You got to see this, hmmmmm..........

[Tigre]

check it out: pentagon strike (http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm#Main)

[JADezimar]

That creeped me out.......

[Karmashock]

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

[JADezimar]

Nice find Karma

[shutupandshave]

"one engine of the aircraft punched a 12-foot hole through the wall of the second ring: "

There was one entry point yes? So what - after the wings hit the pentagon and "Any sizable portions of the wings were destroyed in the explosion or the subsequent fire" one of the engines (that would have struck the wall) somehow then just moved either left or right into the airplane's main body to carry on it's journey into the rest of the pentagon. Also - if one engine can puncture a hole through the pentagon, why cant the other?

I dont necessarily believe in the conspiracy theory, but I do think that this snopes thing provides as much evidence as some of the whackiest conspiracy theories.

Evidence by snopes
"damage to the building caused by the plane's wings is plainly visible in photographs"
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/images/pent2.jpg
I can see NO damage to the building caused by the wings.

Now evidence from jolt...
http://www.joltradio.net/Images/pentagon11.jpg
http://www.joltradio.net/Images/pentagon12.jpg

Play hunt the debris. Circle the aircraft debris and send it to suas@free-collective.com

[Ummon]

Also - if one engine can puncture a hole through the pentagon, why cant the other?


It's not that it can't, it's just that it didn't. Explosions and crashes are chaotic processes.

[DrunkenUno]

check it out: pentagon strike (http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm#Main)

Seen it a bunch of times, its still just as much BS as the first time.

I guess the hundreds of witnesses who saw it were just seeing things right?

[shutupandshave]

The problem with something like this - is that IF it were a conspiracy then it is pretty easy to accumulate hundreds, hell THOUSANDS of witnesses that all spoke to the FBI/CIA/NSA/WHOMEVER directly.

Ummon, yeah I agree - but 1) the where'd the other engine go. I can understand the wings dissolving, melting - whatever. Engines dont melt or dissolve. 2) yes they are chaotic processes, but there is little evidence of chaos. There is a clean puncture wound, not a huge clusterfuck.

Perhaps it was a 757 that by some quirk of fate produced no wreckage, and had parts of the plane vanish (after all there was NO significant wreckage). I dont dispute that. However the probability of that many IF's coming into line for this crash start numbering the number of IF's that the conspiracy theorists produce.

[Tigre]

Hey Karmashock,

The French sometimes have vivid imaginations, lol. I know, I married a "frog", lol. But, where is all the wreckage of the 757? Although, the plane that hit in Penn. was almost completely disentegrated, but that was a shear impact. Not like the Pentagon. Hmmmm.........

[Karmashock]

SMASH!!!... (mix) BOOOOOOOM!... BURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRN.... (mix) COLLAPSE.... BURRRRRN.... (mix) BOOOM.... BURRRN...


I don't know... *takes tv out and smashes the shit out of it with a sledge hammer*... it's a mystery to me... *pours some cement dust on the tv, then sticks a stick of dynamite in the middle of the tv and lights the fuse*... I think these conspircy theorists might have something here... *BOOOM... tiny pieces of the tv go everywhere*... I mean... what happened to all that wreckage?... *dumps some little rocks on the tv, then pours 5 gallons of gas on what's left of the tv and lights it on fire*....


I mean... I should at least be able to fine the fucking remote....


savvy?

[JADezimar]

Lol ya good point. Anything with abig enough explosion wil be blasted to peaces. Allthough What I dont get is even if the Usa let it happen, If they didnt partake in practice like that, For instance maybe The rest of the world would be conquered right now back From when conspirators* say we let pearl harbor happen. To show the american public What Japan, and Germany were really up to o0. Im not saying I beleive it but if we had fended off an attack with minimal casualties who says the states wouldve backed fdr ?

Sometimes the public I just wants to be Blind, and tragedy has to happen to get things done. But, Im not saying I love the conspiracy, But I am defending the possibility of it and why it is done if that is the case o0.

[shutupandshave]

SMASH!!!... (mix) BOOOOOOOM!... BURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRN.... (mix) COLLAPSE.... BURRRRRN.... (mix) BOOOM.... BURRRN...


I don't know... *takes tv out and smashes the shit out of it with a sledge hammer*... it's a mystery to me... *pours some cement dust on the tv, then sticks a stick of dynamite in the middle of the tv and lights the fuse*... I think these conspircy theorists might have something here... *BOOOM... tiny pieces of the tv go everywhere*... I mean... what happened to all that wreckage?... *dumps some little rocks on the tv, then pours 5 gallons of gas on what's left of the tv and lights it on fire*....


I mean... I should at least be able to fine the fucking remote....


savvy?
There's nothing like an application of evidence to backup an argument...and this IS nothing like an application of evidence to backup an argument.

[Karmashock]

you're such a fucking tool suas... I'm not countering some well thought out fucking idea... I'm countering this asinine flash animation.
http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm#Main

Beyond that, the FIRST thing I did was offer a link to Snopes... well beloved urban legend and HOAK debunker.

Clearly you can't get your toolish little brain around this... So I offered a 'dramatization' for the "show and tell" crowd that needs everything explained in fucking finger paints...

What do I need to do to convince you?... i'd likely have to strap your stupid ass into a chair, pry your eyes open, and feed it to you clockwork orange style...


Love, Karmashock.

[Larsson7]

you're such a fucking tool suas... I'm not countering some well thought out fucking idea... I'm countering this asinine flash animation.
http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm#Main

Beyond that, the FIRST thing I did was offer a link to Snopes... well beloved urban legend and HOAK debunker.

Clearly you can't get your toolish little brain around this... So I offered a 'dramatization' for the "show and tell" crowd that needs everything explained in fucking finger paints...

What do I need to do to convince you?... i'd likely have to strap your stupid ass into a chair, pry your eyes open, and feed it to you clockwork orange style...


Love, Karmashock.


I believe you Karma.

I KNOW that you were at the pentagon at the time of the attack and SEEN IT WITH YOUR OWN EYES!!!!!!

We are all so stupid to disagree with you since you know, beyond any reasonable doubt, what happened at the pentagon.

You have convinced me, you :freak:

Please do not fucking insult our intelligence by responding to this post unless you actually were there and, can prove beyond reasonable doubt, that you are right and we are wrong.

