Fight 77 Never Crashed Into The Pentagon

[Terral]

Hi Todd!:

Well, well. Look what the cat finally dragged in! :0)

That's exactly why. The Truther Conspiracy won't survive two seconds of critical inquiry, so they've gone the way of Intelligent Design....frame the argument as an either/or, and then hammer away at the other side's actual explanation. Then hope for a default win in the public arena, so you can use it to circumvent the scientific one (where you will fail miserably and embarrasingly).

This is more of Todd’s empty rhetoric that adds NOTHING to this “Flight 77 Crashed Into The Pentagon” Debate one way or the other. If the OP hypothesis is WRONG, then where is Todd’s evidence for AA77 crashing ANYWHERE? What has Todd cited from the Opening Post to prove WRONG in any way, shape or form? The answer is NOTHING – as usual. You are attempting to spell “embarrassingly” BTW . . . This side of the “Flight 77 NEVER Crashed Into The Pentagon” Debate has challenged Todd to offer his rebuttals to the OP paper repeatedly and the guy just ‘talks, talks and talks’ without ever attempting to prove ANYTHING using any evidence at all. There is no sign of any ‘hammering away’ at the OP hypothesis in any of Todd’s Chit-chat posts, because he has no pictures of AA77 crashed at the Pentagon or anywhere else. :0)

I actually have to hand it to Terral on this point; he will spell out how he thinks it happened.

I will hand it to Todd that we know as little about ‘his Pentagon explanation’ (pic), as when this AA77 Debate first began without him on Page 1 of this discussion. :0) If anyone here really believes my OP thesis paper is WRONG and contains even one error ANYWHERE, then by all means cut out the chit-chatting and show everyone here your evidence for something else! This side of the debate is VERY CONFIDENT that the OP contains ‘The 911Truth’ (link) and everyone here is invited to present their advocating OR opposing views one way or the other using your version of ‘credible evidence.’ Everyone here has the God-given right to disagree with all of my interpretations of the 9/11 evidence and I respect your right to stand up for any explanation that you ‘can’ support from the evidence. However, I also need to SEE THAT EVIDENCE for Todd or anyone else to change my mind about what really happened at the Pentagon on 9/11.

He won't produce any evidence (like his 'painted military plane' ) for it, but he will say enough to hang himself with.

This is nothing more but Todd ‘talking’ without a real Pentagon Case for ANYTHING. There is PLENTY of evidence to support my position for what really hit the Pentagon (Mindprod.com), but this particular Pentagon 101 Debate is ONLY about whether AA77 really crashed into the Pentagon (Official Story) OR NOT (my OP hypothesis). My case for what really hit the Pentagon appears in the final link from the Opening Post (My LetsRoll Thread), but again, that is the topic of ANOTHER DEBATE!!!! All Todd or anyone else must do is prove that AA77 ‘did’ crash into the Pentagon using pictures, videos, etc. and my OP thesis is proven WRONG. However, time and time and time again I begin reading one of Todd’s posts on this Pentagon Topic with NO EVIDENCE for anything at all! Zero! If I said enough to hang myself in the OP of this thread (lol), then where is Todd’s Rebuttal to a single word??!! In case you are unaware, then my OP proposal says the exact opposite of what Todd believes (Bushie’s Cover Story), so he has plenty of latitude to prove me DEAD WRONG if he will simply haul out his evidence one way or the other. However, I cannot quote from Todd’s Official Story evidence, because he refuses (as usual) to even write on the OP Topic at all!

That's more than any Truther on these forums (and pretty much anywhere else) is willing to do after almost seven years of asking mindless questions.

There are NO QUESTIONS asked in the OP of this thread! You either have a case against what has been presented already, OR you simply do not! Period! Rambling on aimlessly about 'Truthers and mindless questions' does NOTHING to prop up ‘your’ version of the Official Cover Story LIE.

This is where ‘you’ say a real 100-Ton Jetliner did one of these numbers (pic), but the experts say otherwise:

Debunk This Todd!!!

