The 9/11 Conspiracy At The Pentagon

flavio said:
I think most here will dismiss any evidence without even thinking about it. I doubt seriously you'll get any intelligent replies.
Click to expand...
Why are you even here? If that is all you think of us, you should depart for your more 'intelligent' replies and never bother us again. I don't know what happend to you as a little kid, but it sure warped your adult mind and molded you into a perfect little asshole.
 
unclehobart said:
Cranky half-witted personal attack..........
Click to expand...

Look at the replies so far and the response to the recent thread Luis started on the subject and tell me why my conclusion is so far off.

I don't think this subject is going to get many thought out replies. Get it?
 
HAHA... One of the arguments that it wasn't a plane striking the Pentagon was because there was no great rent in the ground leading up the building. Well.. geez... 99.9% of the time planes strike out in the open country. That means they hit the ground first and nothing but the ground. The Pentagon plane was aimed straight for the wall. There would be no cause for a trench in the ground if he didn't touch it. I don't recall there being any ground cut trenches at the World trade Towers either. It must not have been a plane there either.
 
flavio said:
Look at the replies so far and the response to the recent thread Luis started on the subject and tell me why my conclusion is so far off.

I don't think this subject is going to get many thought out replies. Get it?
Click to expand...
Was your comment about the original question at hand or about other members of the board? Your statement was neither designed to promote or deny any third party theory, but rather to cut every other person on this board with a single glib remark. I didn't fucking well appreciate it upon the behalf of the rest of us and probably offer the counter retort that you were an asshole in the other threads, so we should expect little from you here as well.

Once again. Fuck you.
 
Considering the level of cynicism on this forum, I'm surprised at how easily this is being dismissed.

My best guess is this is Clinton's fault.
 
unclehobart said:
blah
Click to expand...

"Look at the replies so far and the response to the recent thread Luis started on the subject and tell me why my conclusion is so far off."

Dick.

Edit: And to elaborate further....

"I don't think this subject is going to get many thought out replies. Get it?"

Maybe you'll get it on the second pass. Make sure to pay attention to the bold text.
 
unclehobart said:
HAHA... One of the arguments that it wasn't a plane striking the Pentagon was because there was no great rent in the ground leading up the building. Well.. geez... 99.9% of the time planes strike out in the open country. That means they hit the ground first and nothing but the ground. The Pentagon plane was aimed straight for the wall. There would be no cause for a trench in the ground if he didn't touch it. I don't recall there being any ground cut trenches at the World trade Towers either. It must not have been a plane there either.
Click to expand...

Um, suposedly the plane DID hit the ground first.
 
snopes said:
As eyewitnesses described and photographs demonstrate, the hijacked airliner dived so low as it approached the Pentagon that it actually hit the ground first, thereby dissipating much of the energy that might otherwise have caused more extensive damage to the building; nonetheless, as described by The New York Times, the plane still hit not "just the ground floor" but between the first and second floors:
Click to expand...

:shrug:
 
flavio said:
"Look at the replies so far and the response to the recent thread Luis started on the subject and tell me why my conclusion is so far off."

Dick.

Edit: And to elaborate further....

"I don't think this subject is going to get many thought out replies. Get it?"

Maybe you'll get it on the second pass. Make sure to pay attention to the bold text.
Click to expand...
In THIS thread before any commentary was laid out, you made a sweeping insult based upon things not said in THIS thread. Your dig was based upon a personal assumption of things said in the past. At least I'm calling you out for something unprovoked that you said directly in THIS thread. You keep claiming 'this thread, this thread' while trying to invoke past threads. You can't have it both ways, you sanctimonious ass.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top