Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

Mr.Vicchio · May 15, 2004, 07:23 pm

http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/03/07/gen.penta...ures/index.html

Shows the plane clearly hitting

Also, tyr reading this site, it answers ALL your questions much better then I could. Not that I expect you to believe it but here.

dotcoma · May 15, 2004, 07:26 pm

You're the one that's needs a clue. I don't base anything on "French babble". Just because one guy in France writes a book about something doesn't mean he was the first to point out the obvious. And throwing the WTC shit back at me doesn't help your denial (at best it just trivializes things. It negates absolutely nothing). You stated you know the whereabouts of pieces of the plane that hit the Pentagon. You also stated that it completely disintegrated. Which is it?

Mr.Vicchio · May 15, 2004, 07:56 pm

Read teh link, it answers your questions... if you really are after the truth it might at least give you pause.

dotcoma · May 16, 2004, 02:52 pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Mr.Vicchio,
Read teh link, it answers your questions... if you really are after the truth it might at least give you pause.

I read the link and others like it before you posted it. It answers nothing. You stated it was "clear picture" of the plane hitting. Are you fucking joking?

If that is what you call clear no wonder you believe in GWB. Now, you stated you know the whereabouts of pieces of the plane that hit the Pentagon. You also stated that it completely disintegrated. Which is it?

dotcoma · May 16, 2004, 03:46 pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Mr.Vicchio,
Read teh link, it answers your questions... if you really are after the truth it might at least give you pause.

Quote from you're post:

"First of all, the question about the aircraft, there are some small pieces of aircraft visible from the interior during this fire-fighting operation I'm talking about, but not large sections. In other words, there's no fuselage sections and that sort of thing." "You know, I'd rather not comment on that. We have a lot of eyewitnesses that can give you better information about what actually happened with the aircraft as it approached. So we don't know. I don't know."

And your site also states the Pentagon was the point of impact. We now know (you've even admitted this), or at least we've been told that it hit the GROUND first and THEN the Pentagon. Where is the crash crater? If this is so? Why does the picture (that you posted") show an explosion off of the Pentagon and not a flaming airliner (that is obviously currently exploding from hitting THE GROUND at 500 miles and hour) crashing into the Pentagon? I think you need to do a little more research...

Mr.Vicchio · May 16, 2004, 06:18 pm

It bounced, you didn't read further.

On of the engines was pulled out of the pentagon.. I guess they trucked that in there.

Then there is this.. I suppose its a government phot op made to keep thier cover right?

dotcoma · May 16, 2004, 06:21 pm

Wow, you should go be a detective for the LAPD. I thought the plane "disintegrated"?. So if it didn't, where is it right now?

Mr.Vicchio · May 16, 2004, 08:23 pm

Wow you won't accept anything but there was no plane will you?

So what DID hit the pentagon, who did it and why?

Oh and what happened to flight 77, its passengers and crew?

dotcoma · May 16, 2004, 08:42 pm

Until I see the plane, yes, you are correct. What did they do with it? You said it disintegrated and then you said it didn't. Which is it (for the millionth time)? And you are asking great questions. Why not suspend your emotions and ask them in a context that makes a difference and to people that can answer them. Ever utilized the Freedom of Information Act? Ever written a letter to the govt? Why don't you write a letter and ask them.

Mr.Vicchio · May 16, 2004, 08:54 pm

Disentigrated doesnt mean it turned to vapor, it means it wnet from one whole aircraft to lots of little shreds with a few big chunks. Which is what happened to the aircraft, it disentigrated.. fine I will use a better term, it smashed itslef into lots of shreds, a few big chunks survided, but most of it burtn to a crisp. Think about this Roxdog, just for a moment:

Pentagon = large concrete structure. What happens when you light a fire in a partially enclosed space? It burns hotter then in open air.

Also, the two AirCraft that hit the WTC... what happened to those aircraft roxdog? WHAT HAPPENED TO THEM WHEN THEY HIT THOSE BUILDINGS? THEY DISENTIGRATED!

