Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You'd have to be a f#cking idiot to believe that a 757 caused this amount of destruction: http://www.thepowerhour.com/news/pre-collapse_1.htm . That's the impact site before it collapsed. People will believe anything these days. Stay away from the Kool Aid, ya freak.Juvat said:Dog pile on chopper: stay away from the kitty porn, ya freak.
My 2 cents: that atrocity of a video was made by, yep you guessed it, a group funded by an Islamic "charity." Consider the source...
By the way, for any duma$$es who didn't already know this, the 757 hit the ground *before* the Pentagon, then slid into the building. Hence the lack of utter destruction one would expect from a direct hit.
Stop chemtrails!!
LJDRVR said:If we Americans would spend the same amount of time and effort on demanding that our children get a real education, as we do on activities such as driving our SUV's to Krispy Kreme and back home in time to watch "American Idol", then I wouldn't have to waste five minutes of my time watching such insipid tripe.
LJDRVR said:Just like the morons who are convinced that TWA 800 was shot down. No critical thinking skills whatsoever.
I don't worry about "hijacking" a thread because thats what happens on a public message forum such as this.mar said:I'm with ya.
I'm not with ya.
I won't hijack the thread (well maybe just a little) but I've spoken to several experienced 747 flight engineers and pilots who are all of the same opinion:
TWA 800 didn't suffer a fuel tank explosion. I won't say it was shot down but usually the simplest answer is the most correct (Occam's Razor).
I've debated this elsewhere but basically you got 747s that fly all over the world on hot ramps with packs running and near empty center fuel tanks and they don't explode.
Not only that, but did you realize that the wiring is *external* to the tank?
I'm all for critical thinking. And that means I don't buy the party line.
That reminds me of the joint NTSB/FBI accident animation depicting TWA800 entering a zoom climb after the explosion in order to "explain" the smoke trail seen progressing upward by several military/non-military eyewitnesses. It seems to me that "critical thinking" nowdays means believing whatever the idiot box tells you, and mocking anything to the contrary.mar said:I'm not with ya.
I won't hijack the thread (well maybe just a little) but I've spoken to several experienced 747 flight engineers and pilots who are all of the same opinion:
TWA 800 didn't suffer a fuel tank explosion. I won't say it was shot down but usually the simplest answer is the most correct (Occam's Razor).
I've debated this elsewhere but basically you got 747s that fly all over the world on hot ramps with packs running and near empty center fuel tanks and they don't explode.
Not only that, but did you realize that the wiring is *external* to the tank?
I'm all for critical thinking. And that means I don't buy the party line.
Wasn't a joint NTSB/FBI animation. Look at the opening of it. It was done by the CIA. After all, the CIA knows everything about a/c accidents. That should tell you something right there, that the CIA put together the "answer" to all those that did see a smoke trail rising from the water to impact the aircraft...secks said:That reminds me of the joint NTSB/FBI accident animation depicting TWA800 entering a zoom climb after the explosion in order to "explain" the smoke trail seen progressing upward by several military/non-military eyewitnesses. It seems to me that "critical thinking" nowdays means believing whatever the idiot box tells you, and mocking anything to the contrary.