These military and aviation experts are also not asking mindless questions, but they have PLENTY of evidence that AA77 DID NOT Crash into the Pentagon the very same way everything is laid out in the OP of this thread. What we need from Todd is ‘his’ OP paper proving beyond all doubt that “AA77 DID Crash Into The Pentagon On 9/11”!!!! That way ‘we’ can come behind and have the opportunity to ‘quote >>’ from his work to offer our opposing views . . . Will anything like that happen in our lifetimes? No! Do you want to know the reason why Todd will NEVER grow the courage to simply start that “Official Cover Story” Topic in this CF.com Politics Forum??? Todd does NOT have an explanation for ANYTHING pertaining to this Pentagon Case! Period! He is out here to talk, talk and talk about everything else under the sun but about how AA77 crashed into the Pentagon or anywhere else. Even the Chief CNN Pentagon Correspondent Jamie McIntyre you see many nights on TV says there is no evidence that AA77 crashed “anywhere near the Pentagon.”

Debunk This Todd!!!

Yes. These things appear in the OP of this thread. And NO, Todd has no rebuttal to A SINGLE WORD . . . Watch and see. :0)

In Christ Jesus,

Terral

 

[Ryal Kane]

<Staff Edit>


I'm with you. I asked politely what they think happened and all I get is the same regurgitated 'THIS DIDN"T HAPPEN!' speech.

It's a shame, because there might really have been some elements of foreknowledge around 9/11 that will never be uncovered because of the absurdity of the wilder conspiracy theories.

 

[joebudda]

I find it strange how someone offering up an actual argument is called a troll by the ones who only offer ridicule. The irony is amazing.

 

[Donkeytron]

I find it strange how someone offering up an actual argument is called a troll by the ones who only offer ridicule. The irony is amazing.

There is no actual argument, unless you are hallucinating.

 

[Terral]

Hi Todd with Joe and others mentioned:

Well, well. Todd's recent boasting about putting his knowledge of 9/11 up against ANYONE ELSE HERE is certainly changing with the times . . . (pic added*) for emphasis:

I certainly don't have a bias toward the Truther conspiracy, if that's what you mean. But I have entertained a vast amount of the claims presented by the Truth Movement, so it's not as if I've buried my head in the sand (pic). I will still put my knowledge of the arguments surrounding 9/11 (for AND against) up against yours or anyone else here*, so let's not act as if I've been avoiding the claims of the Truth movement. I would be surprised if you could present any Truther arguments I HAVEN'T entertained (many times over).

What is a real 911Truther to do? :0) Here is Todd's recent comments above in this thread:

I told you I wasn't going to waste any more time on your trolling, Trash Truck. Go get banned.

Any more time? The OP is filled from the top to the bottom with my thesis statement, claims, evidence and conclusions, but where is Todd's 'debunking' (heh) of one single word? This is really funny! Joebudda has made the correct observation right here, saying,

I find it strange how someone offering up an actual argument is called a troll by the ones who only offer ridicule. The irony is amazing.

Just try to go back and find one supported argument from James or Todd or Kane or their Donkey side-kick in this AA77 Debate! These guys all appear to support the Official Cover Story (pic), but none are willing to actually begin making that case using any evidence for anything. If these Moderators are going to allow three, four and five trolls to interrupt this deliberation process, then that is exactly what these CF.com readers deserve. This thread is being filled with tons of empty troll rhetoric attempting to smear the Topic Starter with their nonsense and stupidity. This website (911Truth) has the explanation that most closely resembles mine of any I have seen on the internet, even if he has a few of the details wrong.