[JADezimar]

My Wifes recruiter was there at the time. He said it was an aircraft. So angel you fricken moron theres that right out the window for you. Can I ask you if you were there ? So what makes it not an aircraft if you werent there to know ? Maybe you should stop being a hypocrite and shut your stupid mouth

[Larsson7]

My Wifes recruiter was there at the time. He said it was an aircraft. So angel you fricken moron theres that right out the window for you. Can I ask you if you were there ? So what makes it not an aircraft if you werent there to know ? Maybe you should stop being a hypocrite and shut your stupid mouth

OMG - You heard it SECOND FUCKING hand - you retard.

Did you know Lee Harvey Oswold was fucking your Grandma up the ass when Kennedy was shot? Its true - My Grandpa saw it you :freak:

[JADezimar]

Hmmz So i cant trusts my best freinds or my mom or MY wife I cant trusts anyone to be telling the truth if its 2nd hand. I THINK YOUR AN UTTER MORON. You are hering this 2nd hand too. I dont think you were there either. That makes you a hypocrite. how manyy times does this have to be defined to you. I quite frankly Should macro the definition just for you.

[Larsson7]

Hmmz So i cant trusts my best freinds or my mom or MY wife I cant trusts anyone to be telling the truth if its 2nd hand. I THINK YOUR AN UTTER MORON. You are hering this 2nd hand too. I dont think you were there either. That makes you a hypocrite. how manyy times does this have to be defined to you. I quite frankly Should macro the definition just for you.

No - You cant.

I cannot trust my own brother if he tells me Lord Lucan and Elvis were in the queue in front of him in MacDonalds - I must have proof that I can verify by myself. N amount of hearsay will convince me otherwse.

Perhaps people, who care connected to the Government, will tell you what you want to hear. Wouldnt be the first time that family members lied to each other.

[Karmashock]

I believe you Karma.

I KNOW that you were at the pentagon at the time of the attack and SEEN IT WITH YOUR OWN EYES!!!!!!

We are all so stupid to disagree with you since you know, beyond any reasonable doubt, what happened at the pentagon.

You have convinced me, you :freak:

Please do not fucking insult our intelligence by responding to this post unless you actually were there and, can prove beyond reasonable doubt, that you are right and we are wrong.
this is perhaps the most pathetic argument that has been posted yet on this board.


So if we didn't see it then it's in dispute huh? That's THE SAME ARGUEMENT CREATIONISTS USE TO ATTACK FOSSELS AND DINOSAURS!

So... angel... does that mean that maybe the world IS only 6000 years old?... because after all... WERE YOU THERE!?!

The next time you think you have anything to contribute to an intelligent conversation, think again... or hell... join the creationist... they could always use another moron to prance around saying that the world is only 6000 years old... :lol:

*stapples clown shoes to angels feet*

Just so everyone knows what you are by your big floppy feet.

[JADezimar]

lol

[shutupandshave]

I think the most pathetic argument I've seen on this board is this one

As far as I know, this person might not even exist…
So I put puff the magic dragon against him… Puff thinks this is silly.
By your logic, there is no way that you will accept anyone (or perhaps it was just me) quoting a family member, or saying that they saw a news article, or giving tales of personal experience as a part of a discussion...because after all - that person, news article, personal experience may never have happened.

As it is then - The only time I will reply to you, is when you say something that MIGHT not exist... although after looking at your last three posts in this thread I realise I may not be saying much to you - as none of them have offered any evidence what-so-ever and have just been name calling and personal belittling of people.

[Tigre]

Wow, if anything you guys and gals are fun!!!! The truth is the plane penetrated all the way to biulding three of the Pentagon. Planes are made entirely of aluminum, plastics etc... they disentegrate into little tiny peices at 200+ miles per hour. Whatever was left, burned in the ensuing fire. The only thing is that there should have been some wing debri, because this is the first thing to shear off in this kind of accident. By all accounts,there was little or no debri. Physically there should have been some part of the tips of the wings left outside the impact area. I'm just guessing............

[shutupandshave]

Tigre
That is not always true.

http://www.cnn.com/interactive/world/0205/tunisia.plane.crash/3.tunisia.plane.crash.jpg
http://mms3.tripod.com/gallery/1998/crash.htm
http://www.tallytown.com/redcross/fedexcrash/

I think something that should have remained are the engines. If one of them can get all the way through to the second level - then I imagine the other is pretty tough too.

[Karmashock]

I think the most pathetic argument I've seen on this board is this one


By your logic, there is no way that you will accept anyone (or perhaps it was just me) quoting a family member, or saying that they saw a news article, or giving tales of personal experience as a part of a discussion...because after all - that person, news article, personal experience may never have happened.

As it is then - The only time I will reply to you, is when you say something that MIGHT not exist... although after looking at your last three posts in this thread I realise I may not be saying much to you - as none of them have offered any evidence what-so-ever and have just been name calling and personal belittling of people.
Whenever you can't win an argument you go off topic to pollute the discussion to the point where no one knows what they're talking about anymore.


All I was saying there was that you gave very very little information about a person with no significance aside from the fact you knew them... and they were doing something that you gave no information to justify.

I would have been happy with you comment about your friend if you had at least offered enough information for it to make sense. Answer in THE RIGHT THREAD why he wouldn't come to the US... You didn't give enough information before.

In this thread, anyone standing with angel has the intellectual credibility of the American creationist movement... which is nonexistent.

[JADezimar]

If I remember right Its angel that said its all hearsay. Saus you been doing alot of that. (not that Id agree with angel, I dont know if I think his little mind is capable of reasoning that id ever trusts)

[Tigre]

By the way Karma, good find.....its just as I thought, the plane just disentegrated as its forward momentum carried it through the building, add fuel explosion and building collapse and...............plus those engines should have impacted at least 4-5 thick concrete walls before they disentegrated.....a plane traveling at 300+ miles per hour impacting thick concrete=not much left....

[Karmashock]

yeah... the pentagon had also been reinforced to withstand an African embassy style truck bomb... so the walls and windows were reinforced.

[MVB]

I had family and friends who saw this event. I've made this point before. Why is there further discussion? I have spoken directly to people who WATCHED IT HAPPEN. Jesus Christ, people. Get your heads out of conspiracy theory land.

[shutupandshave]

apparently MVB, if you have friends of family that witness something, or have an opinion - it doesn't matter... after all - they might not exist ;)

[Karmashock]

nah... MVB's whole family works for the vast right wing conspiracy... they all belong to super secret government organizations...

