*Throws rock at Frosty*

Ow! My eye!

dont throw rocks....someone might want to smoke them.

exactly silver i agree w/ you totally

but instead of the fireman stuff (i do thank the firemen and women that risked thier lives going in there cuz one saved my cousin) my uncle is a marine and was over in Iraq in 2003 and my history teacher in 7th grade asked the class if they had any relatives/friends etc in Iraq.. no one raised there hand cept me and i said," My uncle is in Iraq serving with the Marines. I miss him and want him to come home safe." and he started takin shit bout the military specially the marines.. so i said some stuff that i dont regret. i told my family what happened and when my uncle came back from Iraq in mid 04 he came to school w/ me and i showed him to my history teachers room.. he walked in and right up to the teacher.. and said "Hello sir, I hear that you were talkin shit about the Marines and the US military in general.. and by the way i got you something..." He gave him a plane ticket to Kuwait w/ a note that said "You dont like the military? Well than fight for your own freedom you stupid fuck. because im sick of defending stupid motherfuckers like you." and he was walkin out of the room and he turned around and said to the teacher "I hope you have a good vacation over there, sir."

i just died laughin when he told me what the note said..

and in the end the teacher never talked shit again

im not talkin shit about the marines. i love the marines and i respect what they're doing. i challenge every person to go to http://www.reopen911.org/freedvd.php and fill out that form to get their free confronting the evidence DVD. it is COMPLETELY free (i know because i filled it out and got 5 copies of it, free of any type of charge watsoever). watch that (at least hte first hour, with as much of an open mind as you possibly can)... and i GARUNTEE the dvd will raise some serious questions... the DVD presents the info better than i ever could imagine.

Damn, I opened it up again....

NVM

Frosty thank you for adding some intelligible, tangible thoughts to this godforsaken thread. Too bad I hate physics and chemistry.

i dont get what u mean by "initial pull". there is no "initial pull"... the building is COLLAPSING... the only thing pulling it down is gravity.

and yes it does refer to an object falling thru a vacuum USING EARTH'S GRAVITY. what this means is that that equation is using saying hypothetically that there is NO atmosphere. so d = 1/2(32.2)tt is saying how far would an object fall given a specific time if Earth has no atmosphere. i am 100% sure this is correct. one thing you should know about me guys, i know more about physics than a number of 11th and 12th graders who TAKE physics. i am not wrong about this. just get ur DVD's... here it from Jeff King's mouth... he goes to freakin MIT. cant fuck wit that.

your such a fucking idiot

Okay, so 32.2 ft/s/s is in a vacuum. Fine. That wasn't my point. My point is that a vacuum is created beneath each individual floor as it is falling, in addition to the pull of gravity. (I guess I should mention here that a vacuum does exert a force; if you don't believe me, sip a drink through a straw and explain why the liquid rises) With such a complex matrix of forces, it is too simplistic to take the high-school notion of physics that the only forces acting on a falling object are gravity and air resistance. There are many more variables considering the specific structure in question, more variables than I could calculate.

I hate to break it to you, but in high school, they don't teach you the entire picture when it comes to chemistry and physics. They simplify it so that you can gain a basic understanding of the principles, and then once you get to college and grad school you finally learn the real picture. And guess what, the real picture is so complex that no one understands it. I don't want to shoot over your head here in case you haven't heard, but Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle (which states, by the way, that it is impossible to know both an object's position and its velocity on a subatomic level) combined with the intrcacies of quantum mechanical theory render it impossible for us to know anything more than what is limited by our own assumptions (eg, that an object falls 32.2 ft/s/s in a vacuum).

What it all boils down to is this: even your grand ole physics guru at MIT is limited in what he can know. The best information he can give is based on compounded approximations, the kind that cause a dfference of .3whatever seconds to be within standard error. Wait a minute; he only goes to MIT?! Oh, man....

