|
|
|
take a look at this
http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero...erreurs_en.htm
I explain what happeend there. Now many of you know me as modest american, but it seems to me like there is a conspriacy afoot. I think Canada has something to do with it. Now I just have to figure out relic's role.
But seriously, its kind freaky, I have strared at the pics and the msnbc's converage, and I can't explain it. Alright, well if you have any theories, post it here...
Doesn't this belong in GD?
And as for that stuff, well, I have no explanation. That is damn weird. Hopefully, the author just misinterpreted the pictures. Otherwise...hmm.
Someone needs to step in, disprove the man's theories and restore my faith in the US government.
[edit] Oh, wait - scratch that. First, the "find the impact point" pictures prove nothing - they could have been located anywhere in the burned-out section, considering the fact that about thirty columns of exterior windows got visibly burned, and only 15-20 of them are actually visible in the picture in question.
Second, from the aerial photos of the crash site (not satellite photos as the writer suggests, they don't have that much detail - I'll forgive this because he probably meant something else), the plane ploughed into the building's roof and naturally spread its remains all over the place. It's not a very stable theory but it's the only one that accounts for the black scars at either end of the affected section. Fire can't spread across thin air, and that's exactly what separated the rows of concrete halls in that section.
So there. With two major flaws in their logic and a whole corps of government press agents to fight against, these guys aren't getting anywhere. This fails.
Post mortem: more research might have increased the period of suspension of disbelief.
[edit 2] This is all, of course, assuming that it was in fact a major airliner that crashed into the building. However, I doubt this is not the case.
[edit 3] Yep, 64 passengers and crew aboard the crashed plane. It was large enough to do some major impact damage.
That said, what these people are doing doesn't even deserve pity. They're taking advantage of the deaths of hundreds of people to gain some popularity. Disgusting.
Last edited by Tronno; 11th Mar 02 at 10:41 PM.
#3
According to my sources, it wasn't a big boing plane that hit the pentagon. It was a small private plane, I remember hearing this when it first hit. (I was awake at the time)
Quasar, it wasn't a private plane.
im also getting sick of moving threads to the proper forum.
Pretty lame analysis by that website.
The Pentagon released pictures of the plane exploding on impact.
Link to photos
Much can be explained by the jet actually striking the ground first and sliding into the building.
Um.. what the hell to call you, "cross-guy" ?
Anyway, cross-guy, that's the point I was just about to make-- that there were security photos showing the crash.
Now, it's true that you can alter and plant a lot of information in six months, but to what end? Besides, a college friend of mine witnessed the crash-- she was stuck in traffic on the highway near the Pentagon when it happened. Additionally, the downed commercial (not private) flight was tracked to that location by agencies independent of the Dept. of Defense before its beacon was silent-- pretty convincing evidence that it crashed there, IMO.
This is to say nothing of the fact that there were people on the flight, and if it didn't crash into the Pentagon, just where the hell did it go? I don't care how far-reaching you think the power of the United States government is, silly conspiracy-website man, it would inconceivable that a commercial jetliner crashed in the Eastern United States and nobody noticed it. Hell, you may remember the (was it American Eagle or ValueJet?) flight that crashed in a fucking swamp in Florida some years back, and somebody got it on tape for crying out loud..
And, you know, evidence aside, the Department of Defense would have nothing to gain (and much to lose) by staging an explosion at its headquarters, or conversely disappearing a commercial jetliner and its passengers to cover up the fact that the explosion was carried out by an enemy using means other than a plane-bomb.
Most if not all of the discrepancies on that site can be explained by the fact that the plane crashed into the ground in front of the pentagon and skidded into it.
don't bother then...Originally posted by frstkor13
im also getting sick of moving threads to the proper forum.
The reason the Pentagon was relatively undamaged past the first ring is that it was designed as a hardened structure to resist the high explosives of the day(1942). The object of the construction was to provide a command center that could withstand theorized German attacks. This was rendered moot with the German loss of sea control in the middle of 1943.
#9
I still don't see any plane in those security cam photos. There's no shots where you can actually, clearly see the fuselage or wings of the plane.
//_beej
/_"it isn't necessary to have something to believe in. it's only necessary to believe that somewhere there's something worthy of belief."
/_gully foyle - the stars my destination
#10
That's probably because most of the wings and fuselage are embedded in the building (somewhere in the basement probably). There isn't much left of an aircraft after a high-speed impact and intense fire (aluminium burns).
The government started all this 9-11 crap on purpose, in a hopes of increasing patriotism (decreases civic unrest), getting companies to create more jobs for a pre-war build-up, and getting people to buy more stuff (remember the gas lines on that day). Bush's dad and binladen were buds, remember?