It's true.... when MVB buys groceries... he does it in a black helicopter...

dipshit.

[JADezimar]

lol

[MVB]

I just had Karma killed, er, silenced; you'll not be hearing any such "crazy" talk again from him ...

/me steps into black helicopt ... er, 4door commonplace-looking sedan

[Karmashock]

No, that was just one of my body doubles... I collect liberals that look like me, then surgically alter them to look exactly like me... then I place them in vulnerable places as to convince my enemies that I have been killed...


If you want to find me... I'm in a secure location. :D

[MVB]

Oh, I see; pulling a Cheney, eh?

[Karmashock]

Actually, I'm pulling an Abe... you think he was assassinated?... heck no... we've been using body doubles for a very long time... it was easy with Abe though... the guy wore a big beard and a hat... if he had worn sunglasses, I could have body doubled for him. :D

Kennedy did that too… Reagan was never shot either… he actually had his body double wounded but not killed to boost his political numbers… yep… this is all old hat…

[shutupandshave]

plus those engines should have impacted at least 4-5 thick concrete walls before they disentegrated
So why did one go through 2 whole rings of the pentagon, and the otherone didn't?

[Karmashock]

why would two big engines fly through a building with all sorts of walls and columns at the same rate?... maybe one was going through windows and the other through walls?... maybe one hit a few columns and the other one didn't?...

You're trying to make an interstate freeway out of playing cards and chewing gum... it's pathetic and should be abandoned.

[shutupandshave]

Please stop talking to me.

[Shackled Phoenix]

SUAS, both engines may have flown off, one connecting directly with a supporting beam while the other engine flew through the wall. If the engine was no longer attached to the 80 ton plane a steel support beam, running through the building would most likely have been enough to stop it, completely warp and demolish it's shape (quite similar to a bullet if you've ever watched the impact of one) and then add in the fire which was hot enough to melt support beams, which were coated in a special concrete designed to prevent then from melting, it would have been hot enough to cause the engine to further warp, possibly even turning it into a pile of molten slag, and then simply dismissed as part of the reckage of the building or other parts of the plane. And yes I do know what I am talking about, as I have had very similar conversations about 9/11 with my father, who was a building inspector, who's job was to actually know these things. I then had another similar conversation about 9/11 with another friend who is an architect and designed several buildings.

were it a missle, why would it punch a 12 foot hole in the wall in a spot PAST the explosion? Or were it a fighter jet that for some unknown reason crashed into the building (you'd think bombing would work better in a jet) The engines are behind the plane, and would not have punched a hole beyond the point of impact.

Finally, have you ever tried to get 10 people to keep a secret? let alone a secret as big as this one? It's kinda hard to keep them from telling friends, who then can't resist and tell more friends. Now, make those 10 people 100, and make them people who are known around the area, known not to work for the government, several of whom know people lost in the crash. I would imagine you'd be quite hardpressed to keep said secret. THEN, make up 67 fake people, say they died, then find several hundred more people to say "My friend/family member was on flight 77". Then you would have to convince another hundred or so people at the airport to say there was a flight 77, we lost contact with it, etc. Okay, found all those people? now did you do it without having anyone turn you down and go around saying "OMG he asked me to make up this big lie about flight 77 crashing!"

My point is, there would be too many people to be involved in such a huge lie, about something so completely against human morals, for such a lie to ever hold in the face of scrutiny.

As for the quotes about people who heard the jet and said "it sounded like a fighter jet." Can you tell me honestly that you know exactly the difference between the sound of a 757 and a fighter jet, particularly when no jet was specified, simply that it was "a fighter jet?". These quotes just come from people who either want to sound smarter than they are, or actually believe they are smarter than they are.

And yes Angel, I have heard what happened, straight from the mouths of several people who actually saw it. It's called a news interview, I watched several eyewitnesses interviewed.


For instance maybe The rest of the world would be conquered right now back From when conspirators* say we let pearl harbor happen. To show the american public What Japan, and Germany were really up to o0. Im not saying I beleive it but if we had fended off an attack with minimal casualties who says the states wouldve backed fdr ?

Actually, we did know. We knew the japanese were of a mind to attack us, but in order to gain quite a bit we attempted to ignore it, and make several deals with them. Infact, there is documentation of a meeting of japanese and american officials, a normal occurence, inwhich japanese officials requested an extra long lunch break. Pearl harbor was bombed during said break. What americans did not know, was exactly when/where such attack was going to take place, and we did NOT send troops into the harbor knowing they were going to die that day. Conspiricy theorists like to use the "we knew they were thinking of attacking us" and turning it into "we knew exactly what was going to happen"
Pearl harbor conspiracies peaked my interest and i did alot of research into them because, said theories were in part to blame for making my exchange trip to japan a living hell. (looong story, don't ask)

[JADezimar]

Shacklef Pheonix good explanations on that. I think I agree.

For Saus And Angel Ill defend you guzy here, Since anything that makes america look bad, you can beleive.

Dez: puts on sunglasses. Pulls out memory device and flashes at pheonix, You will forget your good explanations. As did all the people at 9/11 were made into conspirators.

[Karmashock]

theories were in part to blame for making my exchange trip to japan a living hell. (looong story, don't ask)
man... I seriously wanted to know :(

That kind of trivia always interests me... But Know you don't want to... Hope it wasn't all that bad...

Love, Karmashock.

[shutupandshave]

SUAS, both engines may have flown off, one connecting directly with a supporting beam while the other engine flew through the wall.
There was ONE entry point into the building...not 2, not 3.
My question was how the engine got from however many metres to the left (assuming it was the right engine that puntured) of the hole, into the hole...

You say that the engine could have melted in the fuel fire.... are you forgetting that an engine is designed to contain a continued pressurised explosion. In a modern engine the turbine inlet temperature will typically be around 1700 C... what temperatue was the fire created by the fuel - one that can melt an engine? I dont know - you tell me? I suspect that you have not thought this through, but were quite happy to state your entire theory as fact.

I dont believe it was a fighter jet, however, your point that the engines were behind the plane would be consistent with finding an engine inside (and a single engine at that).

I think it's easier to get a few people to lie, than it is to melt an engine...and you believe the engine melted. If someone did say - for example they saw something that wasn't a 757, or they knew that it WAS all a lie - what do you think will happen... people like you guys will call them conspiracy theorists.

