A prize of a years premium membership...

[Guiscard]

I will award a years free premium membership to anyone who can explain to me exactly why the American government were able to gain control of two planes and fly them into the WTC yet (if we go with Xtra's theory) had to resort to faking a plane crash at the Pentagon, rather than using another plane.

Xtra sure as hell can't answer. He's bottled it. So I just thought I'd lay it open to the rest of the forum. I won't accept links in the primary argument. Just a paragraph of your own words. No explanations as to what exactly did hit the pentagon, thats been adequately debated elsewhere. Just the reasoning behind it. Why not just steal another plane?

[b.k. barunt]

They did steal another plane - it crashed, so they went to plan B. Next question . . .


Honibaz

[Guiscard]

They did steal another plane - it crashed, so they went to plan B. Next question . . .


Honibaz

And where was that then?

[The1exile]

Why not just steal another plane?

originality.

"Excellent, excellent, that'll fox them. Frankie, baby, we are made!"

[Anarkistsdream]

They did steal another plane - it crashed, so they went to plan B. Next question . . .


Honibaz

And where was that then?

Well, it crashed in Pennsylvania....

[Guiscard]

They did steal another plane - it crashed, so they went to plan B. Next question . . .


Honibaz

And where was that then?

Well, it crashed in Pennsylvania....

What, United Airlines flight 93?

So what happened to AA Flight 77, then?

[Snorri1234]

It's all here in this link.




http://www.iammostsurelyanidiot.com






Can't spoon feed you the information.






Nothing to say to that right?

[freezie]

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.

[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.

[xtratabasco]

I will award a years free premium membership to anyone who can explain to me exactly why the American government were able to gain control of two planes and fly them into the WTC yet (if we go with Xtra's theory) had to resort to faking a plane crash at the Pentagon, rather than using another plane.

Xtra sure as hell can't answer. He's bottled it. So I just thought I'd lay it open to the rest of the forum. I won't accept links in the primary argument. Just a paragraph of your own words. No explanations as to what exactly did hit the pentagon, thats been adequately debated elsewhere. Just the reasoning behind it. Why not just steal another plane?

We can tell your soul is crying out loud "truth" "truth"


and I will release your troubled self and get you on your way.


Its complicated so you have to pay attention.



Here it is my friend, the answers to your question

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


now just pm me with the gift cerificate info and watch your Karma blossum into that pretty rose you know your self to be.

[Guiscard]

I will award a years free premium membership to anyone who can explain to me exactly why the American government were able to gain control of two planes and fly them into the WTC yet (if we go with Xtra's theory) had to resort to faking a plane crash at the Pentagon, rather than using another plane.

Xtra sure as hell can't answer. He's bottled it. So I just thought I'd lay it open to the rest of the forum. I won't accept links in the primary argument. Just a paragraph of your own words. No explanations as to what exactly did hit the pentagon, thats been adequately debated elsewhere. Just the reasoning behind it. Why not just steal another plane?

We can tell your soul is crying out loud "truth" "truth"


and I will release your troubled self and get you on your way.


Its complicated so you have to pay attention.



Here it is my friend, the answers to your question

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


now just pm me with the gift cerificate info and watch your Karma blossum into that pretty rose you know your self to be.

[freezie]

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.

Bingo.


Hence the '' It's a lot of bullshit'' comment.

[jay_a2j]

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.

[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?

[jay_a2j]

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.

[Iz Man]

With all due respect Guis (and I mean that).......

Do we really need another thread perpetuating this nonsense?

[Guiscard]

With all due respect Guis (and I mean that).......

Do we really need another thread perpetuating this nonsense?

Thats not the point of this thread. Its a thread just to once and for all Xtra does not have the balls to answer even the simplest of questions.

[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.

The one that crashed was a United Airlines flight 93. There was another plane which was hijacked, AA flight 77... the one that hit the pentagon. If it didn't, where did it go?

[jay_a2j]

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.

The one that crashed was a United Airlines flight 93. There was another plane which was hijacked, AA flight 77... the one that hit the pentagon. If it didn't, where did it go?

Into the Atlantic Ocean.

[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.

The one that crashed was a United Airlines flight 93. There was another plane which was hijacked, AA flight 77... the one that hit the pentagon. If it didn't, where did it go?

Into the Atlantic Ocean.

What? It never flew over the sea, nor did its planned flight path take it over the sea... It was flying from Washington to LA.

The government hijacked a plane easily within range of the pentagon and instead of flying it into the pentagon they flew it hundreds of miles into the sea, with no eye witnesses on the way... Then they used a missile to blow up the pentagon when they could more easily have used a plane...

How much have you really looked into this, Jay? I mean other than the google videos Xtra gave you links to...

[The1exile]

Why not just steal another plane?

originality.

"Excellent, excellent, that'll fox them. Frankie, baby, we are made!"

Does no-one have a comeback?

[b.k. barunt]

I only watched a minute or so of xtra's link, but my 2 questions remain the same:
(1)Who benefitted more from 911, the terrorists or Bush?
(2)If the terrorists were willing to go all out for 911, why no follow up? What significant acts of terrorism were perpetrated in the U.S. after 911? What? They just suddenly gave up?
I'm not saying the government crashed the planes into the 2 towers, but they knew damn well what the plan was and did nothing to stop it. Go figure. Now our constitution has been raped up the wazoo, the government can do any damn thing they want to, and Haliburton is all smiles - who had the most to gain from 911?

[Guiscard]

I only watched a minute or so of xtra's link, but my 2 questions remain the same:
(1)Who benefitted more from 911, the terrorists or Bush?
(2)If the terrorists were willing to go all out for 911, why no follow up? What significant acts of terrorism were perpetrated in the U.S. after 911? What? They just suddenly gave up?
I'm not saying the government crashed the planes into the 2 towers, but they knew damn well what the plan was and did nothing to stop it. Go figure. Now our constitution has been raped up the wazoo, the government can do any damn thing they want to, and Haliburton is all smiles - who had the most to gain from 911?

This thread has nothing to do with any of that. I just want a simple explanation for the problem I posted.

I'm not debating anything to do with the questions you ask, and this isn't the place to answer them. Xtra has plenty of good juicy threads for that.

I just want a simple answer to my question - why not simply crash a plane into the pentagon?

[b.k. barunt]

I think that the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania was meant for that - asked and answered already. As to where the other one went, i can't say for sure - maybe it crashed into the Pentagon, and most of the debris magically disappeared, or maybe it was sucked up into an interdimensional warp, where all my unmatched socks are.


Honibaz

[Guiscard]

I think that the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania was meant for that - asked and answered already. As to where the other one went, i can't say for sure - maybe it crashed into the Pentagon, and most of the debris magically disappeared, or maybe it was sucked up into an interdimensional warp, where all my unmatched socks are.


Honibaz

And what I said still stands. The flight which crashed was United Airlines flight 93 flying from Newark to San Fransisco. American Airlines Flight 77 was flying a route much closer to the pentagon, and was also hijacked.

So we make the one which started off closer to the pentagon with a flight path directly in line disappear magically and we take the one much further away, on a drastically different route, make a half arsed attempt to fly it towards the pentagon and then shoot it down when something goes awry, before which (check the times) they've shot a missile into the pentagon.

It crashed after the plane/missile hit the pentagon. Very convincing, BK.