There is no idiocy in the reasoning. 2 towers would have be enough to cuase all the changes in this country.
So what ever you meant by what you said doesn't mean jack.
Again:
“You implied that if the government were behind 911 "2 towers" would have been enough; I threw your logic back in your face by pointing out it wasn’t even enough for ‘19 Muslims with box-cutters’.
One tower could have been enough.
One plane could have been enough.
One thoughtless moderator could have been enough.
The point: Keep your speculation about what is and is not enough to yourself because there is no way to substantiate it and it contradicts both the official 911 conspiracy theory and the many alternate ones.”
Yes, it is a plausible motive but it is based on circumstances and doesn't prove crap.
Is this the basis for your assertion? What is you assertion anyway? Are saying it wasn't airplane that hit the pentagon?
(odds are you won't even answer this question but instead do more gay-ass side stepping laced with ad-hom)
Discrepancies in reports involving complex events are nothing new. It doesn't proves anything.
Can you have discussion with out being an ass and debate the points?
Probably not. So don't bother as you have neither anything substantial to say other than ad-hom and link posting/quoting
Apparently you make a concentrated effort to contradict yourself with every post to achieve new depths of stupidity.
You accuse me of “gay-ass side stepping laced with ad-hom”, yet you brush aside the most concrete official evidence from that day.
You ask for a motive, yet when furnished with one you resort to the sheer idiocy of labelling a motive “circumstantial” and the shining brilliance of “doesn’t prove crap”.
Care to explain how a motive could be anything other than circumstantial?
Do you understand the meaning of motive?
Do you understand the meaning of circumstantial?
Do you understand the problem with the NTSB flight data recorder readout being materially off from the angle of impact and downed light poles?
Do you understand the problem with 2 Pentagon police officers corroborating each other’s eyewitness testimony and the above noted NTSB readout?
Unlike you, I am not interested in rectal speculation and I therefore will not waste time guessing what struck the Pentagon. Instead, like any responsible investigator, I am concentrating on the available evidence. “It doesn’t proves anything” is not a satisfactory response, rather the ostrich reaction of a fool who fails to grasp the significance of the situation. The data readout is just that, a readout: the FBI provided the NTSB with what was supposed to be the black box from Flight 77; the NTSB plugged this data into a program to render the flight path.
There was no interpretation involved.
With this in mind, explain to the board how the trajectory of this NTSB flight path could be so far off from The 911 Commission flight path as to render physically impossible the downing of the five light poles outside the Pentagon as well as the internal column damage.
Furthermore, explain how the altitude readout does not conform to the possibility of whatever aircraft the black box was extracted from having struck the Pentagon after considering the known manoeuvrability of a commercial airliner and the pitch of the object in the publicized Pentagon security footage.