The fact is, it could well be a conspiracy theory, will any of us know for sure? Not unless the US government is proven to have done it...which I find very unlikely... as I doubt they did.

[MVB]

Holy crap .. you're totally ignoring the hundreds of eye witnesses, including those I personally know. It could not have been a conspiracy theory. It's only a conspiracy theory to people who feed off misinformation, and the hope that they can convince poeple of the obvious lies of hundreds of eyewitnesses.

[shutupandshave]

There were not hundreds of eye witnesses... there were a few.

I would like to know if you got your eye-witness reports AFTER the witnesses saw a 757.

There are witnesses saying they saw it and it wasn't a 757... you're ignoring them too.

If there really were hundreds of witnesses that saw it (and identified it as a 757 straight away) then I will be more than happy to be wrong. I also dont doubt that the witnesses (however many of them there were) saw a plane crash into the pentagon... however... when you said it was a 747 on the other board, other people started calling it a 747 too...they even started quoting the weight of a 747 to prove it was one... You dont have to be evil or "in on it" to make this kind of mistake. You just have to believe it when you're told you saw a 757.

As far as I am aware, the majority of the INITIAL statements didn't mention a 757 at all, but rather a small passenger jet. It was only after a while did the 757 stories come out.

[MVB]

Suas, I rattled off 747 not because I thought it was a 747, but b/c I made a mis-statement. People make stupid errors about planes all the time.

If eyewitness accounts of plane type are totally accurate, than the conspiracy theory about the Pennsylvania plane being shot down are also BS, b/c eyewitnesses there swear the jet had multiple engines, yet the only jets within range and operating that day -- as given evidence for by the conspiracy theorists -- were F-16's, which have one very distinct engine, and distinctly have one engine only. What is appropriate is that eyewitnesses say they saw a jetliner go smashing into the Pentagon. I don't trust the judgements of the witnesses on what type of plane it was, b/c to be honest a lot of them saw a VERY large blur, much bigger than a missile. Fact is, it was a jetliner of some kind, and if they go "oh it was a 747" it's b/c they don't know jack about jetliners OR because they are making a mistake, and are banking on people not being stupid and obsessing over their faux-pa.

Additionally, a 757 with a bunch of passengers on board who now have bereaved loved ones is reported to have flown into it, according to air traffic records. So, not only are you attempting to assert that it's *possible* these many witnesses were totally mistaken regarding what plane they saw, but you're also attempting to assert that *all* of the family members and friends of those people lost were somehow tricked into believing their family members died smashing into the pentagon. Furthermore, you're attempting to assert that the actual 757 carrying these people was spirited away, along with all its passengers, and no sattelites or anything saw it at all, and neither did the civillian air traffic controllers in the area. Fact is, the idea of it being a conspiracy theory is about a 1 in a billion shot at the least, and it's just plain sensationalism to grasp onto that faintest of straws. This is one case where I absolutely find no credence to what you are saying, suas, and I think you're utterly wrong. That's ok, b/c you're welcome to believe it was a conspiracy if you choose to do so, but the overwhelming amount of evidence says otherwise, and it would require the mother of all coverups to have pulled this off in broad daylight in the middle of one of the busiest traffic zones in all of Washington, DC (which is quite the trafficky city anywhere you go in it to begin with).

[Karmashock]

I suspect that you have not thought this through, but were quite happy to state your entire theory as fact.
I think your arrogance has hit critical... Thousands of people have gone over this and worked it out. I trust the collective opinions of experts beyond either of us. You trust some French conspiracy theorists... jackass.

I think it's easier to get a few people to lie, than it is to melt an engine...and you believe the engine melted.
Actually, I think the engine was SMASHED, then EXPLODED, then 'some' of it melted. The rest was just unrecognizable.


The fact is, it could well be a conspiracy theory, will any of us know for sure? Not unless the US government is proven to have done it...which I find very unlikely... as I doubt they did.
*ERROR SOUND* Wrong. You're making the claim, you're the one that needs to prove it. If you can't then your case is dismissed from court.

We don't have to prove a false positive to prove you wrong. The burden of proof is on YOUR side. :thumbup

Love and peace, karmashock.

[shutupandshave]

Uh Karma, I said I dont think it is a conspiracy theory, and I believe the official account.

I was just pointing out that shackled said couldn't have been true... so no, I dont have to prove anything. There are some parts of the story that people state as fact, which they (or anyone else) has any proof of, such as an engine melting... or that they think it smashed the melted...

Suas, I rattled off 747 not because I thought it was a 747, but b/c I made a mis-statement. People make stupid errors about planes all the time.
The point was - that after you made that mistake, other people started believing it to be true. One typo and people were telling me that the plane would have easily smashed through the wall because it weighed... (insert weight of 747 here).

I think the passenger reports are the strongest piece of evidence in support of the official (and almost certainly, truthful) version of events.

Thousands of people have gone over this and worked it out. Where did you get that information from? Link please - or did you just make it up?

[Karmashock]

Uh Karma, I said I dont think it is a conspiracy theory, and I believe the official account.
Oh good... I was under the impression that you gave any credence to this rank foolishness about it being a set up.

Glad you're not a total moron.

Love, karmashock.

[shutupandshave]

Yeah, people like you called me a moron when I said there were no WMD too.
You bought into that one hook line and sinker. Please check what I am saying next time instead of name calling and petty personal attacks. You again demonstrated that you don't take in what other people say.

[Karmashock]

:lol: I guess I didn't lay the sarcasm on thick enough... I'll do better next time... ;)


You're nay saying something obvious... accept that we were attacked and shut up. :rolleyes:

[shutupandshave]

Sorry - are you saying you were being sarcastic when you said the following:

"I think your arrogance has hit critical... Thousands of people have gone over this and worked it out. I trust the collective opinions of experts beyond either of us. You trust some French conspiracy theorists... jackass."

You're now telling me that you were just kidding?

Is there any lie you WONT make up to be right?

[Shackled Phoenix]

There was ONE entry point into the building...not 2, not 3.
My question was how the engine got from however many metres to the left (assuming it was the right engine that puntured) of the hole, into the hole...

That's my point, one engine managed to fly through through the wall creating ONE hole. the other engine smacked into a support beam or something similar and STOPPED, not creating another hole.

