A prize of a years premium membership...

[b.k. barunt]

Evidently you are unfamiliar with the convoluted way in which our government works. If you were used to seeing things like the Bush vs Gore elections, the Kennedy assassination, Clinton's sexcapades, and Watergate, it would all make perfect sense to you. The whole thing was actually choreographed by Chuck Norris and Steven Segal as a part of their never released megahit "Chuck and Steve Have A Spree". The film has been confiscated for reasons of national security and piss poor acting in Bush's cameo role.


Honibaz

[unriggable]

Meh...If we consider that true..A plane at the Pentagone would have had less chance of beeing compeltly destroyed ( so less proofs against the governement ) unlike the world trade center, which had enough debris by itself to cover the planes better than the Pentagone.



Even though it's a lot of bullshit.

No-one denies the WTC crashes. They could quite easily have planted explosives, crashed a plane into the pentagon and the conspiracy theories would be non-existent as concerns a missile or whatever.

Except, we would be wondering why such a big explosion after the plane hit? Oddly enough, the damage to the pentagon, (I would think) would be much grater had a plane crashed into it. Some sort of plane debris found. And some damage to the lawn in front of the crash site.

You've proven my point there, thanks. Why not use a plane?

Good question. Maybe the one that crashed in Penn. was supposed to hit the pentagon. And since it crashed, they sent a fighter plane to launch a missile at it instead.

Missiles dont have wheels.

[xtratabasco]

.

[unriggable]

Xtra, there's a response waiting for you. That infallible video you showed me was full of holes within ten minutes. So stop giving us bullshit.

[Guiscard]

Meh...If we consider that true..A plane at the Pentagone would have had less chance of beeing compeltly destroyed ( so less proofs against the governement ) unlike the world trade center, which had enough debris by itself to cover the planes better than the Pentagone.



Even though it's a lot of bullshit.

No-one denies the WTC crashes. They could quite easily have planted explosives, crashed a plane into the pentagon and the conspiracy theories would be non-existent as concerns a missile or whatever.

Except, we would be wondering why such a big explosion after the plane hit? Oddly enough, the damage to the pentagon, (I would think) would be much grater had a plane crashed into it. Some sort of plane debris found. And some damage to the lawn in front of the crash site.

You've proven my point there, thanks. Why not use a plane

?

Good question. Maybe the one that crashed in Penn. was supposed to hit the pentagon. And since it crashed, they sent a fighter plane to launch a missile at it instead.

Just a guess is that one of those 757 was supposed to hit building 7 because it was rigged just like the north and south towers were, but shanksville was shot out of the sky, thats why debris is scattered out 80 miles out and the mayor of that town said that there was no plane debris at the impact hole the FBI was guarding.

so to answer his question would be only speculation but the link I provided does give some theories that make more sense than this governments story of the 757 vaporizing.

Neither of those planes were directed towards NY, either before or after hijacking.

[xtratabasco]

Meh...If we consider that true..A plane at the Pentagone would have had less chance of beeing compeltly destroyed ( so less proofs against the governement ) unlike the world trade center, which had enough debris by itself to cover the planes better than the Pentagone.



Even though it's a lot of bullshit.

No-one denies the WTC crashes. They could quite easily have planted explosives, crashed a plane into the pentagon and the conspiracy theories would be non-existent as concerns a missile or whatever.

Except, we would be wondering why such a big explosion after the plane hit? Oddly enough, the damage to the pentagon, (I would think) would be much grater had a plane crashed into it. Some sort of plane debris found. And some damage to the lawn in front of the crash site.

You've proven my point there, thanks. Why not use a plane?

Good question. Maybe the one that crashed in Penn. was supposed to hit the pentagon. And since it crashed, they sent a fighter plane to launch a missile at it instead.

Just a guess is that one of those 757 was supposed to hit building 7 because it was rigged just like the north and south towers were, but shanksville was shot out of the sky, thats why debris is scattered out 80+ miles out and the mayor of that town said that there was no plane debris at the impact hole the FBI was guarding.

so to answer Guis question would only be speculation but the link I provided does give some theories that make more sense than this governments story of the 757 vaporizing.






on a side note this has been fun watching, Guis blood pressure must be off the charts, but thats good...


to think and question this government, do research and ask more questions because this governments story just doesnt add up in all areas.


