TheGreenMagi,

1. Plane crashes where there were no pilots or where the pilot loses complete control often look like just holes in the ground. I speak with the experience of watching every episode of Mayday/Aircraft Disasters/Whatever the **** you call it in the USA.

2. Related to that its actually not that uncommon for paper and other light flexible materials to be completely intact after a plane crash.

Here's one particularly crazy example of both of these situations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific...es_Flight_1771

Jeez. How ******ed do you have to be to think they flew a predator drone into the Pentagon? Do you realise you are ******ed, or are you so ******ed you think you are smart and everyone else just doenst recognise your super duper skills to mostly colour between the lines. That dog is coloured green, dogs arent green dummy.

Same goes for dropping a small bomb to simulate the UA 93 crash.

This is so illogical I suspect you must still wear velcro shoes because shoe laces must confuse you. Bunny ears, bunny chasing into a hole, oh I cant remember all that stuff.

IF there was a conspiracy. There wasnt. But IF there was a conspiracy they would have bought a few commercial jets, fitted them with simple remote control mechanisms and then proceed to crash them into the ground and buildings. They didnt, but they would if it happened, which it didnt.

your pony crashed in a field

****!

I got so excited because its one of my favorite episodes of Mayday and I knew it was a good link.

Edit: Just to save this thread:

This crash involved a former employee sneaking a gun on board and shooting his boss who was also on the plane. A flight attendant arrives at the cockpit and the pilots who heard gunshots/screams ask "What's the problem?" and in a super-villain-esque way the disgruntled employee responds "I'm the problem" right before shooting the flight attendant, the pilots and plunging the plane into the ground. This exchange was actually recorded on the cockpit recorder.

cosigned. I didn't know what the episode was about when I watched it and my jaw literaly dropped when I saw that. It would be quite something to hear that on the cvr, but then again, I think I'm glad I can't... if my blood ran cold just from the reenactment then thats prob too much for me.

It's so cute that anyone thinks the Bush administration was competent enough to do something like this then keep it a secret.

i still haven't seen any evidence that has convinced me that AA 77 hit the pentagon or that UA 93 crashed in shanksville.

at the pentagon, i see some debris that looked like it was from a small aircraft.

in shanksville, i see a hole in the ground and a little bit of debris. witnesses didn't see any plane debris. the footage is not really clear enough to determine how much debris there was, and what the debris actually looked like. and it does not look similar to any other plane crash that i've seen.

there's not enough evidence to say for certain what really occurred in either circumstance.

but what i do know for sure is that the twin towers and WTC 7 collapsed from a controlled demolition. there is plenty of evidence to conclusively prove that.

they're not competent. that's why it's so obvious that it was an inside job.

as stupid as the government is... apparently the american people are even dumber for not realizing this obvious hoax.

so they didn't really keep it a secret. a significant percentage of the american and world population have doubts about the official story.

Magi;

You realize that the compressors aren't 7 feet wide right? Assuming everything in an engine is as wide as the outer housing is pretty dumb.

I haven't seen any evidence that you understand what the word "evidence" means

I have seen evidence that he does not understand what the word "evidence" means.

TheGreenMagi - how old are you? Are you American?

I just always find it fascinating to see who the conspiracy people are.

Oh, also - did Americans land on the moon?

Have you even looked for evidence?

The video that showed how bad Loose Change was covers these details well inc the exact part of the turbine that spinny wheel big is from and why it looks like that - which anyone with a vague idea about a jet turbine will be able to explain to you.

As for controlled demo, there isnt a single piece of evidence that shows it was. All the evidence shows the exact opposite, in fact.

So now you've actually seen he debris for yourself and say "well there isnt much" as an argument for.... what? (assuming its true that there isnt much, which, ffs, watch the video he linked, its strewn across the ground.)

as per the bolded:

We've shown you one ITT. If you want to stick your fingers in your ears go for it but this is precisely why truthers are mocked so furiously

What was the point of faking the United 93 crash?

Were there sensitive documents in that field?

Also if I saw one crash site and thought "hmm I would think there'd be more debris" and then saw another crash site and again was like "hmm I would think there'd be more debris here too", at some point it might occur to me to adjust my airplane crash debris expectations.

29 years old. canadian

probably

I wish I hadn't asked.

You'll never be a conspiratard with logic like this.

i'm sure this has been mentioned in here at some point, but i'm grunching most of the thread to say that NORAD was a complete ****show that morning. the tapes held pretty clear evidence that there was no chance of ever actually getting them shot down because of our unpreparedness.

do the two of you even know what thermite is?

maybe you should leave the science to the scientists and not some turdy youtube video-maker who thinks thermite is this mysterious substance that can't be made when a giant aluminum tube crashes into a giant thing with ****tons of iron in it.

To be fair, science isn't really allowed in the conspiratard threads.

Absolutely it is.