You say that the engine could have melted in the fuel fire.... are you forgetting that an engine is designed to contain a continued pressurised explosion. In a modern engine the turbine inlet temperature will typically be around 1700 C... what temperatue was the fire created by the fuel - one that can melt an engine? I dont know - you tell me? I suspect that you have not thought this through, but were quite happy to state your entire theory as fact.

Yes the engine is designed to handle INTERNAL heat, and with a working cooling system. The inside of the engine is better designed to resist heat. And now you have an engine no longer with a working cooling system, Weakened structural integrety, already hot from being used, and with the heat coming externally.

I dont believe it was a fighter jet, however, your point that the engines were behind the plane would be consistent with finding an engine inside (and a single engine at that).

Except why would the engine behind the plane, with exploding fuel tanks INFRONT of it, wind up making a whole infront of the plane?

I think it's easier to get a few people to lie, than it is to melt an engine...and you believe the engine melted. If someone did say - for example they saw something that wasn't a 757, or they knew that it WAS all a lie - what do you think will happen... people like you guys will call them conspiracy theorists.


MVB already commented intelligently on this, so I will only add, good luck finding people to lie about it, without finding anyone who will get all pissed at you asking them to lie about something like as horrible as this and reporting it. I don't think they're conspiracy theorists, I think they are people who A. want attention, or B. think they saw something different that what they actually saw.

[shutupandshave]

That's my point, one engine managed to fly through through the wall creating ONE hole. the other engine smacked into a support beam or something similar and STOPPED, not creating another hole.
And so how did the fuselage get into the building to go crashing through to the third layer...as we've already established that the only hole in the pentagon was made by an engine?

Yes the engine is designed to handle INTERNAL heat, and with a working cooling system. The inside of the engine is better designed to resist heat. And now you have an engine no longer with a working cooling system, Weakened structural integrety, already hot from being used, and with the heat coming externally.
That is a good point well made - although it makes very little difference whether it is internal heat or external heat. The point however remains that there was NOT a huge ravaging fire outside the pentagon for ANY amount of time... If you can find me evidence of one - then I am willing to be proven wrong. This negates the ability to melt an engine.

Whoops - clicked post to early.

I am saying that it is more consistant that a fighter jet hit, based on the fact that the engine followed the plane into the pentagon.

Why cant the people that saw the 757 be the people that made the mistake? With various experts saying that there is no way a 757 could puncture through the pentagon, and various photo's of the burnt out engine outside the pentagon (which was about 1/3 the size of a 757)...

[Karmashock]

Sorry - are you saying you were being sarcastic when you said the following:

"I think your arrogance has hit critical... Thousands of people have gone over this and worked it out. I trust the collective opinions of experts beyond either of us. You trust some French conspiracy theorists... jackass."

You're now telling me that you were just kidding?

Is there any lie you WONT make up to be right?
You fail reading comprehension again... here's the right link... try again.
http://www.tlsconline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8502&postcount=48
-----------------------
As to your various comments about the crash, you don’t know enough about this to have an intelligent opinion… neither do any of us… the experts have backed up the events as cited by the eye witnesses… attacking all of this with your limited information and knowledge can’t be described as anything but arrogant.

[shutupandshave]

There have been just as many "experts" disproving your theory.

You insulted me before you made that Karma. My reading comprehension is fine.

[Shackled Phoenix]

Moreover, since the airliner was full of jet fuel and was flown into thick, reinforced concrete walls at high speed, exploding in a fireball, any pieces of wreckage large enough to be identifiable in after-the-fact photographs taken from a few hundred feet away burned up in the intense fire that followed the crash.

In other words, there's no fuselage sections and that sort of thing." "You know, I'd rather not comment on that. - fire chief

The fire was so hot that firefighters could not approach the impact point itself until approximately 1 P.M. The collapse and roof fires left the inner courtyard visible from outside through a gaping hole.

All taken from the website already posted by karmashock. And an external fire would be more damaged as turbine engines are coated with another metal internally that is more heat resistant. Give a couple days to email a friend who works with the Canadian Air Force and I can get the name of that metal.

I would like to see these photo's of the engine, please post a link

[Karmashock]

No there aren't

all you're trying to do is walk out of this while being able to say "well we'll never know"... which is bullshit.

[shutupandshave]

No there aren't

all you're trying to do is walk out of this while being able to say "well we'll never know"... which is bullshit.
This, I find insulting.

[Karmashock]

... I find it insulting that despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary you still want to suggest that the attack on the pentagon was anything but what the official account says it is.

The building was hit by one of the passenger liners... Please concede that fact and there'll be no need for any further hostility on the topic.

[Psy]

Plane wrecks do not "dissolve in intense fire" they are not sugar in water. How many planes have crashed and burned in such an intense fire? Some of them FULL of fuel on runways, some of them BOMBED with that amount of fuel.

Feusalage shape remains intact, large sections of the plane remain intact and in extremely intense and large explosions it remains intact at the very least in "ribs" where it is reinforced the most.

I am not agreeing with any of the theories or any arguments but I have seen damage to buildings done by american missiles and this looks EXACTLY like a clean missile hit.

The argument a plane wreck can simply disappear in a fire is fucking insane.

[Karmashock]

show me an example of ANY large fully fueled plane that crashed into a large building and look as good as you say it would?

If you don't have an example, then you have no case.

[JADezimar]

Didnt the planes Disentegrate and pretty much dissapear when they hit the the Tower o0? And so if they did why wouldnt they when they hit the pentagon. It is a stronger building than the tower even.

[Karmashock]

This is a good point...
the tower was tissue paper compared to the pentagon... and the those planes were consumed by the buildings...

[Shackled Phoenix]

PSY, most plane crashes, the plane tends to skid and roll, sending pieces scattering, without much to burn for long periods of time. They also tend to have slowed down quite a bit before crashing. This plane slammed into reinforced concrete that had just been designed for something similar to this. Add in the fact that the plane is now mostly inside a building so most pieces that sheer off cannot go very far, and it's quite possible that so little could be left of the wreck. 757's and just about any other passenger planes are actually quite flimsy POS's in order to cut down on weight.