Just remember we or I dont know all the answers to the questions, I just know what the government says is bull shit.

[xtratabasco]

Xtra, there's a response waiting for you. That infallible video you showed me was full of holes within ten minutes. So stop giving us bullshit.

rig you are full of holes, everything you say is bunk since the day youve been on this site so I give you zero credibility.



but why dont you PM me with all the bull shit you detected.


I can wait.

[mandalorian2298]

The answer to the original question is simple: they were short on planes! (do you think that planes grow on trees, young man? ) So, they used the two that they did have on Twin Towers (since they are really high up and thus easier to reach with planes) and used a truck (that has been cleverly disguised in a plane) on Pentagon (which is low and thus reachable with truck).

[hecter]

The sent planes at the WTC because they wanted a good reason to have them suddenly destroyed. What it is, I don't know, but they had one! And the planes, let's say, did Y damage each. With the pentagon, there is a lot of classified stuff in there, important figures, expensive shit, ect. They just wanted the pentagon to look damaged. They wanted X damage dealt the the pentagon. X < Y. They didn't want a lot of the people and equipment in the pentagon seriously hurt, but they wanted the WTC gone. Hence why they didn't send in a plane into the pentagon, but they did for the WTC.

The above comments do not reflect my true feelings toward 9/11 and is just an attempt to get a free prem

[Guiscard]

Just a guess is that one of those 757 was supposed to hit building 7 because it was rigged just like the north and south towers were, but shanksville was shot out of the sky, thats why debris is scattered out 80+ miles out and the mayor of that town said that there was no plane debris at the impact hole the FBI was guarding.

so to answer Guis question would only be speculation but the link I provided does give some theories that make more sense than this governments story of the 757 vaporizing.






on a side note this has been fun watching, Guis blood pressure must be off the charts, but thats good...


to think and question this government, do research and ask more questions because this governments story just doesnt add up in all areas.


Just remember we or I dont know all the answers to the questions, I just know what the government says is bull shit.

So your answer, interestingly enough based on 'speculation', is that (which?) one of the planes was meant to fly to NY... So thats either flight 93, which left NY in the first place, flew a fairly massive distance away and, post-Hijacking, was directed towards Washington before crashing/being shot/whatever OR Flight 77 which didn't fly too far away from where it took off, which was near the pentagon, before being hijacked and diverted back along that flightpath to either mysteriously disappear or hit the pentagon.

And one of these planes was going to hit the Tower 7 hours after being hijacked, flown towards Washington then back to NY... a good few hours after the original WTC attacks. When fighters had been mobilized. When they'd have no excuse for NOT shooting it down...

All I'm asking, Xtra, is for a logical explanation of why they WOULDN'T have used a plane to hit the Pentagon when they quite obviously had one, nearby, hijacked, in the form of flight 77!

So no answer, really... You don't know. You categorically cannot

[unriggable]

Xtra, there's a response waiting for you. That infallible video you showed me was full of holes within ten minutes. So stop giving us bullshit.

rig you are full of holes, everything you say is bunk since the day youve been on this site so I give you zero credibility.



but why dont you PM me with all the bull shit you detected.


I can wait.

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 937#844937

[jnd94]

Please...George Bush wants to be famous, so he hires a bunch of Arabs to fly a plane into a building, causing a huge commotion. This would give Bush more responsibilty, and he would then declare the Dictator Act, making him have more power in times of emergency. Of course Congress would approve, becuase a huge terroroist attack has just happened on our own soil.

[Guiscard]

The sent planes at the WTC because they wanted a good reason to have them suddenly destroyed. What it is, I don't know, but they had one! And the planes, let's say, did Y damage each. With the pentagon, there is a lot of classified stuff in there, important figures, expensive shit, ect. They just wanted the pentagon to look damaged. They wanted X damage dealt the the pentagon. X < Y. They didn't want a lot of the people and equipment in the pentagon seriously hurt, but they wanted the WTC gone. Hence why they didn't send in a plane into the pentagon, but they did for the WTC.