Okay, I'm looking over this stuff and I'm still not seeing a plane. I looked as the site .t. posted and I read through Tronno's observation that the plane ploughed into the roof and cause the burning.
Thing is, looking as the security camera footage, I can't see a plane. I did see something blurry and white, but I dunno. Looks to me like the explosion originated from the base of the building, like so
My paranoid little mind is thinking it looks almost like an internal explosion but, then again, I know nothing about explosions.
Plus, there's an odd time discrepancy (read about it here). Still, you'd expect there to be some fairly big chunks remaining of the plane. Or maybe not. I dunno -- this is all pretty weird.
#13
This is not a conspiracy. You guys are just uninformed. Haven't you been going to the meetings?
Can you not see the plane in the first photo? Just above the first pylon on the right. That object is not in the second frame. The whole series is only 4/100ths of a second. Nothing but a jet plane could move that fast. Also note the direction of the explosion as it appears to be moving towards and over the Pentagon.
Now, the moon landing? That's was all fake
I saw something that could have been a plane, but it looked more like a stretch of highway -- the later images were blurry, with the blaster area obsure by dust and lense flare. I saw what looked like that white-ish thing still there, only blurred and distorted. I also saw what looked like the plane's tail, but it also looked like glare.
I swear, I'm looking at the photos as closely as possible. That thing in the first photograph doesn't appear to be in any of the others, but it also bears absolutely no resemblance to a jet.
Oh, and the photographs are timed as 5:37 and 19 seconds p.m. to 5:37 and 23 seconds p.m., on Sept. 12. According to the article, the time discrepancy has yet to be adequately explained by the Pentagon (the plane hit at 9:37 a.m. the previous day -- the times may have been added later to help investigators trying to examine and time the events).
..Or someone got the date wrong when the cameras were set up. Fall back-- there's still the transponder data showing that flight 77 disappeared after takeoff. And there's the fact that there was a highway full of witnesses.
Yeah, yeah, I know. I'm just annoyed because I can't see the plane hitting the Pentagon.there's still the transponder data showing that flight 77 disappeared after takeoff. And there's the fact that there was a highway full of witnesses.
This is interesting, but flawed, for a very simple reason.
Those photos are convincing, there's no question. And the security camera shots are some of the most unconvincing I've ever seen - I've trimmed and rendered and resized, sharpened and despeckled and recolourised the tits off the supposed plane shot, and there is no commercial jet in that picture. There is a gull-wing shaped object no more than 15 feet from the ground (rather lower than it would be possible for an aircraft to get) that is about the size of a private amateur plane, but it is not a private amateur plane. It doesn't appear to be properly there in other shots, but it may be a visual effect blurring it out, or it may be a camera artifact, or anything - it is not conclusive or even approaching it, so count it out.
The ensuing explosion does not resemble the explosion that an impacting jet liner would create. There is no debris, cloud distortion, billowing or anything else that would follow 500 tons of metal and kerosene ploughing into the wall. Basically, it looks too perfect. Its a nice, neat cloud explosion that seems to come from the lower half of the building, and there are no blast currents distorting it. It also isn't big enough. In comparison, look at the WTC impacts.
But here's where this "conspiracy theory" fails - it isn't a theory.
What you have there are some puzzling pictures. If every puzzling picture counted as a theory of conspiracy then we'd be swamped. What this conspiracy theory lacks is a theory of conspiracy. There is nothing to become conspiratorial over.
Why on earth would this be done? What is the US Government, or whoever, achieving by blowing down part of the Pentagon and faking it, poorly, as a jet liner impact? Whatever could be achieved with it could be achieved by another means, more efficiently. What purpose did this serve?
Of course, that leaves the question open wider than ever before - what did cause it? Who did it? Why? We'll never know, I'll tell you that now. It takes many years of dedication to put together the weakest of possible conspiracy theories. Most people lack the intelligence or the drive or both. The ones who don't, lack the ability, and the ones who have all of that lose credibility, or rather have it taken away from them, in the process.
Last edited by Walker; 13th Mar 02 at 5:21 PM.
well you are right, I was interested really in what otehr people had to say about it. I looked at the photos and at the direction of tha blast, and what kind of angle of attack you would need.
My observations would be that when the plane started impacting the side of the pentagon the fuel tanks would have blown sending the tail and the wings in different directions. Thats why they have a blackbox in the tail section, it almost always survies becasue the section is blown off instead of being bown up in a crash.
I could come up with a reason why, what if it were a cruise missle type weapon of some sort, and the government doesn;t want the american people know they have that kind of technology.
But it is doubtful, because nothing I can think of, makes this a worthwhile effort to put forward a lie. The terrortists used planes full of men women and children to kill thousands more of men women and children -- you can't vilify the terrorists more with an attack on the pentagon.
