So a sock puppet hit the Pentagon? Because the impact hole was too small to be an airliner right?
What?
Was it named Fidgert?
What’s the source of this claim? Who “said” that the engines burned up? Who “said” that they couldn’t find the engines? Why did the people who “said” this believe that a whole engine would survive an impact like that and remain intact in one piece? You have to know exactly what’s being claimed before you can refute it.
First of all, I’d personally presume they’d been pulverized rather than “burning up.” Anyway, FWIW Tom Clancy’s nonfiction book Fighter Wing has a section on jet engines. It said that there was a lot of engineering put into managing the airflow such that the flame itself didn’t actually touch the turbine blades.
Pulverised? You mean, like, by the orbital laser - along with the rest of the towers?
Y’know, this is what bothers me about so many of these things. Why would a deliberate “controlled demolition” destroy plane engines? Their own arguments claim that it was some kind of massive con-job with lots of carefully placed explosives all in just the right places (which would have attracted just a little attention anyway [sarcasm]). What, did the govenrment go out and place bombs in the plane engines too? Why would they do this? Love of explosions?
It’s like arguing with a mound of tofu. You can’t argue against tofu. It sits there and lumps. (This is using lumps as a verb. If you don’t know what lumping is, go argue with tofu. You’ll see very quickly.) They have no actual argument, just things they don’t understand. They could easily understand it if they wanted to, but like the man who always wanted to learn how to spell Connecticut, they just won’t take the time to educate themselves. Instead, they spout off half-assed ideas which largely originate in their own minds or from some rumor “somebody” heard somewhere.
How in the world do you argue with someone’s imagination?
It looked more like spam than sock to me. Someone turning up and innocently (yeah, right) promoting a specific link, claiming that they haven’t researched it all properly yet, but it looks really convincing and they can’t refute it… Yeah. Seen it before.
Matter of fact, isn’t that pretty much what the last GD thread of its ilk started out with?