Anyways, you've got your video, so the world's a better place now, eh? (Shut up; I'm not Canadian)

you obviously dont know as much about physics as u think u do. i think it's sad that 1. you know about the Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle (as do i) but you don't know what makes the liquid rise in a straw and 2. that silver thinks I'M the idiot when i'm very good at physics, and i'm not the idiot here. if i were fighting for silver's side, i wouldnt be such an idiot, even if i presented the same material knowledge of physics.
now, here's why the water rises in a straw. it has to do with the difference in pressure created, or more simply, when u suck u remove the air so there's empty space. so the air pressure pushes down on the liquid outside the straw and forces it up the straw, simply stated. i've drawn u a diagram of a similar scenario about an experiment i did in 7th grade where we took a candle (put in clay to hold it up), and we put it in the middle of a tray of water, we lit it, then we put a jar over it. the water rose when the candle went out (due to oxygen starving) the reason the water rose was because the candle used the oxygen, creating a difference in pressures so the water was forced up by the outside greater pressure until the air pressures were in equilibrium. heres the diagram:

watch silver, he's gonna come in and say "you're such a fuckin idiot" again, even tho if u ask ANYONE who truly knows physics, they'll tell you that that's y it happens. i'm right on my physics frosty, face it.

you jerk off while typing your pro terrorist shit? seriously?
see you the kinda mark i would sell oregano to. a true sucker...

is that so... well then prove wrong my proving frosty wrong right there? see silver, i respect u and all, but ur problem is that most of the time now u just sit back and do nothing but say im an idiot and im aiding terrorists and im pro terrorists and shit. well ill tell you what... i AM a terrorist. no im not what you guys perceive as "terrorist" the guy who tries to blow himself up for allah... but i am what the FBI considers a true terrorist... someone who is able to think for himself, someone who knows the truth, and someone who defends the constitution. look at the FBI's flyer for terrorists... it lists defenders of the constitution/people who make numerous references to the constitution and the bill of rights as terrorists... among other things like animal rights activists... actually lemme go see if i can actually find the flyer.... http://www.ridersforjustice.com/Articles/f...alert_flyer.htm

reason's why i call u a dipshit

1.) 14 pages of you saying "the gov. lies"
a.) we know they do..... ruby ridge and waco tell us that.

2.) you expect american people to believe that another american non-extremeist(gov officals and a properity company) took out the wtc and killed thousands.
a.) you really need to grow up, and see the stupidity you spew. they knew it was going to happen 20 years ago, wtc was bombed a few years b4 9-11.... it was a terrorist target.
b.) you should have been aborted....we dont need you breading stupidity during war time.

3.) your goofy theory of the building falling. do you think thousands of people would walk into a building and say "OHHHH LOOKS THERE RENOVATING!!! <explosives all over and wires and people cutting main support beas and drilling blast holes to hold the explosives to destroy the main supports>
a.) reread 2a
b.) read 14 pages and see the answer. btw you email that dude and ask him for your own self???
c.) in the words of Red Forman "Dumbass!!" <that 70's show>

i give 2 shits if you respect me. you dont respect the foundation of american mentality and general good will. i dont live in a hole (well metaphoricaly speaking) i know the world is a bad place...but with the shit you talk i see you as a terrorist supporter. i would mouth ur ass given the chance, care less if ur 15 your Dad should do it. i see he dont have the fucking balls....

so see i dont give 2 shits....to me your no better then some scumbag in israel blowing up a civilan bus.

You are an asshole and need to move the fuck off my country!

Ok, here you go. You said "difference in pressures." I said "vacuum." What is a difference in pressures referred to as? A vacuum. You are correct on the issue of semantics, but the point still stands. The vacuum may not generate a force, but it removes a force already present that causes another force to effect motion. Sorry that I didn't feel like saying all that earlier.

Applied to the scenario at hand, air rushes out of the building, creating a "difference in pressure" if you like. I will try to explain it with the correct semantics here. The falling building then meets less air resistance than would normally be met, as it is "pushed" into the slight void created by the air pressure above it, causing it to fall faster than a normal object falling through the air. So the difference of .3whatever seconds, as I said before, could be partially (if not completely, although I would not venture to fully state that) explained there.

I was merely trying to simplify the concept for people who are not as attuned to physics. It would appear as if the vacuum "pulls" down on the building in addition to gravity, which is what I said. However, the correct physical explanaiton is that the air pressure above the building is the actual cause of the force, not the vacuum itself. Forgive me for trying to simplify things, but you are still left with this problem in your explanation, regardless of the words I used to describe the phenomenon.

You must learn the difference between arguing and discussing facts. Your statement would work in an argument or a debate, but a discussion of facts is not bound by the same semantical constraints as those situations. I'm sorry if that sounds condescending; I did not intend it to be. I have just noticed that you like to discredit someone for saying something in the wrong way when the effect of the situation ends up the same with the correct explanation.

