Creative Speculation

pinqy

(596 posts)

15. Not really an answer

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 10:31 AM

Dec 2011

"Because they can and no one will question it?" Really? And how does that explain why they wouldn't just say it was a missle?
"They didn't want to do that much damage." Why not? Where are you getting that idea from? And the families of the victims will disagree with you that there wasn't that much damage.
Al Queda certainly does have missles or could get them.

But it's still too convoluted to use a missle and say it's a plane. It would make zero sense to do so. Use a missle and claim it's a missle. Use a plane and call it a plane. "less damage" doesn't make any sense considering the amount of damage done that day.

"Why is there no video of the plane?" There are at least 2 that I've seen. Of course, since the amount of time the plane is on camera is very short and it's a side angle, truthers deny that it's a plane because you can't see wings very well from a side angle.

The CNN reporter (and I just watched the video) said that there was no sign of the plane except the hole and that all the pieces left were small. That's not the same thing as saying there was no plane. The Pentagon is a pretty solid building, and planes are not particularly tough.

And tell me again what actually happned to Flight 77 and why that doesn't make the plan even more convoluted and less feasible.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

160 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

What is the thing about 911 being a inside job that is the hardest to explain away? [View all] Logical Dec 2011 OP

No links for you but a documentry zeemike Dec 2011 #1

Clear? pinqy Dec 2011 #3

My answers and some questions to you. zeemike Dec 2011 #10

Not really an answer pinqy Dec 2011 #15

It would be even harder to convince that Osama hijacked a cruz missil don't you think? zeemike Dec 2011 #39

jesus! wildbilln864 Dec 2011 #142

Flight 77 was itself the missile. Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #148

I think you missed my point! nt wildbilln864 Dec 2011 #149

I took a glance at the video "In Plane Sight" cpwm17 Dec 2011 #5

Explain why there are no viedo of the plain hitting the Pentagon zeemike Dec 2011 #11

Explain what happened to the passengers of Flight 77. Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #16

I asked you first. zeemike Dec 2011 #17

Did I know anyone personally on those planes? No, I didn't. Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #20

The only power "they" have is the power you have fictiously ascribed to "them" Nuclear Unicorn Dec 2011 #22

You don't have to be omnipotante to manipulate people and things. zeemike Dec 2011 #27

You're arguing in circles; question-begging Nuclear Unicorn Dec 2011 #28

Well you understand the power of a straw man don't you? zeemike Dec 2011 #31

A straw man is when you assign a fallacious argument to someone that they did not make Nuclear Unicorn Dec 2011 #33

You ,keep saying there is ZERRO evedence. zeemike Dec 2011 #44

it's ZERO evidence...and yes, you have none. zappaman Dec 2011 #45

So there we have it...we are at an impass zeemike Dec 2011 #51

Even the NIST had to finally admit freefall occured! wildbilln864 Dec 2011 #143

And even Gage and Chandler had to admit ... William Seger Dec 2011 #147

The evidence presented that the fall started 1.75 seconds before the freefall component is poor. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #152

WTC7 was in freefall for the first 100 feet Ace Acme Dec 2013 #151

You present assertions that have already been thoroughly debunked cpwm17 Dec 2011 #46

Well that would be hard to do. zeemike Dec 2011 #50

Then there is no amount of evidence that can change your mind. cpwm17 Dec 2011 #58

And no amount will change yours zeemike Dec 2011 #61

So what if it fell in "free fall"? I wouldn't expect otherwise. Nuclear Unicorn Dec 2011 #48

The only way it could have fallen like that strait down is if ALL the suprot structures failed zeemike Dec 2011 #49

You really pin this entire idea on the notion that structural failures dont spontaneously occur? Nuclear Unicorn Dec 2011 #52

Well the building could have collapsed from damage zeemike Dec 2011 #55

Your belief in a "sustained pummeling" of WTC7 is a fantasy. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #154

I regard your refusal to counter our evidence for a plane hitting the Pentagon as a concesion. cpwm17 Dec 2011 #54

No you are wrong there zeemike Dec 2011 #99

you make me laugh when you say "our evidence"! wildbilln864 Dec 2011 #144

I regard your refusal to counter our evidence for a plane hitting the Pentagon as a concesion. cpwm17 Dec 2011 #146

Large buildings do tip over. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #155

Freefall is not a natural occurrance for buildings. The law of conservation of energy Ace Acme Dec 2013 #153

