Sept. 11 Conspiracy Theorist Offers $100,000 Prize

[TheStatutoryApe]

Whoa, accusing me of changing topics for answering questions "off-topic"?

I think he was referring to how you very rarely reply to the comments we make on what you post but continue to post new and different material instead.
So far as the rense article is concerned it's just another take on the incident not an "updated" version of the story. Like what was said on the other thread(and I have no need or intention to "win" anything) they just post stories that apeal to their audience not because they are well researched or imply their own aproval of the material.
At any rate you can introduce this new piece of "evidence" regarding the pentagon attack but it just doesn't jive and doesn't do much damage to the integrity of the article that I posted. In that one article there were upclose and clear photographs of debris from the crash as well as 10 or so links to articles with eyewitness accounts of what happened. The article you posted has one really blurry low res picture and lots of conjecture by one guy who has probably never even been to the crash site.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Also I think Russ was referring in that article to the picture. A plane crashed into that building and left that hole that apears to be no more than ten feet wide. Obviously if the plane crashed "into" the building through that hole the wings didn't accompany it. The Empire State Building definitely isn't nearly as well reinforced as the Pentagon so the wings of the airliner that hit the Pentagon most likely would not have done much damage either. You might say that in the article you posted nothing was mentioned of the wings of the airliner in regards to the Pentagon but if you have really read up much at all on the theories about it having been a missle instead of the airliner you'd know that one of their main arguements is that the hole left in the pentagon was not wide enought to account for damage done by the wings.

At anyrate there are a lot of problems in these theories about the pentagon not having been hit by the airliner. What of all the people that saw an airliner fly at/into the pentagon? How about all the people that were in the pentagon or on the grounds that saw it was a plane and saw the debris? How would they have all the sudden planted debris from an airliner on the scene without anyone noticing? What happened to Flight 77 and all the people on board if it didn't hit the pentagon?
You may think that the the "official story" lacks certain pieces of evidence in certain key points. But if you're going to accuse them of lacking evidence then show me a theory that has more evidence behind it. No phantom airliners and airliner passengers or phantom bomber jets with missles or phantom evidence planters.

 

[russ_watters]

Also I think Russ was referring in that article to the picture. A plane crashed into that building and left that hole that apears to be no more than ten feet wide. Obviously if the plane crashed "into" the building through that hole the wings didn't accompany it. The Empire State Building definitely isn't nearly as well reinforced as the Pentagon so the wings of the airliner that hit the Pentagon most likely would not have done much damage either.

Thanks, I wasn't even going to bother explaining it - its useless.