And I'm sorry if I misspelled anything or if some of this didn't make sense; It's like 4:20 AM here and I just woke up

you know what you sound like silver? the guy from fox news. "O YOU BETTER BE BEHIND THE PRESIDENT OR YOU'RE A DISGRACE TO THIS COUNTRY AND YOU'RE A TERRORIST!"

Well you know what, until you can explain how a 757 makes a 16 foot hole in the pentagon without damaging ANY OTHER PARTS OF THE WALL and without leaving any wreckage, then u can quiet urself =) I think a 6 ton engine going 400 MPH will leave a mark on the pentagon wall, wouldn't you agree? but obviously not because the only damage was a 16 foot diameter hole with no wreckage in front of the pentagon. No before you call me stupid, EXPLAIN THAT! Explain out the planes that hit the towers made a HUGE 100 foot across hole, meanwhile the plain that hit the pentagon made a 16 foot hole with NO damage to any other parts of the wall (where the wings/engines would have hit), and without leaving any wreckage in front of the pentagon. I'm sorry, but that question deserves serious scrutiny. So don't just say I'm stupid until you answer my question.

You sound like the guy from fox news if you say "Asking questions is unpatriotic"

Look!!!!!!!

The black helicopters are coming!!!!! The black helicopters are coming!!!!!

yes i do see a lot of black helicopters, mostly at night, because i live near an airforce base. Now madcapp, notice how you didn't bother to answer my crucial question... u just made fun of me instead

welcome back bud...


REINFORCEMENT......


before i explain anything i want you to answer 3 things....

1...what is the offical gov reason for the pentagon?

2.... why the pentagon would not be reinforced?

3...the difference in the structural integrity between the WTC and pentagon?

and i will answer you...

(BTW look at the thickness of the wall in the photos of the crash and tell me what else you think will penetrate that?)
come back soon

retard

official gov story for pentagon: terrorists flew the plain at 400 mph inches above the ground and crashed it into the pentagon

i dont understand ur other questions... now answer my questions... how does a 757 make a 16 foot whole without damaging any other part of the pentagon, and leave no wreckage on the front lawn?

the pic below is the damage done by the "757" to the pentagon BEFORE the section collapsed. explain. NOW.

I don't know how much I respect this source, but it has a couple a valid points (such as the fact that planes are relatively hollow and fragile objects):

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ppfinal.html

How about this helicopter? I think it sums up how I feel about your nonsense too exclusive

Too Exclusive haven't you figured out on your own you keep falling back from more and more of your initial points. By now you should be able to reason out for yourself that if 90% of what you claimed is wrong, most likely the other 10% is as well.

Ok just for the sake of argument lets say a plane didn't hit the pentagon.
Now it's easier to make this claim if you ignore what it would mean if that was true
This would be some of the more obvious ramifications.
1) The Government was behind the whole thing, secretly planned everything about 9-11 yet for some reason made all of these little mistakes.
2) American Airlines was also involved as they have never came out and said it wasn't our plane. We're not taking just one person here either, where talking lots of people.
3) Numerous people watching several different radar screens would also have to be involved otherwise someone would of said by now " Nope I watched the plane continue on pass D.C."
4) Were the 60+ people on flight 77 also involved, are they living in luxury at some hidden location, if not what happened to them? If they are not alive this would mean at least the pilots where involved as they flew the plan to a secret location where the passengers where killed.
5) You could claim the plane never existed but this would still mean 100s of people involved such as ground crews, American Airlines, traffic controllers, FAA, etc.

I just don't know how you can sit there and think this conspiracy which would encompass several 100 people at the very least and probably more. yet there isn't be a single whistle blower???
Very doubtful.
Not to mention the lack of a single piece of hard evidence hasn't been found with countless people looking for 3+ years.

All you really have is a picture and the idea it doesn't look like what YOU would think it should look like.

This comes down to the same B.S. most of your other stuff did.
Misleading information wrapped up in a nice presentation to try and show it as facts to support the conspiracy nuts point of view.
I'll give you an example, many of the "No plane hit the pentagon" sites show pictures of aircraft crashes to show the amount of debris than ask the question where is the debris from the plane that was suppose to hit the pentagon.
Very simple when you think about it, they are comparing apples to oranges.
Most of the crash photos they give as evidence probably involve planes trying to make some sort of emergency landing for whatever reason. This would mean possibly gears down, slower speed and as small of an angle of attack compared to the ground.
Huge difference between a failed emergency landing and someone trying to hit a building head on.

yea frosty ive seen that story. but here's a picture for you:

these are pictures of the whole that the plane that hit the north tower made. the one that hit the south tower made a similar hole... y no hole like that at the pentagon?

well as to ur previous claims, flight 77 dissappeared from radar somewhere near ohio. THAT'S A KNOWN, ADMITTED FACT. something only appeared on radar near washington DC (yet they didnt bother to scramble fighters from andrews AFB, only 12 miles away until AFTER the plane hit the pentagon.)

btw, a former Bush Chief Economist named Morgan Reynolds just came out recently calling the official 9/11 fairy tail bullshit... look him up.