Go ahead and make comparisons to what the CF.com trolls 'ever' add to these 911Truth discussions to the supported arguments from that single 911Truth link above. If these CF.com interrupters really have a case to support the Official Cover Story (these people agree with me), then this is the grand opportune moment to belly-up to the bar and show us what they got! :0)

The idea that one of them will actually 'quote >>' and offer rebuttals against ONE THING in the Opening Post of this thread is utterly ridiculous, because none of these guys have invested sufficient time running their own Pentagon Investigation (my Pentagon Timeline is here) to develop any thesis, claims or conclusions. You can take that to the bank . . .

In Christ Jesus,

Terral

 

[Btodd]

Terral, there is no 'debate' with you whatsoever. In the Flight 93 thread, you said there was no wreckage. When you were shown wreckage, you dismissed it.

You actually claimed that the bad guys 'exploded a ditch' and placed trash in there, and set it on fire. You were asked for evidence, and you simply ignored it in favor of posting things like the picture of a chicken.

If you don't have to give POSITIVE evidence for your claims (like you're asking from us), then there is no debate to be had. It's a joke, and your pattern of behavior here is the same one I witnessed on the JREF forums, and the same one that got you banned from there, the Loose Change forums, and wherever else you've been banned from.

So go find a trash truck to present, or continue getting frustrated because everyone (save joebudda) thinks you are a walking joke. Night-night, honey.


Btodd

 

[invisible trousers]

You are looking at Energy = Mass (200,000) times the speed of light (180,000 mps) squared (32,400,000,000). Your Mass number (200,000) is given in pounds and the speed of light (180,000) appears in seconds, so the government is saying 200,000 pounds of Mass spontaneously combusted into thin air to ‘release’ ALL of the energy without leaving any Mass at all. :0) Therefore, to reduce your Mass number to ‘zero,’ we need to see the ‘release’ of all that ENERGY in less than .39 seconds, because supposedly the 100-ton Jetliner passed through the outer E-Ring Wall, but was ‘destroyed’ before passing out the other side just 220 feet away (rear C-Ring Wall). When we find our hypotenuse across the 45-degree angle (pic), then we extend that number to 330 feet and use the 530 MPH number (for velocity). Multiply everything out and you will find that AA77 disappeared off of this planet in just .39 seconds. :0) That means you must multiply your Energy number by about 2.5 to gain the accurate value, because remember your speed of light number appears in ‘seconds’ and the Official Story says the Jetliner vaporized in almost one third of a second. Therefore, the basic equation looks like this:

Energy = Mass X Speed of Light Squared the number in (x) brackets is the power number = 200,000 = 2 (5) = two to the fifth power:

Energy = 2(5) X 3.24 (8) = 6.48 (13) = 6,480,000,000,000,000 X 2.5 = 16.2 (26) = 16,200,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

That's all wrong.

By using incorrect units for the speed of light (try meters per second), using the aircraft's weight instead of mass, and completely making stuff up (two to the 5th power? What?), you've created a whole jumble of numbers which have no meaning at all.

On top of that, mass-energy equivalence has nothing to do with anything in this scenario.

Here is the correct way to figure out the TNT equivalent of the energy created by the explosion from impact:

* Determine the mass of fuel on the plane
* Determine the energy density of the fuel
* Convert the total energy in kilojoules to TNT equivalent in tons
* Stop posting your ridiculous and unfounded conjectures

 

[Guttermouth]

Can someone answer these basic questions. Not answer them with a question, but answer them?

How did the bodies of the passengers of the plane get into the Pentagon?

Where did the plane parts at the Pentagon come from?

Where is the plane now?

It seems to me that unless you believe the US government kidnapped the passengers of the plane, murdered them, chopped them up, burned them and put them and some plane parts in the pentagon, we are at an impasse, but I am open to explanations.

 

[Donkeytron]

Can someone answer these basic questions. Not answer them with a question, but answer them?

How did the bodies of the passengers of the plane get into the Pentagon?

Where did the plane parts at the Pentagon come from?

Where is the plane now?

It seems to me that unless you believe the US government kidnapped the passengers of the plane, murdered them, chopped them up, burned them and put them and some plane parts in the pentagon, we are at an impasse, but I am open to explanations.

