Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Politicalboi

(15,189 posts)
15. I don't believe that
Thu Mar 26, 2015, 08:55 PM
Mar 2015

We had other witnesses who said their were no bodies or blood at the Pentagon and Flight 93. Even the mayor of Shanksville said no plane crashed. Be he's just the mayor. Even news outlets said no plane hit the Pentagon. And why would 19 terrorist who planned this for years, get thwarted by box cutters so they couldn't fly out of their nearest target in NY. I guess flying over military bases was the safer way to commit terrorism.

I NEVER wanted to go into the No Planer Land, but that is what I believe. Ever since I watched a video of the second attack on the tower and thought, boy, that plane sure went in fast. So how does a plane traveling at sea level speeds penetrate steel and concrete 3 times on the same day. So I slowed it down to a stop, and the picture below is what I got.

Let the flaming begin. I can take it

Here's the video that made me jump the shark. Pause it on or near 18 seconds and watch it frame by frame. I didn't photoshop this nor would I even know how. And even if you don't think it's a missile, a plane traveling at sea level speeds would have resistance and a lot of plane debris on the ground at the building. But yet we see NONE as the "plane" glides through like a hot knife to butter.



Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

That was my very first thought as well Dixiegrrrrl Mira Mar 2015 #1
just listening SoLeftIAmRight Mar 2015 #2
The debris fields would not be remotely comparable. Thor_MN Mar 2015 #3
I gently suggest you start digging a little Mira Mar 2015 #4
I gently suggest you are attempting to compare apples, hubcaps and shampoo. Thor_MN Mar 2015 #5
I gently suggest you search a little more zappaman Mar 2015 #6
LOL! Politicalboi Mar 2015 #13
"Digging?" William Seger Mar 2015 #7
Here is what I know for certain: Mira Mar 2015 #8
That's a pretty lame excuse for posting bullshit William Seger Mar 2015 #9
Very well said Politicalboi Mar 2015 #14
I found the Snopes article pretty comprehesive jonno99 Mar 2015 #11
I don't believe that Politicalboi Mar 2015 #15
"jump the shark" William Seger Mar 2015 #18
You don't by chance jonno99 Mar 2015 #20
It is said that oftentimes we don't know what we don't know - so I ask - jonno99 Mar 2015 #19
Dropping 27,000 feet in 8 minutes is a "gradual descent"? Ghost in the Machine Mar 2015 #21
Compared to impacting the ground at a 40 degree down angle? Thor_MN Mar 2015 #22
"Controlled descent rate of 3,000 feet per minute" LOL! Ghost in the Machine Mar 2015 #23
The descent was on autopilot. Thor_MN Mar 2015 #24
It didn't crash into a reclaimed strip mine jberryhill Mar 2015 #10
Here's a picture of the crash site in 1994 Politicalboi Mar 2015 #16
While I find your use of quotation marks around "planes" intriguing... jberryhill Mar 2015 #17
Shhhhhhhh!!!!! Politicalboi Mar 2015 #12
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Creative Speculation»Germanwings crash has a d...»Reply #15