Click to view attachment <-------HOLE


looks like hole, smells like a hole....is it a hole?


look at the casement of the windows at the pentagon (in the pic u posted)....its structural integrity is so superior to that of WTC, that im suprised that a plane actually penetreated the building...thought it was more foritified then that. if canada wanted to attack the pentagon they would bomb it right? that building is made to be attacked. we (meaning nato and our national air defense) look outside our borders for an attack not from ith in. that changed from 9-11. dont forget the shock value of all this...


ya know you claim to be smart, but you cant see whythe pentagon would be more durable then the wtc?


answer the questions...


retard....


*EDIT* i dont remember seeing a road by the pentagon near the strike as well as i dont remember seeing a fence? thought it was a grassy area around the pentagon.

I think silver answered your question. The pentagon is MUCH more heavily fortified than the WTC towers, so a big hole would be made in them, and a small one in the pentagon. Same thing happened when the C-130 crashed into the Drury Inn in Evansville, IN bank in June of 1992 (that's my hometown). Big hole, lots of fire. It was put out though before much of the building could collapse.

first of all silver said he doesnt remember a road by the pentagon. it's called I 395... it's across the grass. second of all, here's my question: MAYBE the pentagon's more durable, but first of all, that whole u pointed silver, that was made AFTER the section collapsed. that wasnt made by whatever hit the pentagon... i posted a picture of the whole made by w/e hit the pentagon... it's 16 feet in diameter, BEFORE THE SECTION COLLAPSED (i posted a picture of it). now you say it's more durable, that may be true. but the question is, WHERE ARE THE WINGS?

now i'm going to say this, correct me on ANY piece of the bellow that's wrong:
u say it's more durable, so by what u say, that means since there was only a 16 foot hole at first before the section collapsed, then only the fusulage went in, right?

that means the wings sheared off... RIGHT?

that means the wings should be on the FRONT LAWN, RIGHT?

well they're not. EXPLAIN.

and where are the 6 ton each engines?? according to ur theology, that means the wings, the engines, the vertical/horizontal stabilizers should all by on the front lawn? RIGHT?

yet there's NOTHING on the front lawn except a piece or two of scrap metal... there should be TONS of wreckage on the front lawn according to your theology... RIGHT? now tell me, where is it? feel free to stop and correct me on ANY step that i got wrong here.

plane=egg (hollow)

building=Fort knox

you ever see an armor pearceing round from a M1 tank hit another tank? round pearces and the think explodes. you want to see something the size of the plane? compaction from the force of the plane condensed the plane into a small partical.

experiment....paper towel tube and the wall.....

measure the tube and figure the total area of the tube (or box)
smash tube stright into the wall....
remeasure the tube (or box)
what are your results?

are not wings hollow and hold the fuel in them? what do you think caused the fire? an explosive? you ever seen something explode?

experiment # 2

take a M-88 and put it under a can full of tissue with the fuse sticking the entire way out. light the fuse... after the boom how much tissue cought on fire? explain the vast fire damage to the structure? the pic you show has a road right in front of the wall... with a car burning.... the plane almost clipped a light on the highway a few hundred yards away....

were did that car come from? (i never seen it in any pics... if its there i cant and wont dispute that parking was there...
1. there is no crater at the damage to the wall... you admit that the structure is made to be secure right? there would be a crater at the scene.... at 500mph there is nothing left of a 6 ton object.

i drive truck...ever see one hit a bridge at 120

shit forgot to put your nick name in (tard)
retard....