Thats.....almost exactly what *some people would have us believe. Read through the other 9/11 themed threads in this forum and you'll see. As I mentioned before, some of the given explanations sound like discarded 24 scripts.

 

[Terral]

Hi Douger with James, Todd and Donkey mentioned:

I wanted to applaud you for starting the &#8220;Request for Btodd&#8221; Thread (link), so hopefully he will make some attempt to actually address &#8216;the evidence&#8217; in this Pentagon Case.

I must be missing something here. Scientific and photographic evidence seems to indicate that a plane did not hit the Pentagon, yet everyone goes berserk and starts throwing vulgar insults when someone comes out and states with definity that "a plane did not crash into the Pentagon.

We have a wide spectrum of views expressed on this Board concerning 9/11 and this Pentagon Case that represents a microcosm of the USA and the world as a whole. The three topics we try to avoid in public are Sex, Politics and Religion, because debate can get so heated that folks begin hashing things out using fists and not just words. :0) Since we really just started having these 911Truth Debates here at CF.com (I did not even know this politics room existed until recently), then I have yet to sort out which members stand between the spectrums of 911Truth Believers (like me) and Official Cover Story People commonly calling themselves &#8220;Debunkers&#8221; or &#8220;Skeptics&#8221; (like James, Todd, Donkey and others). Basically, 911Truthers base their conclusions on THE EVIDENCE without regard to what everyone else wants to believe. If you want to say a real 100-Ton Jetliner crashed into this empty hole, then by golly show me the EVIDENCE; and not a few pictures of a few pounds of planted so-called Jet debris &#8211; if you know what I mean. :0) I can respect the fact that some folks simply want to believe whatever the governments spreads out conveniently on a silver platter, but &#8216;that&#8217; evidence MUST match their Official Story! However, I do have a serious problem with people jumping to conclusions based on little or no EVIDENCE one way or the other. I do not want anyone to take my word over any other, except that my arguments &#8216;are&#8217; supported by THE EVIDENCE. Period! The insults and vulgar behavior come from members that have NO CASE and run out of arguments first in the debate.

"Then these same people religously believe that a plane did hit the Pentagon contrary to the evidence presented.

A plane DEFINITELY hit the Pentagon, but not AA77. (story = hit Douglas A-3 Sky Warrior link). The most important thing to note is the actual &#8220;Thesis Statement&#8221; appearing in the Opening Post of these threads, because the claims, evidence and conclusions all point to and support &#8216;that&#8217; hypothesis. If a member is proving that AA77 DID NOT crash into the Pentagon (like the OP of this thread), then THAT is the hypothesis I support in all these posts on this same thread. However, some members make it their habit to &#8216;sidetrack&#8217; the topic to AnyWhereElseVille by asking a myriad of questions completely unrelated to the OP hypothesis. Debate is still &#8220;the presentation of opposing views,&#8221; so any rebuttal or counterproposal opposing the OP proposal says, &#8220;AA77 DID CRASH INTO THE PENTAGON.&#8221; Period! In other words, if you are saying an A-3 Jet or a herd of raging elephants hit the Pentagon, then you agree with my hypothesis that AA77 DID NOT hit the Pentagon. In this debate, my side has no interest or concern about what &#8216;did&#8217; hit the Pentagon, which is common to my posting the &#8216;first thread&#8217; on either the Flight 93 or AA77 cases anywhere. When this thread runs its course and appears on Page 2, then I will decide if the time is right to present what actually &#8220;Did Hit The Pentagon&#8221; (did that here). Of course I know what did hit the Pentagon and the exact time, but again, that is NOT part of the OP hypothesis of this thread. Therefore, sometimes you see me purposely avoiding the antagonism and foolish trolling of these guys, not because I am ignorant to the facts of this case, but I am unwilling to allow these guys hijack the topic to SomeWhereElseVille. The response from the trolls is to get angry no matter what anyone says and to act out and throw dust into the air, because that is what they do . . . :0)

So what's the deelio? Is there something inherently wrong in the belief that an airplane has not crashed into the Pentagon?