[MVB]

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2003/05/26/plane3.jpg
OH MY GOD I DONT SEE ENGINES!

http://oso.estancia.k12.nm.us/~tcas/1930s%20Plane%20Crash.jpg
OH MY GOD WHERE ARE THE WINGS?

http://www.box4.org/040101/PLANE%20CRASH%2014x.jpg
OH MY GOD ILL BET IT WAS A CRUISE MISSILE!

http://www.groups.sfahq.com/7th/images_7th/plane_.crash.jpg
I ONLY SEE A TAIL, IT MUST NOT BE A PLANE!!!11oneoneoneleventyone

[Shackled Phoenix]

*high five MVB!*

[/<yle]

The thing is... with planes that are bombed... esp on the tarmak... they arnt MOVING 200+ mph. when you crash at that speed... the whole fking thing is spread over several miles. You might get a wing here and a fusilage there... but your not going to get the prety bombed out plane look. Just as if a car crashed head on into a wall at 200+ mph... your not going to be able to tell WHAT it was, safe to say it was metal and its the size of a tincan now.

[tom]

This was posted twice on the old forums. ;)

http://www.lscommand.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl?board=politics;action=display;num=10969702 79

Here be what I posted: AVAST!


Cruise missiles cause big explosions, you know, like this:

http://www.lscommand.com/tlsc/images/boom.gif

Cruise missiles come in from high angles, above 45 degrees to deliver as much force as possible. They don't curve upward at the last minute and fly through buildings.

http://www.lscommand.com/tlsc/images/pentagonslumping.gif

Notice how the Pentagon actually has most of that side still intact. If a cruise missile hit that and caused an explosion (like the one above), debris is thrown all about. The debris would not be "slumped" like that.

See any debris on the lawn? No. Go hunt some UFOs. :disagree:


ps: suas changed his avatar and I didn't notice... :(

[Psy]

ROFL

All i said is what it looks like to me not what it IS. Having had the pleasure of watching US missiles rain on my birthplace I have a point of fucking reference as to how it looks when it hits a building so :halt: .


http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/plane_crashes/html/timeline.html

Check that out then google the crash of your choice. lot's of planes have slammed into mountains at full speed throughout history. As for the wtc ones let's just ignore the 20x amount of building rubble from structural colapse.

Should have known better than to post in here or play devils advocate.

[shutupandshave]

I find it insulting that despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary you still want to suggest that the attack on the pentagon was anything but what the official account says it is.

The building was hit by one of the passenger liners... Please concede that fact and there'll be no need for any further hostility on the topic.
I have already conceded that fact..."Uh Karma, I said I dont think it is a conspiracy theory, and I believe the official account."

Good Job... picking another fight for no reason.

[Karmashock]

but then you kept pushing after the fact... if you concede, then you're done.

that's WHY it ends. Stop and it stops.

[shutupandshave]

Because I am not trying to prove anything right or wrong. I am trying to merely have a discussion about different aspects... You never know - in this discussion we may come out with some piece of irrefutable proof that the pentagon was destroyed by Mr.Methane lighting one of his farts. What's more likely though is that after discussing it, we'll all have a clearer idea of exactly what all the facts were. From how big the hole punctured through each layer is, to the way that engines are built.

Edit: how can I concede. The official viewpoint has always been my viewpoint. If I concede I would be saying that the official viewpoint was wrong...

[MVB]

IMO Stealth's and my photos end the discussion. GG conspiracy theorists.

[shutupandshave]

How does proving it's not a cruise missle (which I really dont think you've done) prove that it wasn't a fighter jet, or that it wasn't a 757 with a depleted uranium bunker buster in it. C'mon.

For stealth - what if it wasn't a high-explosive warhead - what if it was a penetration only warhead...
For MVB - C'mon, finding a photo that doesn't contain an engine or whatever in it does not prove that there are never engines.

Cruise missiles come in from high angles, above 45 degrees to deliver as much force as possible. They don't curve upward at the last minute and fly through buildings.
Actually, they dont come in from high angles... they skirt as low to the ground as physically possible for them. Who said anything about curving upwards?

[MVB]

Additionally, cruise missiles do not handle like sports cars. The MINIMUM operating altitude of cruise missiles is 100 feet above the ground, but even those top-of-the-line missiles operate more usually at 400-500 feet above the ground. They do impact targets at an angle, because they must down-angle to hit them from their relatively high altitudes. Fighter jets ALSO do not handle like sports cars. There are only a few pilots in the world who can hit the side of a building with perfection, and they are not the kind of pilots that sacrifice themselves. Additionally, they cannot sneak past highways and other buildings, get low and then hit a building dead on in any normal fighter jet for the simple reason that they move at very high velocities. Jetliners such as the 757 can actually stay airborne at much lower speeds than fighter jets can, partially due to the much bigger wings, and partially due to the massive thrust of their engines.

This is all moot, though, b/c you can look at stealth's photo and be an eyewitness yourself; that's not what the impact of a cruise missile does.

[MVB]

You do not need a depleted uranium bunker buster to do that damage.

Do you know how bunker busters work? The whole purpose is a heaily reinforced delivery system that allows the missile to penetrate reinforced walls BEFORE exploding. If it were sitting in the 757, and the 757 somehow could not penetrate the wall, the bunker buster would be worthless. It's not like it has some super explosive which blows the bunker away. Where did you think that having a bunker buster sitting in a 757 would somehow make it more effective at penetrating the pentagon?

You see?
http://www.ippnw.at/omeganews/26-04/bunkerbuster.JPG
Through the wall before exploding, using speed + reinforced design to penetrate.

This is a case, suas, where a) you have proof that engines can be totally demolished and leave no trace in a plane crash, and those were pictures of an accident on the ground, not flying full speed into the side of a building, then being exposed to searing heat, and as shattered already pointed out -- these engines are meant to withstand high heat FROM THE INSIDE when their cooling systems are operational; they actually expect very cold temps on the outside. b) you have proof that the impact site looks like a large passenger liner hit it and went plowing through the wall; c) you've seen from critta a movie of a high speed jet hitting such a reinforced wall and just incinerating totally, not penetrating the wall ... this would prove that it could not POSSIBLY have been a fighter jet; d) you've seen the impact of cruise missiles and now a bunker buster ... they leave radial damage, and not angled "this looks like a plane hit me" damage; they also EXPLODE instead of simply catching fire and burning randomly; explosions are generally also radial, and within the confines of said building, even if the missile somehow knocked down a weird fixture, there would have been a noticeable epicenter from the blast; e) you have many eyewitnesses who can attest to it being a jetliner; f) you have the 757 on record MISSING and not being accounted for, with flight-path evidence from air traffic controllers, and all of those missing people and pilots, all within the timeframe of the flight itself, and no explanation for how they somehow vanished.

