Quote Originally Posted by harris7
oh i have nothing to say about the jew causing it. i said that because a significant number of new Yorkers believe the jews planned it. They are wrong.
Where did you come up with this idea? Is this documented, or hearsay?

The reason i said that is because you keep citing the opinions of new yorkers to be of some value or significance when it is not.
Why is your opinon any better than 20 million people in the Greater New York area, many of whom lived through it.

It doesnâ??t matter if anyone in new york believes the government had involvement or not.
That is what Iâ??m saying.

I havenâ??t brought up any new information because we arenâ??t talking about the specific events. Would you like to talk about one of the specific events?

How about the pentagonâ?¦
The official story is that the plane hit the building and vaporized.
This is impossible

For several reasons
1) jet fuel doesnâ??t burn not enough
2) the amount of jet fuel in the plane did not contain enough energy to vaporize that much metal
3) if the plane vaporized the metal wouldnâ??t disappear. It would be a vapor while under the hot conditions then would precipitate out of the air once cooled. It would cool only a few feed away. Yet there are no â??puddlesâ?ť of metal. Were did it go?
4) it is impossible for an uncontrolled fire to vaporize metal because it has too much surface area exposed to the cold air and couldnâ??t get hot enough

If you would like to have a civil conversation donâ??t change the topic, speak to the points I just mentioned

With love
I didn't change the topic. I do not know anything much about the details of the Pentagon crash, but my instincts and intelligence do not sway me to believe that a rocket was used. You claim that the event, as it was claimed to have happened by the government, is "impossible"....which means that it is unfalsifiable, therefore unscientific:

Falsifiability is an important concept in the philosophy of science that amounts to the apparently paradoxical idea that a proposition or theory cannot be scientific if it does not admit consideration of the possibility of its being false.

"Falsifiable" does not mean "false". For a proposition to be falsifiable, it must be possible in principle to make an observation that would show the proposition to be false, even if that observation has not been made. For example, the proposition "All crows are black" would be falsified by observing one white crow.

Any theory not falsifiable is said to be unscientific, but this does not mean it is necessarily nonsense or meaningless. Psychoanalytic theory, for example, is held up by followers of Popper as an example of an ideology rather than a science. A patient regarded by his psychoanalyst as "in denial" about his alcoholism might be viewed as confirming he is an alcoholic because he denies that he is. If he abstains from drinking liquor, the patient is showing how desperate he is to buttress his denials. In other words, there is no way the patient could convincingly demonstrate he is not an alcoholic. This is an example of what Popper called a "closed circle". The proposition that the patient is an alcoholic is not falsifiable. Definition of Falsifiability

I do not think that it is possible to have a meaningful discussion about this, because your mind is already made up. Good day.