Whats with iLogin and MedicSTI on the same bandwagon on all these ridiculous threads?

What happened at the pentagon on 9/11? Isnt it funny that there was no jet wreckage found onsite? And how could it explode through FIVE SEPEARETE levels of SOLID CONCRETE!?!?!?

/s

 

What's funny is the FBI pulling stuff out of the wreckage with a tarp over it. Pictures of them doing it, but it surely wasn't pieces of a planet. The size of it looked like a missile. In any case, they never disclosed the ****. Nor were there any sufficient evidence some plane flew into the pentagon.

 

 

iLogin, how old are you and would you say you are "well educated"?

 

I don't think these questions pertain to the subject. If it was a plane that flew right into a building, there would be plane pieces everywhere. They really didn't show any plane pieces recovered from the wreckage. Nor did the physics of a planet flying into the building at the trajectory show any sufficient evidence that it was a plane.

There are plenty of videos of physicists debunking that a plane flew into the pentagon.

 

Pentagon = 5 sides

 

The latter definitely pertains to the subject, as higher education typically involves a certain amount of critical thinking, which your posts seem to lack.

 

For people to say that there was no debris, no evidence of a plane, etc is like me saying that Lobsters don't exist because I have personally never seen them. (which I have, just using it as an example). Just because I have a limited understanding of lobsters based on the fact that I have only seen evidence that goes against their existence, like pictures of the Ocean with NO LOBSTERS in it, that must mean that the lobsters don't exist, right? I mean, if I am looking at a very small piece of the spectrum, looking at such a small fragment of physical evidence that doesn't show lobsters all over the ocean, it most def means that lobsters are a thing of myth and possibly a conspiracy theory of people trying to make money somehow, or whatever their motive might be.

Have you seen every single piece of evidence that was gathered at the crash site at the pentagon? Have you talked to every witness that was present on that horrible day? I don't think you have, which makes your theory invalid, just as my theory of non existent lobsters just as invalid.


I use the lobster example after Carl Segan used it in the space documentary "Cosmos". He was describing how folks don't believe that there is life outside of our Earth based on the fact that we've never seen it, just as if a he was oblivious to the idea of lobsters existed even though he had seen pictures of the ocean, and has even been there. His view of the evidence that the species existed or not was based on a very small slice of the whole spectrum which makes his theory of the fact that lobsters do not exist totally invalid.

Until you have seen every single shred of evidence, every personal interview of every person that was there and witnessed the ordeal, and any other sort of evidence of the what really happened, then you can't make a solid theory of what went on or what really happened. It's just that simple.

None of us here know what went on, and I'm sure there's a reason behind the fact that things were kept quiet, just like many other countless things have been classified to the general public (Like the JFK assassination, and all the speculation of what really went on, which was all proven to be mumbo jumbo after everything was declassified). Until we know everything, we don't know anything.

 

I thought it was funny that the question was deferred.

 

Are you saying that they did in fact recover SOME pieces of wreckage that was recovered? You said "they didn't really show any pieces of the wreckage" which means that there was some wreckage, but not all that much.

If it was a missile, trust me, there would be nothing left of it that you could recognize. If you've ever seen a slow motion video of a missile impact, and the aftermath of the explosion, you'll know that there is nothing left over that you can clearly say "Oh, that's a piece of a missile!".

 

Okay, I'm not even gonna touch the "conspiracy discussion" but what is this "planet" u keep talking about iLoqin?

 

the planet he's from?

 

I really really really hope you were involved in the actually design, planning and construction of these buildings, or at least hold a civil engineering degree and have your PE certification and do this for a living if you're going to throw out 'facts' like you just did about how buildings are designed.

OH, and I also hope you have a chem degree and are a scientist of some sort that, again, qualifies you to make statements about how hot jet fuel can/cannot burn and what its destructive capabilities are/aren't.

Your current argument....'Its the only logic possible' holds very little water, and really, is just a cowards way out of arguing a point.

I highly suggest qualifying your remarks (very quickly), or you sir, are a serious douchebag.


and for the record, I don't know (or at this point, don't care) even if it WAS an inside job or not.....either way, I can pretty much guess that YOU don't know, nor are you qualified to make the statements you did, and I'm calling you out on it.


please prove me wrong.

 

more and more, he's tarting to sound like an "internet pro".......






what a bastard.......

 

so, I did a quick search on 'super thermite' (because honestly, sounds like a bull**** buzz word to me) and found this:

http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/07/03/05/ward.htm

at least at the end of article, this guy has the integrity to post:


so, iLogin...how about some referenced information? Some personal results you've done experimenting with jet fuel and designing major skyscraper and how you built them to withstand serveral hits from fully fueled 747's?

or do you just go around plagarizing other's work/opinions as 'truth' and trying to take some credit for 'educating' the people?




I call shennanigans.