To me the damage looks like it was done with a missle of some sort, rather than a plane. I cannot reconcile a reason for why someone would lie to the amreican people about this, but I cannot resolve something my own eyes and mind cannot ressolve i with even some fudge factor.
I do bekleive the people on the highway saw an aircraft of some sort, since the terrorists had to have flown over the hgihway at a low altitude to attack that section. But the dive would have been too steep to attacdk the pentagon, the G's and the engine stall would have driven the plane out of control.
well my 2 cents, still confused, and there isn't 1 piece of tape I have seen so far that resolves this.
Just becasue I can't think of a reason for a conspiracey or why it happened doesn't mean there isn't one. So I am going to stick to the all purpose Canada Conspiracey for now.
Two eyewitnesses quoted on this page describe clearly seeing a commercial jet.
You would *not* see the wings and tail section flying this way and that after an explosion because the wings were too busy pulverizing themselves against the ground and the tail section was already midway through the cabin. The momentum of the impact would far exceed the force of explosion caused by the fuel.
As for the baseline accuracy of these pictures, they were taken from a camera focused on the entry-point of a parking lot; all the action is in the background, viewed from a bad angle. All the shots of the billowing smoke and more than half of the fireball would be off-camera.
#21
Now if there was a security camera pointed right at the impact site that caught the crash in cyrstal-clear, irrefutable detail, I'd start crying "Conspiracy!"
hmm I don;t think you can speak with much authority on that. if what you were saying were true about teh wings, then it would look like the side of the building were cu t in half. not just the indintation, and the debris would be spread around the wall especiall if there was no penetration. and you can;t see any significat derbis, almost none at the trade center.
and its just not these photos, I have seen many, and none have anything conclusive.
I think there is allot of misconception about teh tail being able to stay on after an explosion. 757 nearly carries enough fuel to put it in orbit if had the right eninges and hull design. Explode that all at once, and you get one hell of an explosion.
maybe those "witnesses" are really gov CIA agents.....
Maybe the moon really is made of blue cheese.
There weren't just 2 eyewitnesses. There were dozens. They all say the same thing.
Passenger jet hit the ground before slamming into the Pentagon.
No mystery.
No conspiricy.
Move on.
So sayeth someone with arrogance enough to smother everyone on the board.Originally posted by .†.
So sayeth the lord...
Normally I'd wax lyrical and speak in iambic pentameter, but I really can't be arsed, after your energy-sapping post. So just fuck off.
Eye witnesses can be bought, can be confused, can plain lie. In a court, no verdict will ever be passed on the strength of eye witness accounts only, without corroborating evidence. Witnesses do not make the case, they aid it. And there's precious little evidence to back any witnesses in this case.
We don't exactly have c conspiracey theory yet, just some rather unussual events. Perhaps you missed my sarcasim when I said they might be Cia agents. I haver no idea, but after 1 weekend in Boston, when I was witness to 3 car accidents in 24 hours, You would be surprised by the number of people who claimed to have seen what happened but if you ask about small details that only someone who saw any of the accidents would know, they were just trying to be involved, or be apart of the event. I guess thats why I am skeptical about eye witness accounts. Go ask a cop, they have to deal with fake witnesses all the time.
I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out that fewer than a 12 on a packed highway actually saw what happened. Most people aren;t that observent, and are day dreaming, or listening to stern, or perhaps listenting in to what happened to the trade towers. Anyone who commutes through traffic on a daily basis to a city like NY or Los Angelos will know whawt I am talking about.
As for any credible evidence, we are just pointing out some irregularities in what happeend, things that stick out. Thats how you figure things out. You see a problem, an inconsistancey, blame it on Canada, and then do a real investigation, andhen after you have enough info, draw a consistant conclusion.
#26
OK, show of hands. Who has been to the site of a plane crash?
I used to live near where one happened once, and it was still packed with debris all round there 25 years after it happened. It wasn't even anything on the scale of a 747 though, just a small (relatively speaking) private freight. A farm in a village called Smallfield, in England. I could go there today and find shreds of aluminium in the cornfields.
Why do you ask?
Three crash sites. Saw one thunder in (F4 Phantom). Boooom!Nothing but bits and never did find anything of the backseater. This was mostly metal type a/c. At the F16 site the carbon fibre burned and only a few scraps were found. Pilot ejected. Was Ok. The last one an F18 disapppeared into the ground. Found nothing. Suspect a controlled flight into ground at over 600 kts at a 60 deg angle. Just a hole in the ground about 80 ft deep and some bits of wire and scrap.Originally posted by SvK
OK, show of hands. Who has been to the site of a plane crash?