Your answer is a bunch of high-improbability what-ifs. Your "suggestions" of what-if are literally worthless in the eyes of the truth on this one. Allow for the possibility of conspiracies if you want, but you're much smarter than this, suas.

[shutupandshave]

a) Nope - Where is that proof - I missed it?
b) and you think it would look any differently if it were something else?
c) Nope - Where is this movie?
d) I have not seen what happens to a reinforced building AFTER being hit with a bunker buster. Not all of them carry explosive charges...
e) and also have eye witness accounts saying it wasn't
f) yes - exactly... which although I dont know ANYONE this happened too, or anyone who knows someone this happened too, this is the piece of evidence I believe.

As I said, I believe the official line on this... however I dont think ANY of this stuff (except f) is proof...

http://www.christian-patriots.us/PentagonCrashAnalysis.html This is a pretty reasonable analysis...although as ever there are things that dont add up.

[MVB]

This should answer most of your problem.

Additionally, it includes an analysis by Purdue university (he spells it Perdue, I think that's a typo) with even a 3D technical video they put together.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.html

a) above article talks about what happened to the engines, and includes photographic evidence OF the engines, even identifying the model type used by the plane, and matching it up with wreckage
b) the 3D modeling, as well as other descriptions, should shed light on why the impact looks identical to the impact of a 757 with the pentagon
c) I do not know the link; Critta posted it up first, on the older forums; it had a video on it of a fighter jet being slammed into a concrete reinforced wall and basically liquefying and doing no damage whatsoever; the site linked will also show the dimensional analysis of the hole photographed before the collapses, and how that matches the dimensions of the 757 near perfectly ... he uses photos and rationale from conspiracy theory sites
d) What you're missing from my point is that a bunker buster requires penetration to do any damage, and their primary function is being built in such a way that they PENETRATE a reinforced wall, THEN explode. They are made capable of penetration by means of their thrust and their design; by having a "turned off" bunker buster inside a 757, it would be no more useful than any kind of explosive, and in fact might be less useful, because they are designed NOT to explode as a result of impact, but as a result of program -- they hit a building, THEN wait and THEN blow up; you have to turn them on and activate an arming sequence, and you cannot do that unless they are fired up and flying, which this obviously was not if it was inside the 757
e) the eye witness accounts given should be plenty enough; what you're forgetting is that the plane flew over the damned highway, in the middle of traffic; that was the plan of the terrorists, and it is why they chose the morning to hit ... people are in places where they can't help but see it ... maximum exposure; the 'oh it wasn't a plane' witnesses are massively outnumbered
f) there also existed the corpses of the victims inside the pentagon; a good point is made that nobody saw a bunch of scary government agents carrying 60 bodies into the crash site while firemen and stuff were pulling other people out; you also have to account for the physical trauma to the bodies, which is consistent with a plane crash, and NOT consistent with being killed earlier, then somehow snuck inside a burning building in a perfect pattern with having been in an accident

[shutupandshave]

That was very informative, and pretty conclusive. Thanks.

d) If it were a big conspiracy, I doubt whomever would want to damage the pentagon - just to have it pierced would be ideal.
e) I still maintain that if the government had said it was a 747, or a 767 so would a lot of other witnesses.
f) I never saw any corpses (which is probably for the best) and if there are imaginary people on board an imaginary, than can be imaginary corpses too without much trouble.

The thing is with these things, is that a lot of the proof is relient on other proof, and it only takes one ambiguous thing to through both into doubt.

There is however another theory for the hoaxes... which was on a channel 4 program the other day...my Dad was telling me about it. In fact, I am going to start a new thread about it.

[MVB]

f) the corpses were returned to their loved ones, who helped with identification; these victims were not lifeless human beings in a vacuum

[shutupandshave]

Once again "I" never saw any corpses (or heard anything about them that wasn't 2nd/3rd hand).

I've also never seen the Niagra falls. Doesn't mean it's not there.

[P$Ü(||0]

ähhm one question ... is this hitler talking in the background???

[shutupandshave]

You talking to me P$U?

[P$Ü(||0]

im talnking to anyone

[P$Ü(||0]

ok now im sure it is hitler ...
but WHY THE FUCK is there hitler talking ?



senseless propagandaflash... :thumbdown

[shutupandshave]

Hitler talking in the background of what?

[P$Ü(||0]

of this flash video?

check it out: pentagon strike (http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm#Main)

[MVB]

He's talking about the now-debunked '9/11 wasn't a 757 with people inside' theory flash video.

[shutupandshave]

Ah okay. I would imagine so, seeing as there are many people drawing comparisons between Hitler and Bush.

[MVB]

Heil Bush; er ist unser superman, er totet die Muslims. Sehr gut!

Wir sind verruckte Menschen.

Denken die weiter Welt, vielleicht ...

[P$Ü(||0]

my brother sais it göbbels talking there which would be nearly the same ...

hitler was just a fucking freak that came in power and he was not very much the same as bush is .... bush is just an idiot in my eyes

[P$Ü(||0]

Denken die weiter Welt, vielleicht ...

???ich kann so lang überlegen wie ich will, aber dieser satz gibt überhaupt null sinn

[shutupandshave]

Yes Bush is not similar to Hitler at all... however when people draw comparisons they are being satirical

[Tigre]

President Bush is I agree not the best President we have ever had, but there are some things you have to take into consideration when mocking his Presidency. You have to keep in mind that he did not create this mess we're in. First, you may disagree, but look....what is better two of the largest Mideast countries (Iraq and Iran) united by extremist Shiite Muslims (no offense, but). You think we have problems now...or us going in, stabilizing the worlds oil supply, keeping the extremists from coming to power and owning a huge military capability....

Thats why President Bush Senior left Saddam in power all those years, to keep the Shiites from coming to power and stomping Israel. It would have brought us to the brink of Israel unleashing tactical nukes. In which there are 30+ nuclear tipped cruise missiles parked in Israel pointed at their enemies, by the way.

I am not pro war, but you have to way the consequences for the future. I am not saying this was the best course of action but, it worked.

[shutupandshave]

I think if Bush Snr hadn't screwed Hussein over royally, there would have been little chance that Iraq and Iran would have ever joined forces.

