The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!

Comment: Not a good argument...

(See in situ)

ChristianAnarchist's picture

Not a good argument...

I'm one who is VERY skeptical about 911 but this is hardly the same situation. This plane was flying VERY slow trying to land (there were 2 survivors amazingly enough) and the "supposed plane" of 911 was said to be traveling at 500 mph. One of the things I do is participate as a Pylon Judge at the Reno Air Races ( and I've seen a jet plane hit the ground at 500 mph. There was not much left and if it had hit a building, all of the pieces would have been inside of or through any structure that wasn't plate steel.

That said, the strongest argument I can make for the pentagon NOT being hit by a 767 is that the low trajectory between the fallen light pole and the side of the first floor of the pentagon would have required that the two engines dig HUGE trenches in the grass leading to the edge of the building. I never saw any trenches in the grass, did any of you??

Beware the cult of "government"...

Sonmi 541: "Truth is singular. Its "versions" are mistruths."