The above comments do not reflect my true feelings toward 9/11 and is just an attempt to get a free prem

Best effort yet, to be honest... but still obviously crap. If they had full control of a plane they could have crashed it any way they wanted, and used explosions to do exactly the amount of damage they required. In fact, they wouldn't even have needed explosives. They could have plowed the plane into the lawn and said 'hey guys, look how close they came...' for exactly the same dramatic effect.

Best attempt yet from someone who doesn't even believe...

[Guiscard]

Please...George Bush wants to be famous, so he hires a bunch of Arabs to fly a plane into a building, causing a huge commotion. This would give Bush more responsibilty, and he would then declare the Dictator Act, making him have more power in times of emergency. Of course Congress would approve, becuase a huge terroroist attack has just happened on our own soil.

Whats that got to do with my question?

Keep on topic please... I ONLY want to know why use a missile when a plane was available.

[unriggable]

Please...George Bush wants to be famous, so he hires a bunch of Arabs to fly a plane into a building, causing a huge commotion. This would give Bush more responsibilty, and he would then declare the Dictator Act, making him have more power in times of emergency. Of course Congress would approve, becuase a huge terroroist attack has just happened on our own soil.

Whats that got to do with my question?

Keep on topic please... I ONLY want to know why use a missile when a plane was available.

Missiles are also good at planting fraudulent evidence.

[jnd94]

Please...George Bush wants to be famous, so he hires a bunch of Arabs to fly a plane into a building, causing a huge commotion. This would give Bush more responsibilty, and he would then declare the Dictator Act, making him have more power in times of emergency. Of course Congress would approve, becuase a huge terroroist attack has just happened on our own soil.

Whats that got to do with my question?

Keep on topic please... I ONLY want to know why use a missile when a plane was available.

oh... Sorry....

[xtratabasco]

Xtra, there's a response waiting for you. That infallible video you showed me was full of holes within ten minutes. So stop giving us bullshit.

rig you are full of holes, everything you say is bunk since the day youve been on this site so I give you zero credibility.



but why dont you PM me with all the bull shit you detected.


I can wait.

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 937#844937

PM rig PM

dont disrespect Guis and clog your crap here that doesnt even make sense to the link.

[xtratabasco]

Please...George Bush wants to be famous, so he hires a bunch of Arabs to fly a plane into a building, causing a huge commotion. This would give Bush more responsibilty, and he would then declare the Dictator Act, making him have more power in times of emergency. Of course Congress would approve, becuase a huge terroroist attack has just happened on our own soil.

Whats that got to do with my question?

Keep on topic please... I ONLY want to know why use a missile when a plane was available.

again this link goes over your question in great detail

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... eptions%22

[Napoleon Ier]

xtra you discredit yourself. No one is going to watch your outrageously long video. so you clearly appear to have no evidence and to be stalling. Id like to hear, expressed in your a own words a decent argument.

[unriggable]

Xtra, there's a response waiting for you. That infallible video you showed me was full of holes within ten minutes. So stop giving us bullshit.

rig you are full of holes, everything you say is bunk since the day youve been on this site so I give you zero credibility.



but why dont you PM me with all the bull shit you detected.


I can wait.

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 937#844937

PM rig PM

dont disrespect Guis and clog your crap here that doesnt even make sense to the link.

Holy shit...

[hecter]

The sent planes at the WTC because they wanted a good reason to have them suddenly destroyed. What it is, I don't know, but they had one! And the planes, let's say, did Y damage each. With the pentagon, there is a lot of classified stuff in there, important figures, expensive shit, ect. They just wanted the pentagon to look damaged. They wanted X damage dealt the the pentagon. X < Y. They didn't want a lot of the people and equipment in the pentagon seriously hurt, but they wanted the WTC gone. Hence why they didn't send in a plane into the pentagon, but they did for the WTC.

The above comments do not reflect my true feelings toward 9/11 and is just an attempt to get a free prem

Best effort yet, to be honest... but still obviously crap. If they had full control of a plane they could have crashed it any way they wanted, and used explosions to do exactly the amount of damage they required. In fact, they wouldn't even have needed explosives. They could have plowed the plane into the lawn and said 'hey guys, look how close they came...' for exactly the same dramatic effect.

Best attempt yet from someone who doesn't even believe...

Tee hee, thanks. Let's keep it up, shall we?