You cleverly avoided my questions, so here they are again:

So what DID hit the pentagon, who did it and why?

Oh and what happened to flight 77, its passengers and crew?

dotcoma · May 16, 2004, 09:00 pm

Your questions are merely meant to deflect the actual topic at hand. So, the plane didn't disintegrate it just "burned to a crisp"? Correct? Sooo, ignited fuel can burn metal to "a crisp"? Correct? Funny, that usually takes a blow torch. Where are the "few big chunks" you speak of? Why won't/hasn't the Pentagon shown them to the public?

dotcoma · May 16, 2004, 09:02 pm

Quote:

So what DID hit the pentagon, who did it and why

Near exponential possibilities...

Quote:

Oh and what happened to flight 77, its passengers and crew

Near exponential possibilities...

Scribbler1 · May 16, 2004, 09:22 pm

Quote:

Originally posted by dave654,
I am old enough to remember the first moon landing. I also, remember that much of the footage we saw on TV was generated on a set to illustrate what was happening on the moon. Since there were mo cameras set up at the lunar landing site, NASA kindly set up models to show us what was happening. You might be looking at this footage and mistaking it for the actual footage from the moon. I've heard this discussion several times about whether we actually landed on the moon. I can assure you we did. We haven't gone back because we discovered the moon is not made of cheese. What a disapointment.

Dave, I'm old enough to remember the first Project Mercury launch (with Alan B. Sheperd) and I also remember much of the footage on TV was ANIMATION, provided by NASA as for some odd reason we had no cameras up there to witness the first American in space.

How in the hell did this thread get started in the first place?

Mr.Vicchio · May 16, 2004, 09:22 pm

http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm

Here Roxdog, photos from INSIDE the pentagon, showing the remains of the aircraft.

Will you look at them? Will you see with your own eyes what is there, will you look at all the photos?

dotcoma · May 16, 2004, 09:39 pm

So the plane didn't disintegrate OR burn to a crisp? Interesting...
So obviously they collected and documented each piece and put the plane back together in a hangar like they do with every other plane crash. right? Where is it? I've seen Rense. Think it's pretty funny your posting his crap.

Mr.Vicchio · May 16, 2004, 09:47 pm

Roxdog..

Woah, timeout. lets start over.

You want the parts of the plane put back together...

Is it conceiveable that the plane was so damaged, the the parts so utterly burned that there were not enough chunks left to re-assemble?

Is it concievable to you that an aircraft, crashing into a large concrete building on the ground would be so pulverized, and the fire damage so extensive that there were not enough parts left?

Also, the rense site... I just found pics of the wreckage, what was left of it atleast, on the web, from inside the pentagon. I do not vouch for the site, I am only doing as you requested. Where is the plane? Well here are some great photos from inside the pentagon taken jsut DAYS after the crash. Maybe after looking at the damage, and teh few parts that were left you might see what I mean by "disentigrated"

Also, you still refuse to answer ONE question.

So I am calling you out here.

What happened to the two aircraft that hit the WTC. Physically, where are the parts, where are the reconstructed peices of the aircraft in hanger?

BTW I actually will ask a second one. Why do they reconstruct aircraft after a crash?

dotcoma · May 17, 2004, 02:52 pm

Quote:

BTW I actually will ask a second one. Why do they reconstruct aircraft after a crash?

Same reason they cut people open when they die under questionable circumstances.

Mr.Vicchio · May 17, 2004, 03:52 pm

Very good they reconstruct an aircraft after an accident. The NTSB rebuilds it to figure out why it crashed.

Why rebuild, whats left at least, of an airliner, that you know the cause.

It was not a mechanical malfunction.

It was not pilot error.

It was a deliberate act.

Thats why they didn't "rebuild" the WTC aircraft either.

dotcoma · May 17, 2004, 03:55 pm

Convenient explanation. I guess it makes sense to destroy the evidence like they did with the steel from WTC.

dotcoma · May 17, 2004, 03:58 pm

Considering they've admitted they aren't sure about the hijacker's identity, how can they be sure enough about one of the worst events in US history to be so stupid. What you suggest is just that: STUPID.