I was a &#8220;No Planer&#8221; for a long time, until debating these topics with the guys over at Loose Change caused me to have a &#8216;change of mind&#8217; (repentance) about the entire situation. While these guys here read my posts and hit &#8220;reply&#8221; with three sentences, I download your work and head out to the internet to conduct my own Pentagon Investigation to decide for myself if what you say is true. A lot of time was required to actually come to the 911Truth that you see in my work today, by debating these things back and forth; until the weaker arguments were replaced with the arguments I &#8216;can&#8217; support using the evidence. Again, I do not care what the Loose Change boys conclude from the evidence, but I do want to benefit from their years and years of gathering that evidence to draw my own conclusions on the facts. The difference is that the Skeptic cares very little about the evidence standing against their Official Cover Story nonsense, because they really feel that badmouthing a real 911Truther advances their position in their own minds. :0)

This is like pointing out to a smoker that &#8220;Smoking those things will kill you!&#8221; Rather than say, &#8220;I need to quit!,&#8221; he gets angry and begins shouting insults to justify his addiction. At the end of the day, everyone here has the God-given right to present whatever he believes to be &#8216;the 911Truth&#8217; and to believe Santa Claus crashed his sled into the Pentagon if that makes him happy. To come out here and hurl insults at other members for believing differently is un-American (first amendment) and uncivilized to only help these readers define THEM.

If anyone can prove one thing wrong from the Opening Post of this thread, then please help me see The 911Truth more clearly from your perspective and perhaps someone else will see courage of your conviction and see the Light too. Thank you to everyone actually making a contribution to this discussion,

P.S. I almost forgot! Douger: Did you limit discussion on your new thread (link) to just Todd and yourself, or can anyone offer a reply? I am always reluctant to add my two cents to any thread where a member's name appears in the Topic Title. If we are allowed to offer rebuttals to Todd's Official Cover Story nonsense, then I would very much like to add my comments. :0)

In Christ Jesus,

Terral

 

[Douger]

Well seeing how it looks more and more certain that a plane did hit the pentagon, all I'm wondering now is how did it bore through the protective wall and then blowup inside, it seems rather missle like to me.
Could there have been some kind of device inside the plane? dunno, just wondering.

 

[TheNewWorldMan]

Well seeing how it looks more and more certain that a plane did hit the pentagon, all I'm wondering now is how did it bore through the protective wall and then blowup inside, it seems rather missle like to me.
Could there have been some kind of device inside the plane? dunno, just wondering.

You do have a point there...there was nothing inside the plane that could have caused the explosion and fire. Nothing like thousands of gallons of JET FUEL...

 

[jamesrwright3]

Well seeing how it looks more and more certain that a plane did hit the pentagon, all I'm wondering now is how did it bore through the protective wall and then blowup inside, it seems rather missle like to me.
Could there have been some kind of device inside the plane? dunno, just wondering.

Yeah dude it really was a not a plane
It was a tunneling machine with wings
Here is a pic of it before it took off that day
Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld are in the middle wearing hard hats made by KBR

 

[jamesrwright3]

Hi Douger with James, Todd and Donkey mentioned:

I wanted to applaud you for starting the “Request for Btodd” Thread (link), so hopefully he will make some attempt to actually address ‘the evidence’ in this Pentagon Case.



