jackalope wrote:ok google does not find it go under "my web search" does your comp have a search link
if so try "my web search" then type it in. sorry didnt know it would be this complicated
to find.
the name of the site is www.snopes2.com then just search for rumors/pentagon.
it should come up.
"My Web Search" ?
You Sir are infected with spyware.
You must be running windows, I suggest running Adaware, and Spybot to temporarily rid your Windoze computer of pesky spyware, also MS antispyware is available if you are running XP.
i'm at work so i can't do anything about spyware. and thank you for finding the direct link
my computer here at work kinda blows but its better then what we had.
anyway thoughts, ideas, anything on the pentagons construction that may help with
why it didn't leave a cartoon style 757 cut out in the building?
personal i think the kevlar in the walls is pretty cool.
Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.
The kevlar in the walls are badass! That place is like a fortress.
thank you john thats my point a bunker buster would do damage but not to that extent
there just not enough explosives in them.
Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.
So moron you think the US actually dropped one of its bombs on one of its own buildings? You realize how stupid you sound?
So the flight that hit the Pentagon didnt exist then it was made up, and the people that died were just made up names?????
- 2004 Cavalier - 124k, owned since new
a mini nuke? have you bumped your head? where do you come up with this stuff?
so please oh enlightened one tell all of us idiots out here how come the building stayed up after being hit by one of your mini-nukes? or how about if it was a mini-nuke
apparently noone but YOU have heard of it or why there was no radiation?
i enjoy debateing with people its fun, you learn things that you may noy have known before. well i found out your a flaming idiot if you think we nuked ourselves! i mean
damn come on man what the f--k are you smoking? i saw those bombs in action
in person not a vid clip so please do not try to tell me what they can do. i already know.
i realy try hard not to name call cause i dont like when its done to me but i'm sorry, you
are i complete nut!
go ahead say its all faked whatever dude but i dare you to say all those people never died cause then your not just nuts your a complete a$$hole.
please provid some proof any proof you can find so i'm made to shut up but if you can't find any REAL proof of your mini-nuke do us all a favor and s.t.f.u. !!!!
Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.
Rob S wrote:So moron you think the US actually dropped one of its bombs on one of its own buildings? You realize how stupid you sound?
So the flight that hit the Pentagon didnt exist then it was made up, and the people that died were just made up names?????
Are you addressing me?
I dont know what to beleive.. If they did bomb it, I imagine they ditched the plane in the ocean.
Bunker-busting nuclear weapons are a proposed type of nuclear weapon that would be designed to penetrate into soil, rock or concrete to deliver a low-yield nuclear warhead. These weapons would be used to destroy hardened, underground military bunkers buried deep in the ground usually under 25 to 100 meters or more of concrete. These weapons would in theory limit the amount of radioactive nuclear fallout by confining the explosion underground.
Some have argued in peer-reviewed journals that even a low yield underground blast would at least shoot fallout through its entry hole (Roman candle-style -- see 'chimney' at subsidence crater), contaminate water supplies for centuries and if detonated beneath a highly populated area would lead to tens of thousands of eventual deaths. Others state that it is not possible to even conceive of a missile that could pass more than four times its own length through reinforced concrete.
Advocates of these earth penetrating "mini-nukes" counter that the lack of current technology does not negate its possible future feasibilty. They go on to say that underground explosions are effectively an order of magnitude more powerful than an air burst due to the increased ability of solids to transmit shock. Even so, say detractors, the inability of these weapons to penetrate past the measured upper limit of 30 times their length in soil, will necessitate yields in the 3-kiloton range, which - given the shallow depth - would result in crater formation and the release of fallout -- thus negating their perceived increased safety.
During the 2003 Invasion of Iraq and 2001 Attack on Afghanistan, new discussion was generated about such weapons as military commanders became frustrated with their inability to hit hardened, deep targets. These weapons were then (and are now) referred to as the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator or RNEP. As part of the USAF Advanced Concepts program for FY2003, significant monies (US$15M) had been allocated for research into these weapons. Again, questions about the feasibility and utility of the weapons came up, and none have been deployed.
"So the flight that hit the Pentagon didnt exist then it was made up, and the people that died were just made up names?????"
a better question the THOUSANDS of EYE WITNESSES who actually saw the plane FLY INTO the Pentagon are liars? or all on drugs?
ask nick apparently he has all the answers. even if he has to make them up.
unfortunatly if it had been a nuke the sustained fire would not have been that great.
i don't care what ferry tail land your from nick but CONCREATE IS NOT FLAMABLE!!!
and doesn't burn so if it wasn't a jet full of fuel that fed the fire please share your
knowledge with us. how praytell did it burn like that and for as long as it did? last i
heard fire needs three things to work fuel, heat and oxygen. plenty of oxygen in and around the d.c. area so thats one but oops wheres the fuel? it was jet fuel? you saw what it did to the twin towers right? or let me guess those were nukes too disguised
as airliners right? i showed you proof as to the construction of the building it was even called a fortress by someone here. so if you have proof of us nuking ourselves please share it. if not well then you just made my point that i stated in my prior post quit obvious to everyone.
Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.
Nick@USOL.com wrote:Pretjah wrote:"So the flight that hit the Pentagon didnt exist then it was made up, and the people that died were just made up names?????"
a better question the THOUSANDS of EYE WITNESSES who actually saw the plane FLY INTO the Pentagon are liars? or all on drugs?
No, you are a Jesus freak that cant read.
no i can i just didn't feel like reading the whole thread..so if you car to enlighten me answer the question...or should i put my tinfoil hat on first?
pret maybe we shouldn't even bother apparently nick is all knowing and all seeing.
all hail the mighty and powerfull nick!
still waiting or any kind of proof that we nuked ourselves tho. or are we just supposed to take your word for it?
Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.
if you have no proof why even speculate that we did then?
i could theorize aliens did it but with out prrof it's just idiocy.
nick yor intire ARGUEMENT is SPECULATION if you have no proof. good grief!!
and pret it was aliens didn't you read my one post i did but not to worry i got them all with my battery operated death ray.
Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.
jackalope wrote:nick yor intire ARGUEMENT is SPECULATION if you have no proof. good grief!!
and pret it was aliens didn't you read my one post i did but not to worry i got them all with my battery operated death ray.
What argument are you speaking of?
What are you guys smoking?
Aliens and Deathrays both exist btw.. And yes The deathrays are powered by batteries... scheesh..
nick so your first post on this thread doesn't speculate american involvement?
again i go back to last comment then(you can change the word specualte to even communicate if you'd like)
why would you even communicate such idiocy with out any proof.
i can say that aliens did it and post links to numerous wack jobs but to do so would be idiotic