There is one poor frame from one of their low speed cameras. cpwm17 Dec 2011 #26

So they only have low speed cameras and only released 5 frames? zeemike Dec 2011 #29

You didn't address the evidence presented cpwm17 Dec 2011 #32

Well I used WTC7 as my smoking gun zeemike Dec 2011 #37

Could I request that you please remove that link from your post(s)? Make7 Dec 2011 #64

I didn't look at the site closely cpwm17 Dec 2011 #87

Thank you. I did pretty much the same thing the last DU3 test period. Make7 Dec 2011 #117

Post removed Post removed Dec 2011 #2

Oh, my God. Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #6

Sory but I don't know what any of that means... zeemike Dec 2011 #12

It may be a reason to believe in God. Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #13

Don't know what that means eather zeemike Dec 2011 #18

Where did the plane parts go that hit the pentagon? liberal N proud Dec 2011 #4

Here's more evidence for the plane that hit the Pentagon: cpwm17 Dec 2011 #9

There are plenty of pictures of airplane parts in the Pentagon hack89 Dec 2011 #21

All the competing theories Nuclear Unicorn Dec 2011 #7

The truth is out there zeemike Dec 2011 #14

So the Truthers are part of the lies Nuclear Unicorn Dec 2011 #19

no they are bieng manipulated. zeemike Dec 2011 #30

So which ones are bing manipulated? Nuclear Unicorn Dec 2011 #34

oh my zappaman Dec 2011 #35

Well that is what Journalist used to do zeemike Dec 2011 #36

So what you're saying is Nuclear Unicorn Dec 2011 #38

utter absence of genuine evidence? zeemike Dec 2011 #40

"I show you that there is plenty of it?" Nuclear Unicorn Dec 2011 #41

So basicly you just want to run me round and round zeemike Dec 2011 #43

The only evidence in the videos is of a burning, wrecked building that collapses. Nuclear Unicorn Dec 2011 #47

I guess that is true zeemike Dec 2011 #53

What laws are you referring to? cpwm17 Dec 2011 #56

The law of gravity for one. zeemike Dec 2011 #57

Here's a brief video that shows WTC7 didn't all collapse at the same time cpwm17 Dec 2011 #59

I have seen it and it is consistant whith what I said zeemike Dec 2011 #60

Thermal expansion and weakening of steel can explain the structural failure cpwm17 Dec 2011 #62

Well what I don't believe is that this thermal expansion was distributed evenly zeemike Dec 2011 #65

It wasn't. No one claims that it was. Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #66

i am not protesting anything...I am questioning the official story zeemike Dec 2011 #68

Protesting, questioning, whatever. You need to find out what the official story is. Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #70

Well sory to disapoint you but I have seen the official story zeemike Dec 2011 #72

No, you haven't, not with that straw man claim you made about thermal expansion. Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #73

What a statement... zeemike Dec 2011 #75

I agree. Your post 75 is some statement, indeed. Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #77

So I am hearing you say that because it is not part of the official story zeemike Dec 2011 #80

No, you are hearing me say, "Locate that phrase or that concept in the Final Report on Building 7." Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #81

So if it is not in the offical report then it does not exist. zeemike Dec 2011 #84

"we then have estalished that the collaps was not caused by thermal expansion" - No, we have not. Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #86

Well then present it as evedence zeemike Dec 2011 #88

Here's a short presentation of the NIST report Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #94

Yep seen it. zeemike Dec 2011 #96

Seen it? And still you were here saying that the report claimed uniform thermal expansion was Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #97

Because it said that thermal expansion caused the iner part to fail zeemike Dec 2011 #101

Large massive objects don't behave like small light objects. cpwm17 Dec 2011 #102

All good points....and demolition experts use these facts in their work. zeemike Dec 2011 #106

WTC7 didn't fall straight down cpwm17 Dec 2011 #107

Are you saying that the shell was suported by the inside of the building? zeemike Dec 2011 #108

By the way here is a photo of the framework of WTC7 zeemike Dec 2011 #110

Something DID happen simultaneously Ace Acme Dec 2013 #158

I just showed you with the video of the collapse on comment 59 that there wasn't a uniform collapse. cpwm17 Dec 2011 #82

So expalin where I am not telling the truth zeemike Dec 2011 #85

I am not saying that you are a liar. Not at all. Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #91