We have a wide spectrum of views expressed on this Board concerning 9/11 and this Pentagon Case that represents a microcosm of the USA and the world as a whole. The three topics we try to avoid in public are Sex, Politics and Religion, because debate can get so heated that folks begin hashing things out using fists and not just words. :0) Since we really just started having these 911Truth Debates here at CF.com (I did not even know this politics room existed until recently), then I have yet to sort out which members stand between the spectrums of 911Truth Believers (like me) and Official Cover Story People commonly calling themselves “Debunkers” or “Skeptics” (like James, Todd, Donkey and others). Basically, 911Truthers base their conclusions on THE EVIDENCE without regard to what everyone else wants to believe. If you want to say a real 100-Ton Jetliner crashed into this empty hole, then by golly show me the EVIDENCE; and not a few pictures of a few pounds of planted so-called Jet debris – if you know what I mean. :0) I can respect the fact that some folks simply want to believe whatever the governments spreads out conveniently on a silver platter, but ‘that’ evidence MUST match their Official Story! However, I do have a serious problem with people jumping to conclusions based on little or no EVIDENCE one way or the other. I do not want anyone to take my word over any other, except that my arguments ‘are’ supported by THE EVIDENCE. Period! The insults and vulgar behavior come from members that have NO CASE and run out of arguments first in the debate.



A plane DEFINITELY hit the Pentagon, but not AA77. (story = hit Douglas A-3 Sky Warrior link). The most important thing to note is the actual “Thesis Statement” appearing in the Opening Post of these threads, because the claims, evidence and conclusions all point to and support ‘that’ hypothesis. If a member is proving that AA77 DID NOT crash into the Pentagon (like the OP of this thread), then THAT is the hypothesis I support in all these posts on this same thread. However, some members make it their habit to ‘sidetrack’ the topic to AnyWhereElseVille by asking a myriad of questions completely unrelated to the OP hypothesis. Debate is still “the presentation of opposing views,” so any rebuttal or counterproposal opposing the OP proposal says, “AA77 DID CRASH INTO THE PENTAGON.” Period! In other words, if you are saying an A-3 Jet or a herd of raging elephants hit the Pentagon, then you agree with my hypothesis that AA77 DID NOT hit the Pentagon. In this debate, my side has no interest or concern about what ‘did’ hit the Pentagon, which is common to my posting the ‘first thread’ on either the Flight 93 or AA77 cases anywhere. When this thread runs its course and appears on Page 2, then I will decide if the time is right to present what actually “Did Hit The Pentagon” (did that here). Of course I know what did hit the Pentagon and the exact time, but again, that is NOT part of the OP hypothesis of this thread. Therefore, sometimes you see me purposely avoiding the antagonism and foolish trolling of these guys, not because I am ignorant to the facts of this case, but I am unwilling to allow these guys hijack the topic to SomeWhereElseVille. The response from the trolls is to get angry no matter what anyone says and to act out and throw dust into the air, because that is what they do . . . :0)



I was a “No Planer” for a long time, until debating these topics with the guys over at Loose Change caused me to have a ‘change of mind’ (repentance) about the entire situation. While these guys here read my posts and hit “reply” with three sentences, I download your work and head out to the internet to conduct my own Pentagon Investigation to decide for myself if what you say is true. A lot of time was required to actually come to the 911Truth that you see in my work today, by debating these things back and forth; until the weaker arguments were replaced with the arguments I ‘can’ support using the evidence. Again, I do not care what the Loose Change boys conclude from the evidence, but I do want to benefit from their years and years of gathering that evidence to draw my own conclusions on the facts. The difference is that the Skeptic cares very little about the evidence standing against their Official Cover Story nonsense, because they really feel that badmouthing a real 911Truther advances their position in their own minds. :0)

This is like pointing out to a smoker that “Smoking those things will kill you!” Rather than say, “I need to quit!,” he gets angry and begins shouting insults to justify his addiction. At the end of the day, everyone here has the God-given right to present whatever he believes to be ‘the 911Truth’ and to believe Santa Claus crashed his sled into the Pentagon if that makes him happy. To come out here and hurl insults at other members for believing differently is un-American (first amendment) and uncivilized to only help these readers define THEM.