alright, then how did the HOLLOW fusulage (if the walls of the pentagon were as reinforced as u say they were) go and punch thru THREE rings of the pentagon? (36 inches of steel reinforced concrete) and punch neat holes likes the one in the picture bellow (which is inside the the 3rd ring)

wings (what parts didnt explode from the force of impact) folded into the hull of the plane...the wings i dont believe ejected from the planethe heavy parts were the ones to travel the frutherest distance...going into the 3rd ring (that being major steel structural beams of the plane and the solid components of the engines (what was solid enough to with stand the impact the plane also hit at an angle to the ground....lets say it was 35 deg. the ground would have asorbed the impact as well. look at the damage to the wall in the first place so very low to the ground. thought that there were witnesses that sasid that the plane hit the ground first then the building....that i dont know (would have to have been there to see that) the wings were probally shreaded and burried into the cabin which was imbeded in the building and ground. if a missile would have hit it would not have made it 3 rings in. they would not have used a bunker buster, that pen. the ground. i am no rocket scientist but a plane is so very fragile, think about it.

yet it does all this u say it's doing. what u said is just about as outrageous to me as my story is to u.

ill hit u with something u cant refute AT ALL.

study the frames below... those are 2 out of the 5 frames of video that the FBI have released of "flight 77" hitting the pentagon...

find the 757 in the first frame? why is there a vapor trail from the craft? jet engine vapor trails are NOT visible until about 32,000 feet... it is IMPOSSIBLE for a jet engine vapor trail to b seen at ground level. explain y this craft has a vapor trail?

First, you kept referring to our "theology." "Theology" means the study of God. So the word choice there is incorrect (Hey, you said point out anything that was wrong there). Silver has already pointed out the other things.

As far as a vapor trail, I thought that was due to the lower speeds generally used at ground level. Even if that's not the case, if it clipped a streetligt, that could have caused some vapor to emit.

And also, you can't see the plane in the first frame, and a plane is much too large to be obscured by the concrete thing sticking up from the ground. So.... where's the vapor trail? It's hard to say that there is a missile there because, at the angle at which the shadows are cast, you would see its shadow on the grass. But there's not one there. I'm not sure what the gray there is. Looks photoshopped to me because a vapor trail would be either more transparent or more defined (if it is just being emitted).

I guess the last question is, if it were a cruise missile, where did all the luggage and plane parts come from (i.e. landing gear)? Were they just randomly placed in that room to make people think it was a plane? And if so, why didn't they scatter when a missile's explosion penetrated the building?

See, your argument seems to work pretty well with these particular photos, but you seem to ignore the other facts that don't sit well with your theory. That's not an insult, just an observation. It seems that when someone points out something that throws a wrench in your theory, you scramble to another piece of your evidence.

The government, to me, has no motive here for doing all this. According to your argument, it was so that Bush could go to war, but the funny thing is that most of the planning would have had to have happened during the Clinton administration! You also have to remember that our government is not some mysterious force acting always of its own interests (although it can, at time); it consists primarily of elected officials in whose best intrest is to serve the people they govern. And as anyone can realize, none of this is in our best interest.

Oh well. Answer me this. Are you even open in the slightest bit to the possibility that they were planes that hit all three buildings, and that there were no charges set to detonate them? If not, there is really no need for you to continue discussing this with us. I tihnk most of us are open to the possibility of what you say being true, but there is just not enough evidence at this point to support it. You have maybe one or two arguments that partially hold, but those aren't enough to settle the matter in my mind.

I hate that this has turned into a heated flame war....

hummmm.... from someone that was there....(who knows!)

the footage is messed up and im sure the gov does not want anyone studying the effects a plne hitting the pentagon...for various reasons!

a plane hit the pentagon....stop trying to hold on to your conspircy.

BTW....go find a few kids in your highschool or neighborhood and tell them this shit...(it should get you beat up)

tard

well ya see those ARENT photoshopped because you cant find any other version anywhere. that gray IS part of the vapor trail, and vapor trails from missiles ARENT transparent. so that gray thing IS a vapor trail coming from w/e hit the pentagon. obviously it's not a 757. you have to remember. w/e hit the pentagon approached on rumsfeld's side, then did a 270 degree turn so instead of killing rumsfeld, it hit the section that was being renovated. and trust me, doing a 270 degree turn at 400 mph in a 757 is NOT easy, considering the flight instructors of the guy who hijacked flight 77 (hanjour or w/e he said) all said that he was an AWFUL pilot. awful pilot->insane stunts? and also, explain to me why these are the ONLY 5 frames released by the pentagon from the security camera, y they are such shitty resolution, y don't they release the OTHER frames of this camera that are inbetween these frames... maybe make it 30 fps instead of 1 fps :/ why dont they release the security footage from the camera on top of the sheraton hotel (that was pointed at the pentagon that morning)? y dont they release the security tapes for the gas station whose camera was pointed at the pentagon? we KNOW they have these... so y wouldnt they just release it and clear themselves of guilt?

