TRUTH wrote:
> Jim Logajan wrote in
> news:Xns9772AC2D12B83JamesLLugojcom@216.168.3.30:
>
>> TRUTH wrote:
>>> Where are the facts? You point to ONE fact that shows flight 77 hit
>>> the Pentagon.
>>
>> Photos and facts as presented by snopes:
>>
>> http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm
>
> See here:
>
> http://www.apfn.org/apfn/flight77.htm
Here's an excellent FE analysis that replicates the impact and
demonstrates why the damage appears the way it does:
http://news.uns.purdue.edu/html4ever/020910.Sozen.Pentagon.html
The apfn link you list contains only speculations, while the Purdue
analysis pretty nicely replicates the resulting damage. FE analysis
pretty much trumps uninformed speculation every day of the week.
> http://www.oilempire.us/bogus.html
Looks like a series of talking points rather than a sincere effort at
objective analysis. Is there a point in that link you think contradicts
the FE analysis?
> www.911truth.org
> www.911busters.com
> www.911review.com
> www.911proof.com
> www.911truthseekers.org
> www.911blimp.net
> www.911blogger.com
>
>
> just to name a few
The number of adherents to a beliefe is irrelevant to its authenticity,
as I'm sure you'd agree. Arguments do not gain validity if they are
repeated often enough. Make your point once - please do not make people
read the same points over and over, as if that somehow adds validity to
your arguments. |