If anyone can prove one thing wrong from the Opening Post of this thread, then please help me see The 911Truth more clearly from your perspective and perhaps someone else will see courage of your conviction and see the Light too. Thank you to everyone actually making a contribution to this discussion,

P.S. I almost forgot! Douger: Did you limit discussion on your new thread (link) to just Todd and yourself, or can anyone offer a reply? I am always reluctant to add my two cents to any thread where a member's name appears in the Topic Title. If we are allowed to offer rebuttals to Todd's Official Cover Story nonsense, then I would very much like to add my comments. :0)

In Christ Jesus,

Terral

Dude AA77 hit the Pentagon.

 

[TheNewWorldMan]

Some questions I would like to see "Truthers" answer:

What happened to the planes?

What happened to the passengers and crew?

How were personal effects and DNA from the passengers and crew found at the crash sites?

Why did countless eyewitnesses indicate they saw jet planes with airline livery crash?

I am not the only one who has been repeatedly asking these questions.

 

[Guttermouth]

I see lots of very reputable websites that are far better then Terrals which offer very good explanations for everything mentioned.

Snopes has a nice article
Popular Mechanics ad many more.

Look em up Terral.

Then please answer the questions. Most importantly the one about human remains.

 

[TheNewWorldMan]

Yeah dude it really was a not a plane
It was a tunneling machine with wings
Here is a pic of it before it took off that day
Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld are in the middle wearing hard hats made by KBR

Actually, the Pentagon disaster was caused by a failed attempt to reach Pellucidar in a quest for more oil:

 

[_Zap_]

Can someone answer these basic questions. Not answer them with a question, but answer them?

I feel I have gained enough understanding of Terral's mind to answer for him.

How did the bodies of the passengers of the plane get into the Pentagon?

Planted.

Where did the plane parts at the Pentagon come from?

Planted

Where is the plane now?

Planted


I'd make an awesome truther.

 

[Trogdor the Burninator]

You are looking at Energy = Mass (200,000) times the speed of light (180,000 mps) squared (32,400,000,000). Your Mass number (200,000) is given in pounds and the speed of light (180,000) appears in seconds, so the government is saying 200,000 pounds of Mass spontaneously combusted into thin air to ‘release’ ALL of the energy without leaving any Mass at all. :0) Therefore, to reduce your Mass number to ‘zero,’ we need to see the ‘release’ of all that ENERGY in less than .39 seconds, because supposedly the 100-ton Jetliner passed through the outer E-Ring Wall, but was ‘destroyed’ before passing out the other side just 220 feet away (rear C-Ring Wall). When we find our hypotenuse across the 45-degree angle (pic), then we extend that number to 330 feet and use the 530 MPH number (for velocity). Multiply everything out and you will find that AA77 disappeared off of this planet in just .39 seconds. :0) That means you must multiply your Energy number by about 2.5 to gain the accurate value, because remember your speed of light number appears in ‘seconds’ and the Official Story says the Jetliner vaporized in almost one third of a second. Therefore, the basic equation looks like this:

Energy = Mass X Speed of Light Squared the number in (x) brackets is the power number = 200,000 = 2 (5) = two to the fifth power:

Energy = 2(5) X 3.24 (8) = 6.48 (13) = 6,480,000,000,000,000 X 2.5 = 16.2 (26) = 16,200,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

Using E=mc2 to calculate the energy expended in a Jetliner crash??

I knew I felt a disturbance in the force when this was posted – as if thousands of engineers and physicists had all cried out at once, and then were silenced.

 

[SallyNow]

jamesrwright3 and TheNewWorldMan: You owe me a new keyboard.

Wow. Now... anything important?

How is a conspiracy theory about the shape of the so-called Pentagon (really the Hexagon) any less important than the idea that the crash was all staged?

It's really very simple: The plane hit the hidden sixth wall, and since it's secret, the government had to work really quickly to hide the fact that the plane hit that sixth section, so that's why the photos appear to be "staged".

You see, the sixth wall houses the Y2K supercomputer, which saved us all on Y2K, the Illuminati DC Division, the Greys Centre, New World Order's Eastern United States congressman, and of course, the USA Dharma station, Fourth Wall.