y would that be? something like this can never happen again... it SHOULDN'T have happened if the government did its job in the first place... remember... they track everything on radar, if something was headed towards DC they SHOULD HAVE SHOT IT DOWN. so i doubt they'll do this again because if they let this happen AGAIN the american people would go "wait, why the hell didn't they shoot that plane down like they SHOULD have done on the first attack"
dude, NORAD did SIXTY SEVEN intercepts in the year prior to 9/11. if an aircraft's transponder goes off and the FAA loses contact, it gets the military and tells them, the military gets some fighters to investigate. THOSE PLANES SHOULD HAVE BEEN SHOT DOWN, AND YOU KNOW IT.

acutalluy i thought that once a transponder goes out and they lose contact with radar (and radio) it is considered a downed craft and a search is put out.

correct me if i am wrong.

before the gov. could have done anything the news company (FOX) was interviewing the people (still) on the highway (they were still reporting a hit at the DC mall) and everyone said it was a plane (still unconfirmed at that point.)

why wouldnt the gov want anyone studying an impact at the pentagon? 1 thing come from a study...inporvement.....who wants to improve things from 9-11-01?
2 people....terrorists and the gov....studying the hit for the terrorists would help improve another attack. I agree that they should release the footage from the hotel...but not of the impact its self.

a cruise missle wouldnt have done that much damage. it would have absorbed the explosion (in the outter ring and a lil damage to the second. but the penetration of the 3rd layer (from just a weighted object...like an engine or structural steel) caused the 3rd layer photo u put up.

the gov is not innocient...waco, ruby ridge ...thats proof enough....but they didnt attack themselves or the twin towers.

omg I JUST SAID IT DOESNT MATTER IF THE "TERRORISTS" GOT A HOLD OF THAT VIDEO OR NOT BECAUSE IF THEY TRY TO FLY PLANES INTO THE PENTAGON AGAIN THEY'LL BE SHOT DOWN LIKE THEY SHOULD'VE THE FIRST TIME.

second of all, the engine didnt even GO INSIDE the pentagon... remember?

well since i wasnt there picking up debris i dont think i could tell you what was inside...


but im sure the goverments involvement with space aliens (vulcans i assume) is part of it right?

If they get ahold of the footage, they could find out how the impact affected the building and thus develop a more effective way of attacking the pentagon.

Eyewitness accounts are more convincing than "the pilot couldn't have done that." Just because he was a lousy pilot doesn't mean he couldn't pull off a turn like that. I mean, most of the time, when you consider a pilot, you evaluate him on how well he can safely perform a maneuver, and obviously he wasn't too concerned with safety here. Hey, people can do crazy things in planes on video games (with realistic physics systems) because they're not concerned about dying; same case here.

And the interceptions NORAD made before, as has been made clear, were international flights, not domestic ones. Also, before 9-11, saying that the military shuold shoot down any domestic flight would have been considered insane. You are too young to remember this, I know, but take my word for it.

And I still am not convinced that is a vapor trail in the first picture. It just doesn't look like one.

You never answered my question, by the way.

WRONG. Payne stewart? ring a bell?

and that whole terrorist getting a hold of the video tape god that's such bullshit... think about it... after 9/11 they're NOT gonna let a terrorist attack the pentagon, security would be too tight. i dont know how u think of bullshit like that.

1 plane hit the north tower, 1 plane hit the south tower, dont u think they should say "HEY! THERE'S A HIJACKED PLANE HEADED FOR WASHINGTON DC, WE'RE UNDER ATTACK, MAYBE, JUST MAYBE, WE SHOULD SHOOT THE SUNUVABITCH DOWN. WOW, WHAT A CONCEPT."

u HONESTLY thing our military's THAT fuckin incompetent (o yea that's what the 9/11 commission report says, that it was simultaneous incompetence on all levels).

you know what...i did it...it was me....and the space aliens....we blew up the pentagon with our space ray. we also used our mind control to fly the planes in to the WTC. we blew up building #7 as well...why? for kicks..... we all laughed and got drunk. yup me, GWB and the aliens....i admit to it you are right i was wrong... it was the gov and me and the aleins....the gov paid us to do it in chick-o-sticks and molsen select.

happy...btw the valet at area 51 sucks he dinged our BMW UFO