May 15, 2004, 07:23 pm	#121 (permalink) (top)
Mr.Vicchio Navy Veteran Location: Texas Posts: 6,335	http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/03/07/gen.penta...ures/index.html Shows the plane clearly hitting Also, tyr reading this site, it answers ALL your questions much better then I could. Not that I expect you to believe it but here. Einstein's "Theory of Relativity" is still being challenged to this day, but by consensus Global Warming is a fact... that's REAL science at work, why didn't Albert just go that route?

May 15, 2004, 07:56 pm	#123 (permalink) (top)
Mr.Vicchio Navy Veteran Location: Texas Posts: 6,335	Read teh link, it answers your questions... if you really are after the truth it might at least give you pause. Einstein's "Theory of Relativity" is still being challenged to this day, but by consensus Global Warming is a fact... that's REAL science at work, why didn't Albert just go that route?

May 16, 2004, 06:18 pm	#126 (permalink) (top)
Mr.Vicchio Navy Veteran Location: Texas Posts: 6,335	It bounced, you didn't read further. On of the engines was pulled out of the pentagon.. I guess they trucked that in there. Then there is this.. I suppose its a government phot op made to keep thier cover right? Einstein's "Theory of Relativity" is still being challenged to this day, but by consensus Global Warming is a fact... that's REAL science at work, why didn't Albert just go that route?

May 16, 2004, 08:23 pm	#128 (permalink) (top)
Mr.Vicchio Navy Veteran Location: Texas Posts: 6,335	Wow you won't accept anything but there was no plane will you? So what DID hit the pentagon, who did it and why? Oh and what happened to flight 77, its passengers and crew? Einstein's "Theory of Relativity" is still being challenged to this day, but by consensus Global Warming is a fact... that's REAL science at work, why didn't Albert just go that route?

May 16, 2004, 08:54 pm	#130 (permalink) (top)
Mr.Vicchio Navy Veteran Location: Texas Posts: 6,335	Disentigrated doesnt mean it turned to vapor, it means it wnet from one whole aircraft to lots of little shreds with a few big chunks. Which is what happened to the aircraft, it disentigrated.. fine I will use a better term, it smashed itslef into lots of shreds, a few big chunks survided, but most of it burtn to a crisp. Think about this Roxdog, just for a moment: Pentagon = large concrete structure. What happens when you light a fire in a partially enclosed space? It burns hotter then in open air. Also, the two AirCraft that hit the WTC... what happened to those aircraft roxdog? WHAT HAPPENED TO THEM WHEN THEY HIT THOSE BUILDINGS? THEY DISENTIGRATED! You cleverly avoided my questions, so here they are again: So what DID hit the pentagon, who did it and why? Oh and what happened to flight 77, its passengers and crew? Einstein's "Theory of Relativity" is still being challenged to this day, but by consensus Global Warming is a fact... that's REAL science at work, why didn't Albert just go that route?

May 15, 2004, 07:26 pm	#122 (permalink) (top)
dotcoma Volcanic Erupter Posts: 3,154	You're the one that's needs a clue. I don't base anything on "French babble". Just because one guy in France writes a book about something doesn't mean he was the first to point out the obvious. And throwing the WTC shit back at me doesn't help your denial (at best it just trivializes things. It negates absolutely nothing). You stated you know the whereabouts of pieces of the plane that hit the Pentagon. You also stated that it completely disintegrated. Which is it?

May 16, 2004, 06:21 pm	#127 (permalink) (top)
dotcoma Volcanic Erupter Posts: 3,154	Wow, you should go be a detective for the LAPD. I thought the plane "disintegrated"?. So if it didn't, where is it right now?

