crash but a cessna isn't a 757 now is it?

Your 'evidence' is shit.

Uh, no. Clearly by the photo of the Italian Crash you can see where the vertical construction on the building was affected differently than the window construction.

Then with the Empire State Building, you can clearly see where the wings didn't matter for shit on the right concrete side. On the left side you see some affect of the wings, but once the mass goes further from the souce, you see how it clearly ends before the size of the plane.

These were skyscrapers. Not constructions mounted to the Earth.

Now:



See plane hit building at an angle.

Explain the straight layout of damage from the right wing?



If you look closely the right wing stops its impact at a certain length not in cooperation with the damage from the left wing. It continues a slight bit upwards, but only surface damage. The "real" damage goes out to the right with severe destruction. In fact, based on your evidence humans create planes based on a "Z" format. Or you could take my theory that chaos reigns and the right wing impact is based on a hit to the partitions that created another floor.

Of course we aren't hitting buildings on an every day basis, so I guess this is the time to tell you that your theories are fucking retarded and I've spit on your theories using pics every person has seen for themselves.

mvscal believes that Saddam bombed Oklahoma, where do I lump you?