WTF? Pakistan Jetliner Crashes Into Mountain But Does Not Vaporize.

[Mons Venus]

AP July 28 2010
ISLAMABAD — A passenger jet that officials suspect veered off course in monsoon rains and thick clouds crashed into hills overlooking Pakistan's capital Wednesday, killing all 152 people on board and scattering body parts and twisted metal far and wide.

WTF? I thought ALL jets Vaporize on impact.  

[240 is Back]

even physics gets a day off now and then

[Mons Venus]

even physics gets a day off now and then

 

[Eyeball Chambers]

Maybe the World Trade Center and Pentagon were harder then solid stone that's hundreds of feet thick?

 

[Fury]

Maybe the World Trade Center and Pentagon were harder then solid stone that's hundreds of feet thick?

 

I like how that video tonymctones posted months ago showing pictures of airline parts littered all over the Pentagon gets conveniently ignored. 

[240 is Back]

I like how that video tonymctones posted months ago showing pictures of airline parts littered all over the Pentagon gets conveniently ignored. 

yep.  enough to fill the back of a pickup truck.

[Mons Venus]

yep.  enough to fill the back of a pickup truck.

Maybe the Pentagon Airliner was constructed w/ Vaporizing parts ?

You know....less mess to pick up. 

 

 

[Fury]

yep.  enough to fill the back of a pickup truck.

The fuck would you know? You said you didn't have time to watch that video despite logging another 100 posts about 9/11 after saying that.

[OzmO]

There are so many other variables that contribute to a result like that, including, speed, amount of fuel, angle of impact etc.

That for most CT'ers is too advanced for simple logic like, "this plane didn't disintegrate therefore the WTC's ones are fake."

[SAMSON123]

There are so many other variables that contribute to a result like that, including, speed, amount of fuel, angle of impact etc.

That for most CT'ers is too advanced for simple logic like, "this plane didn't disintegrate therefore the WTC's ones are fake."

Umm Yeah... Riiiiggghhtttt...Ok. Inhale a little slower with the next joint

[tarzan]

There are so many other variables that contribute to a result like that, including, speed, amount of fuel, angle of impact etc.

That for most CT'ers is too advanced for simple logic like, "this plane didn't disintegrate therefore the WTC's ones are fake."

There will come a time when YOU will be labeled a CT'er for believing the official 911 lie. People will call YOU a CT'er.

[SAMSON123]

AP July 28 2010
ISLAMABAD — A passenger jet that officials suspect veered off course in monsoon rains and thick clouds crashed into hills overlooking Pakistan's capital Wednesday, killing all 152 people on board and scattering body parts and twisted metal far and wide.

WTF? I thought ALL jets Vaporize on impact.  

Maybe america should have all of its planes made in Pakistan

[OzmO]

Umm Yeah... Riiiiggghhtttt...Ok. Inhale a little slower with the next joint

I did that and saw the Jet Liner crash into the empire state building like you told me about.

[OzmO]

There will come a time when YOU will be labeled a CT'er for believing the official 911 lie. People will call YOU a CT'er.

Not if science, common sense, and skepticism are still around.

I don't believe the "official 911" story is 100% true.  That's more than obvious.  But to believe that wasn't a plane that crashed into the pentagon with out any concrete evidence and overwhelming evidence to the contrary is pure baseless CT'er mind frame.

[George Whorewell]

The crash of the Pakistani Jetliner was really just a hologram being projected from the same studio in California where they faked the original moonlanding.

Wake up people.

[SAMSON123]

I did that and saw the Jet Liner crash into the empire state building like you told me about.

You're still puffing too deep or you have mixed your weed with coke...

I said a JET crashed into the Empire State building...Keep facts straight.

[tonymctones]

There are so many other variables that contribute to a result like that, including, speed, amount of fuel, angle of impact etc.

That for most CT'ers is too advanced for simple logic like, "this plane didn't disintegrate therefore the WTC's ones are fake."

Not if science, common sense, and skepticism are still around.

I don't believe the "official 911" story is 100% true.  That's more than obvious.  But to believe that wasn't a plane that crashed into the pentagon with out any concrete evidence and overwhelming evidence to the contrary is pure baseless CT'er mind frame.

I swear if you dont quit making sense and let these morons ramble on about things that can be disproven in 2 secs with google Im going to slap the common sense right out of you 

[tarzan]

Not if science, common sense, and skepticism are still around.

I don't believe the "official 911" story is 100% true.  That's more than obvious.  But to believe that wasn't a plane that crashed into the pentagon with out any concrete evidence and overwhelming evidence to the contrary is pure baseless CT'er mind frame.

From watching the only surveilance video of the Pentagon crash the overwhelming evidence is that it was not an airliner. The object is simply not large enough. More evidence is the fact that the hole was too small initially prior to the collapse of the wall and the fact that there was no damage to the lawn in front of the pentagon. Those three pieces of evidence are not baseless.

How can a huge ass ariliner be flown 10 feet above the ground by a novice hijackker pilot and not scrape the grass as it slams into the ground floor of the pentagon a mere few feet off the ground? Explain that away.

[tarzan]

http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm#Main

[Dos Equis]

The crash of the Pakistani Jetliner was really just a hologram being projected from the same studio in California where they faked the original moonlanding.

Wake up people.

lol.  I was thinking the same thing. 

[tonymctones]

From watching the only surveilance video of the Pentagon crash the overwhelming evidence is that it was not an airliner. The object is simply not large enough. More evidence is the fact that the hole was too small initially prior to the collapse of the wall and the fact that there was no damage to the lawn in front of the pentagon. Those three pieces of evidence are not baseless.

How can a huge ass ariliner be flown 10 feet above the ground by a novice hijackker pilot and not scrape the grass as it slams into the ground floor of the pentagon a mere few feet off the ground? Explain that away.

all been debunked....

like many ct'ers i assume you have never even looked at the evidence against the ct's you believe in?

[tarzan]

all been debunked....

like many ct'ers i assume you have never even looked at the evidence against the ct's you believe in?

You have to debunk it. Claiming it has been debunked without actually doing it does not work. You don't need a 100 pages to debunk it. You should be able to debunk it in one paragraph at most. I looked for a debunking theory on the smooth lawn and have been unable to find a satisfying one. Please provide one if you can find it! I'll be the first to accept a plausible explanation.

'Anybody can put out a passenger list" - Hutton Gibson (Mel Gibson's father)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutton_Gibson

[tonymctones]

You have to debunk it. Claiming it has been debunked without actually doing it does not work. You don't need a 100 pages to debunk it. You should be able to debunk it in one paragraph at most.

'Anybody can put out a passenger list" - Hutton Gibson (Mel Gibson's father)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutton_Gibson

answer the question...have you ever looked at evidence the contradicts your ct? or is loose change your main source?

[tarzan]

"The Pentagon has become a kind of litmus test for rationality in the study of 9/11," Fetzer said. "Those who persist in maintaining that a Boeing 757 hit the building are either unfamiliar with the evidence or cognitively impaired. Unless," he added, "they want to mislead the American people. The evidence is beyond clear and compelling. It places this issue 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. No Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon."

[tonymctones]

lets also look at this...what proof do you have that a missle hit the pentagon?