May 16, 2004, 08:42 pm	#129 (permalink) (top)
dotcoma Volcanic Erupter Posts: 3,154	Until I see the plane, yes, you are correct. What did they do with it? You said it disintegrated and then you said it didn't. Which is it (for the millionth time)? And you are asking great questions. Why not suspend your emotions and ask them in a context that makes a difference and to people that can answer them. Ever utilized the Freedom of Information Act? Ever written a letter to the govt? Why don't you write a letter and ask them.

May 16, 2004, 09:00 pm	#131 (permalink) (top)
dotcoma Volcanic Erupter Posts: 3,154	Your questions are merely meant to deflect the actual topic at hand. So, the plane didn't disintegrate it just "burned to a crisp"? Correct? Sooo, ignited fuel can burn metal to "a crisp"? Correct? Funny, that usually takes a blow torch. Where are the "few big chunks" you speak of? Why won't/hasn't the Pentagon shown them to the public?

May 16, 2004, 09:22 pm	#134 (permalink) (top)
Mr.Vicchio Navy Veteran Location: Texas Posts: 6,335	http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm Here Roxdog, photos from INSIDE the pentagon, showing the remains of the aircraft. Will you look at them? Will you see with your own eyes what is there, will you look at all the photos? Einstein's "Theory of Relativity" is still being challenged to this day, but by consensus Global Warming is a fact... that's REAL science at work, why didn't Albert just go that route?

May 16, 2004, 09:39 pm	#135 (permalink) (top)
dotcoma Volcanic Erupter Posts: 3,154	So the plane didn't disintegrate OR burn to a crisp? Interesting... So obviously they collected and documented each piece and put the plane back together in a hangar like they do with every other plane crash. right? Where is it? I've seen Rense. Think it's pretty funny your posting his crap.

May 16, 2004, 09:47 pm	#136 (permalink) (top)
Mr.Vicchio Navy Veteran Location: Texas Posts: 6,335	Roxdog.. Woah, timeout. lets start over. You want the parts of the plane put back together... Is it conceiveable that the plane was so damaged, the the parts so utterly burned that there were not enough chunks left to re-assemble? Is it concievable to you that an aircraft, crashing into a large concrete building on the ground would be so pulverized, and the fire damage so extensive that there were not enough parts left? Also, the rense site... I just found pics of the wreckage, what was left of it atleast, on the web, from inside the pentagon. I do not vouch for the site, I am only doing as you requested. Where is the plane? Well here are some great photos from inside the pentagon taken jsut DAYS after the crash. Maybe after looking at the damage, and teh few parts that were left you might see what I mean by "disentigrated" Also, you still refuse to answer ONE question. So I am calling you out here. What happened to the two aircraft that hit the WTC. Physically, where are the parts, where are the reconstructed peices of the aircraft in hanger? BTW I actually will ask a second one. Why do they reconstruct aircraft after a crash? Einstein's "Theory of Relativity" is still being challenged to this day, but by consensus Global Warming is a fact... that's REAL science at work, why didn't Albert just go that route?

May 17, 2004, 03:52 pm	#138 (permalink) (top)
Mr.Vicchio Navy Veteran Location: Texas Posts: 6,335	Very good they reconstruct an aircraft after an accident. The NTSB rebuilds it to figure out why it crashed. Why rebuild, whats left at least, of an airliner, that you know the cause. It was not a mechanical malfunction. It was not pilot error. It was a deliberate act. Thats why they didn't "rebuild" the WTC aircraft either. Einstein's "Theory of Relativity" is still being challenged to this day, but by consensus Global Warming is a fact... that's REAL science at work, why didn't Albert just go that route?

May 17, 2004, 03:55 pm	#139 (permalink) (top)
dotcoma Volcanic Erupter Posts: 3,154	Convenient explanation. I guess it makes sense to destroy the evidence like they did with the steel from WTC.

May 17, 2004, 03:58 pm	#140 (permalink) (top)
dotcoma Volcanic Erupter Posts: 3,154	Considering they've admitted they aren't sure about the hijacker's identity, how can they be sure enough about one of the worst events in US history to be so stupid. What you suggest is just that: STUPID.