Have you ever flown a fucking plane? Those 757's are IMPOSSIBLE, and I do mean impossible, to fly without the on board computer. I'd like to see anybody crash a plane into a building with that much accuracy. The WTC would be much easier because it's a giant stick in the ground, really high, you can fly into it horizontally. With the pentagon, it's MUCH lower to the ground, one wrong calculation, you overshoot the pentagon and go into some completely wrong target. A missile is small and manuverable, can deal the exact amount of damage to exactly where they want it. It's much easier to sit in the control room, looking at the satalite image on the screen, and say "Send X yield here." rather than sitting in the cockpit of a plane with a bunch of freaked out passengers saying "SHIT!!! GO DOWN GO DOWN!! Don't overshoot or undershoot the target! Careful dude, BE FUCKING CAREFUL!!!" and deal a seemingly random damage to someplace that they might not want it.

[xtratabasco]

xtra you discredit yourself. No one is going to watch your outrageously long video. so you clearly appear to have no evidence and to be stalling. Id like to hear, expressed in your a own words a decent argument.

I cant take on eveyones questions about 911.

I will answer what I know or do not know and supply evidence, links and videos, if your not going to watch them then you might as well leave the debate now because if you dont have time for me, I dont have time for you.

I will answer the quesitons in the thread and it is your responsibility to follow along. With each thread there are players here who dont want to debate, they only want to spam, troll and hijack the topic or talk about my horrible spelling, so you have to pay attention.

I cant and wont babysit or debate all of you and dont have time to go into details dozens and dozens of times over. If the videos answers your question then thats why I posted it, but dont then change the subject and confuse others, If you have a video that debunks what I have posted then send it my way, im open about this and im still learning.

I post concerns of mine and then see where it takes us, if you dont like it too bad, go make your own thread.


Ive already had 3 players here who have changed there mind about 911 and have asked for more websites to check it out further.

[Guiscard]

xtra you discredit yourself. No one is going to watch your outrageously long video. so you clearly appear to have no evidence and to be stalling. Id like to hear, expressed in your a own words a decent argument.

I cant take on eveyones questions about 911.

I will answer what I know or do not know and supply evidence, links and videos, if your not going to watch them then you might as well leave the debate now because if you dont have time for me, I dont have time for you.

I will answer the quesitons in the thread and it is your responsibility to follow along. With each thread there are players here who dont want to debate, they only want to spam, troll and hijack the topic or talk about my horrible spelling, so you have to pay attention.

I cant and wont babysit or debate all of you and dont have time to go into details dozens and dozens of times over. If the videos answers your question then thats why I posted it, but dont then change the subject and confuse others, If you have a video that debunks what I have posted then send it my way, im open about this and im still learning.

I post concerns of mine and then see where it takes us, if you dont like it too bad, go make your own thread.


Ive already had 3 players here who have changed there mind about 911 and have asked for more websites to check it out further.

So are you going to attempt an answer in your own words?

[xtratabasco]

xtra you discredit yourself. No one is going to watch your outrageously long video. so you clearly appear to have no evidence and to be stalling. Id like to hear, expressed in your a own words a decent argument.

I cant take on eveyones questions about 911.

I will answer what I know or do not know and supply evidence, links and videos, if your not going to watch them then you might as well leave the debate now because if you dont have time for me, I dont have time for you.

I will answer the quesitons in the thread and it is your responsibility to follow along. With each thread there are players here who dont want to debate, they only want to spam, troll and hijack the topic or talk about my horrible spelling, so you have to pay attention.

I cant and wont babysit or debate all of you and dont have time to go into details dozens and dozens of times over. If the videos answers your question then thats why I posted it, but dont then change the subject and confuse others, If you have a video that debunks what I have posted then send it my way, im open about this and im still learning.

I post concerns of mine and then see where it takes us, if you dont like it too bad, go make your own thread.


Ive already had 3 players here who have changed there mind about 911 and have asked for more websites to check it out further.

So are you going to attempt an answer in your own words?

So are you gonna watch the video and receive the answer to your question?

[hecter]

So are you going to attempt an answer in your own words?

So are you gonna watch the video and receive the answer to your question?

I'd take that as a no...

Are you going to respond to my post or buy me a prem, guiscard?