Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Creative Speculation

In reply to the discussion: 11 years later... [View all]

hack89

(39,180 posts)
43. A Tomahawk missile is only 18 inches wide - it's wing span is less than 9 feet
Mon Sep 17, 2012, 09:52 AM
Sep 2012

This thing flew over people at low altitude - it hit a light pole on the freeway. I think people can tell the difference between a 9 foot and a 160 foot wing span.

11 years later... [View all] PopeOxycontinI Sep 2012 OP
Did you actually read the paper? LARED Sep 2012 #1
Aaah look, how cute, someone that still believes that the government would never lie to them... truebrit71 Sep 2012 #2
Aaah look, how cute, zappaman Sep 2012 #3
Do you believe the official narrative though? truebrit71 Sep 2012 #5
Yes zappaman Sep 2012 #6
No point is there really? truebrit71 Sep 2012 #7
Nope. zappaman Sep 2012 #8
"... some box cutters..." terrafirma Sep 2012 #9
Yup, box cutters are much more powerful than say, I dunno F-16's, or just about any assault rifle... truebrit71 Sep 2012 #13
The pilots and flight crew didn't have access to assault rifles, or F-16s for that matter. Flatulo Sep 2012 #51
What a load of horse pucky LARED Sep 2012 #11
Air transport ground to a halt. The Stock markets were closed for DAYS. truebrit71 Sep 2012 #20
And hit the Pentagon Politicalboi Sep 2012 #12
You do know that there were hundreds of eyewitnesses at the Pentagon hack89 Sep 2012 #16
So why not release the video-tapes? truebrit71 Sep 2012 #18
Here are the accounts hack89 Sep 2012 #21
So why not release the video-tapes? truebrit71 Sep 2012 #22
How would that negate all the eyewitness accounts? hack89 Sep 2012 #23
Release the videotapes. With that many witnesses they can't hold any surprises can they? truebrit71 Sep 2012 #24
Beats me. hack89 Sep 2012 #25
No it isn't a good thing. truebrit71 Sep 2012 #27
There were hundreds of witnesses that saw a plane hack89 Sep 2012 #28
So release the videotapes.. truebrit71 Sep 2012 #30
It will make no difference hack89 Sep 2012 #32
Of course it will. If it shows what these many many hundreds of witness accounts... truebrit71 Sep 2012 #34
Have you asked the Pentagon? nt hack89 Sep 2012 #36
No, but others have to no avail. truebrit71 Sep 2012 #38
Look at the bright side - now you have a life long hobby. nt hack89 Sep 2012 #39
Oh trust me...I ALWAYS look on the bright side of life... truebrit71 Sep 2012 #40
Numerous witnesses described the aircraft cpwm17 Sep 2012 #29
"There is no withheld video"...."You've got nothing"... truebrit71 Sep 2012 #33
Alright, old-timer cpwm17 Sep 2012 #47
Then why not release the videotapes? truebrit71 Sep 2012 #48
I don't know about any videos, and I don't care cpwm17 Sep 2012 #49
Yeah, right - it will 'shut the CTers up'. Never gonna happen. Flatulo Sep 2012 #53
They did release the tapes William Seger Sep 2012 #55
Out of deference to the sensibilities of the families maybe? cherokeeprogressive Sep 2012 #54
So tell us how the Pentagon should have 'armed itself'. As far as I can tell, it's a really Flatulo Sep 2012 #52
I am still trying to figure out how 2 planes hit 2 buildings dixiegrrrrl Sep 2012 #17
How many buildings have been hit with fully loaded 767s traveling at a high speed? hack89 Sep 2012 #26
Re-read the post...that's not what she is saying truebrit71 Sep 2012 #31
WTC-7 burned for hours after huge chunks of the towers fell on it hack89 Sep 2012 #35
Well, it's not like those 19 guys beat us in a war. They hijacked some airplanes. Flatulo Sep 2012 #50
The fact youdid not anwer my question has not LARED Sep 2012 #10
And your defense of PNAC hasn't escaped notice either... truebrit71 Sep 2012 #14
Nice try. How is asking if you read the PNAC report defending the report? nt LARED Sep 2012 #15
This isn't a defense? "there is nothing suspicious about it" truebrit71 Sep 2012 #19
truthers unite! snooper2 Sep 2012 #4
here's a theory Shagman Sep 2012 #37
Do you understand how small missiles are? How large 757s are? hack89 Sep 2012 #41
I'll use small words ... Shagman Sep 2012 #42
A Tomahawk missile is only 18 inches wide - it's wing span is less than 9 feet hack89 Sep 2012 #43
Some people can nt LARED Sep 2012 #44
people see what they expect to see Shagman Sep 2012 #45
Would you ever mistake a Fiat 500 for a semi-truck if it passed within 50 feet? hack89 Sep 2012 #46
Here's a freight train headed for the huge hole in your "theory"... cherokeeprogressive Sep 2012 #56
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Creative Speculation»11 years later...»Reply #43