I am unconvinced that it has worked. I am very worried that something awful is going to kick up in a few years time as a backlash to the allied attack of Iraq and Afghanistan.

[P$Ü(||0]

he did not stop them from getting in power, because these extremists now have a much higher recrutement rate than they had before.
would have been much better if he had sent some special unit ( dont know if this is the right word lol) to iraq or all other countrys to search and kill the heads of them and not thousands of innocent people

[Tigre]

Yes there is alot of truth to what you both wrote (PSU and Shutup) but, the fact remains Hussein wanted to rule the Arab world and crush the state of Israel. And Iran (ruling Shiites) is bent on the same. Do we bring our might to bear to create stability and steer the course of there actions or do we just let Iraq and Iran become extremist governments with Nuclear weapons and lots of Oil money to give them the power to create more allies. Good questions all.....

[shutupandshave]

No, assasination almost always gives way to someone even worse. That's why hitler wasn't assasinated, that's why Hussein wasn't assasinated. We wouldn't want goebals (sp) or Chemical Ali in charge.

[MVB]

People tried multiple times to assassinate both; they just never succeeded.

[shutupandshave]

People tried multiple times to assassinate both; they just never succeeded.
Who by?

I think there was one proper assasination attempt (July 20th 1944 ) on hitler, and it failed (and it was by a German).

The rest were plots and involved people standing round with guns and bombs in their pocket, however nothing actually happened I believe.

[MVB]

There were two attempts on Hitler's life before 1938
Folks attempted to assassinate Saddam on numberous occasions; I came across the Hitler assassination attempts in very recent primary source research I've been doing; the Post and Times actually reported the attempts, and later Dr. Gallup reported American public response to the attempts on his life.

[shutupandshave]

Weird, the internet is lacking information then.

[MVB]

Um, the first response on google =
http://members.iinet.net.au/~gduncan/assassination_attempts.html

And that's a horribly incomplete list

[P$Ü(||0]

Who by?

I think there was one proper assasination attempt (July 20th 1944 ) on hitler, and it failed (and it was by a German).

The rest were plots and involved people standing round with guns and bombs in their pocket, however nothing actually happened I believe.

there were several assasinations, but the one u are talking about was by a man called staufenberg. he set a bomb in a meeting with hitler where hitler usually stood every time ...but this day he stood somewhere else and he survived

[shutupandshave]

PSU, there were never any assassinations against Hitler or Saddam.

MVB: Yeah there were 2 or 3 attempts to assassinate Hitler (and a lot of plots that got nowhere). How about Hussein?

[P$Ü(||0]

my translator sais that *assasination* and *attempt to assasinate* is nearly the same so i maybe missunderstood the word ...

[/<yle]

We tried to assasinate Saddam for years. The man was so paranoid he never slept in the same place twice.

[shutupandshave]

Nearly killing someone and killing someone are two very VERY different things.

Kyle: sources? Wait you are saying he never slept in the same place twice... I find that hard to believe.

[MVB]

In the context of this discussion, you are stating that people didn't assassinate saddam/hitler b/c doing so would have been stupid; that is wrong because people did genuinely try to assassinate him; in this discussion "nearly killing someone" and "killing someone" are quite identical.

[Tigre]

In regards to Saddam, In 1991 we had elite special forces units in Baghdad right before we bombed the shit outa it, we knew right where Saddam was and they were just waiting for the order. It never came. The policy makers at large thought it would be better to leave him with a crippled government instead of letting the Shiites come to power. Then they thought, lets arm the Kurds and let them do it, we know how that turned out.........we should be far more worried about the Shiites. Don't ya'll find it interesting that all these Shiite clerics keep getting bumped off?

As far as Hitler, I'll ask my stepmother, she is from Bavaria, and was in Berlin before and after the war. Sad story.....

[shutupandshave]

Odd, it's illegal to try and assassinate a head of state in the US.
Are you saying that the US broke the law?

[MVB]

I doubt the U.S. could be proven to have assassinated, or attempted to assassinate anyone.

Besides, I suppose if these people did exist, they weren't "in" the US.

[shutupandshave]

No, the law states it's illegal to assassinate any heads of states anywhere I believe.

"President Ford signed Executive Order 12333 in 1976, which states clearly that ?Any official of the administration is prohibited from conspiring or involving themselves directly in assassination policies"."

[Tigre]

Acts of War are not governed by that law, in which the President of the US has full executive powers in that regard. The CIA just gives arms and intelligence to whoever we deem feasible enough to carry out our policies. Thus circumventing that exact executive order, involving the USA indirectly. That is record ie; Iran, Iraq, Nicuragua, Chile, Columbia, Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, etc. etc.

[shutupandshave]

so Kyle's wrong then?
We tried to assasinate Saddam for years. The man was so paranoid he never slept in the same place twice.

[JADezimar]

We tried to assasinate Saddam for years. The man was so paranoid he never slept in the same place twice.

I doubt the U.S. could be proven to have assassinated, or attempted to assassinate anyone.

Mvb said we couldnt be proven. Not necessarily never tried.

Acts of War are not governed by that law, in which the President of the US has full executive powers in that regard. The CIA just gives arms and intelligence to whoever we deem feasible enough to carry out our policies. Thus circumventing that exact executive order, involving the USA indirectly. That is record ie; Iran, Iraq, Nicuragua, Chile, Columbia, Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, etc. etc.

That states it right there. Its more considered an act of war than an at home. Problem. So again why would Kyle be wrong ?

[Karmashock]

so Kyle's wrong then?

Not really... the US has had an open policy on Saddam for awhile... however, the CIA has been dead for nearly 10 years so that's sort of like saying you're going to go hunting then melting your gun down...

[TaiNteD]

As much as that seriously creeped me out...I think I have found the answer...It has stuff to do with unknown forces are whatnot but just hold on. I would explain my reasoning behind all of this since I just discussed with a friend but I'm too freaked out to admit to the possible truth of my words...Anyway I shall be back tomorrow to explain...I need to go investigate some more. And yes I am being serious, I am possibly thinking aliens. NO FLAMING!!! Please. Maybe I can be useful in finding some more info. :P

[Bentusi]

old thread :)

[Blazej]

Hitler was nominated to the Nobel Price before the War. There wont be Nobel Price today if it would be given to him.

[Karmashock]

why not?... they gave it to arafat...

They're tards and I give them no credibility.