Well I admit I have not read the report zeemike Dec 2011 #92

The beams in WTC7 didn't warp. If they had, then they couldn't have pushed the girder. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #157

That's an engineering question cpwm17 Dec 2011 #63

And Arcitects and Engineers have addtessed it zeemike Dec 2011 #67

In the latest holy book in their online store? Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #69

You can dismiss anthing can't you? zeemike Dec 2011 #71

I've dismissed the arguments of AE911Truth after nine years of examining 9/11 Truth arguments Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #74

Funy but after 9 years of doing the same thing I came to a diferent conclusion zeemike Dec 2011 #76

9 years of avoiding the actual statements of NIST? Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #78

Questioning is not avoiding. zeemike Dec 2011 #79

The way you are questioning is avoiding. Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #83

That is just the same thing said in a deferent way zeemike Dec 2011 #89

But you are misrepresenting what the report says. Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #90

If you then take the oposing view it is up to you zeemike Dec 2011 #93

You might have that backwards Nuclear Unicorn Dec 2011 #95

And he is sayint that the "proper explanation" is the "official one" zeemike Dec 2011 #98

But neither Boffin or the report he cites claims the building fell straight down Nuclear Unicorn Dec 2011 #100

Well nothing is perfict. zeemike Dec 2011 #103

Sorry, but the evidence presented by Boffin convinces me it was NOT uniform Nuclear Unicorn Dec 2011 #104

Are you saying that all buildings should behave the same while collapsing? cpwm17 Dec 2011 #105

not too suprising sense they were very close togather to beguin with zeemike Dec 2011 #109

WTC7 fell straight down at first--as you can see by watching the videos. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #159

"Only the outer shell collapsed at the same time. That was only after the internal structure collaps wildbilln864 Dec 2011 #145

That the penthouse collapsed does not prove that the interior of the building collapsed. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #156

bombs in the bldgs. going off plus ensho Dec 2011 #8

For me, it was the spike in options trading in United and American airlines coalition_unwilling Dec 2011 #23

The willful destruction of the FAA recordings for that time. kickysnana Dec 2011 #24

MercutioATC explained that. Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #25

There isn't one corner of the Government and media ... T S Justly Dec 2011 #42

No Black Boxes ever recovered Cherchez la Femme Dec 2011 #111

Not true. Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #112

Good to know Cherchez la Femme Dec 2011 #113

In a movie theater, links will have to wait Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #114

Here, do some reading...... Logical Dec 2011 #120

More BS, The Flight 93 flight data recorders were recovered. Also.... Logical Dec 2011 #119

The attacker's passport that survived the explosion, FourScore Dec 2011 #115

Show us how you know zappaman Dec 2011 #116

Government protection of fraudulent workers in basement levels. melonkali Dec 2011 #118

firemen and policemen said wtc7 was going to come down tiny elvis Dec 2011 #121

But the reasons for fearing a collapse are on record. Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #122

That's apples and oranges cpwm17 Dec 2011 #123

someone with some authority said tiny elvis Dec 2011 #124

I have posted why firefights though the building would fall Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #125

Already asked and answered cpwm17 Dec 2011 #126

nist said the collapse was unexpected and unexplained prior to nist's investigation tiny elvis Dec 2011 #127

Here's a real time video of a firefighter predicting WTC7's collapse cpwm17 Dec 2011 #128

the national institute of standards and technology disagrees with you tiny elvis Dec 2011 #129

Clearly the collapse was "expected" the day of 9/11 Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #130

Here's the link to the 2008 Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 cpwm17 Dec 2011 #132

i thought maybe you read it tiny elvis Dec 2011 #133

Obviously you don't know what you're talking about cpwm17 Dec 2011 #139

Hmmm, I seriously doubt that claim William Seger Dec 2011 #131

Hmmmm... Nuclear Unicorn Dec 2011 #141

Who says WTC7 was leaning? FEMA doesn't say it was leaning. NIST doesn't say it was leaning. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #160

Message deleted by the DU Administrators Nathan_Hale Dec 2011 #134

I don't think you've got that quote right. Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #135

Yes, my recollection was..... Nathan_Hale Dec 2011 #136

No, not at all. There's enough intent AFTER seeing the towers attacked to document it. Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #137

One can split hairs over.... Nathan_Hale Dec 2011 #138

Actually, it is resolvable. Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #140

just around 911 there was a story about stock trading for American Airlines Whisp Dec 2011 #150