Some people think the F18 pilot sold his jet to the Iranians and that the hole was just a sink hole and the stuff on the ground was littered there by the military to cover up the embarassment.
People that promote conspiracy theories like this make me sick!
Okay, rule #1 of a conspiracy, keep very few people in the know. The Kennedy assasination – conspiracy is plausible because relatively few people would be in the know.
Fake moon landing? Not a chance. TOO TOO many people involved.
Not an airliner in the Pentagon? Get outa here! THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE INVOLVED IN THE COVERUP ALL KEEPING THEIR MOUTHS SHUT?? Sound likely in America?
If the Pentagon attack was not by a jet liner, then literally THOUSANDS of people would be involved in the cover up - United Airlines officials, Pentagon military and civilian personnel, the people that were on that flight, the people around the pentagon at the time, the air traffic control, and the list goes on and on. How do you keep this many people quiet about a lie?
I just want to reiterate what was stated earlier - THE PENTAGON IS A SUPER REINFORCED STRUCTURE!!! It's not just concrete, but reinforced concrete that is capable of surviving WWII era attacks. If the Pentagon had been built with other standards, say the same standards as a typical office Building of the 40s, it would have been devastated (at least worse than it was). While it was going fast, a jet-liner relative to a wall of the pentagon, is roughly a tin can – or at least a full tin can. But, it does have enough momentum to do the damage it did. And the damage to the wall is not surprising.
Furthermore, at the momentum that the plane hit the pentagon, you get all sorts of things you DON’T see in a typical car wreck, or plane crash for that matter. First off, it wasn’t flying near stall speeds – it was going much faster. When it impacted at a downward angle, it pretty much disintegrated upon impact in a fireball – not at the base of the building, but not at the roof either. A 30 degree angle to the building around the 2nd or 3rd floor sounds about right.
Where’s the tail or the wing? Recall the TWA wreckage, remember how they took all those little bits and reconstructed it in a hangar? The bits from the Pentagon crash were MUCH SMALLER and WERE IN AN ALL CONSUMING FEUL FIRE, This plane was in itsy bitsy pieces after the impact and much of it went up in smoke – aluminum, people, uphostery, tires, baggage – EVERYTHING!
As was mentioned earlier, the camera from which the photos were taken was NOT FOCUSED on the wall, and it was on a pole and it was a lousy security camera, not an Olympus Super Magna Wagna Video camera. Those pictures mean little to nothing if you’re trying to show it was not or was a jet liner. When you see freakin’ “America’s Most Wanted” or crap like that, you know that those pictures are lousy and you can hardly make out a face at less than 10 feet. They have low resolution and low frame rates.
Let's pose some people and plane questions that will just show how absurd this type of conspiracy theory is:
1. So if it wasn't an airliner, where is the plane if not disintegrated in the wreckage of the pentagon?
2. If it wasn’t a plane, where are the people that were supposed to be on that plane? Don’t try to convince me that the US Government sent them to Bora Bora for an extended vacation.
Now let’s look at the Cruise Missile Theory.
Okay, first off, you gotta get one. Russia doesn’t have them – at least on the same level of sophistication as the Tomahawk Cruise Missle. Even if they do have one, they gotta get it in range, calculate the exact coordinates where they want it to hi and OH YEAH! Where would they launch it from without causing a scene? Think of the feul and there’s a sh!tload of equipment involved with this type of equipment. That’s why the put them on SHIPS.
A freakin’ SCUD is not even an option – how’d they get it here? From where would they launch it? And you really can’t aim those things. It’s like a giant freakin bottle rocket. If it was a SCUD, they’re freakin’ lucky shots.
Did the terrorists build a missile??? Hell No! That’s freakin’ rocket science – these guys are religious nuts. Besides, that’s not their M.O.
A truck bomb? Apparently, whoever thinks this is a possibility has never been to the Pentagon. You can’t just drive in there. It is barracaded.
Besides, if you think a fertilizer truck bomb would do that kind of damage to the Pentagon based upon what you’ve seen of the Morrow building in OK CITY, then you’re comparing apples to oranges. The Morrow building was built to normal office building codes. The Pentagon was not (see above).
Furthermore, a truck bomb would not have ignited all flammable material in the building just under the slate roof. I don’t recall a big fire after the Morrow building explosion. The fire to the roof area following the airliner crashing into the Pentagon it consistent with a fuel fire.
A truck bomb would not have caused the damage, nor would it have caused the fire.
Next thing you'll be saying the thing that crashed in Penn. was a UFO, or that the WTC is still there and it's all David Copperfield's fault that it is not visible.
Whoever started this thread is probably the same dumbbell who posted a thread about a few months ago arguing for a conspiracy that the U.S. landing on the moon is a fiction and a conspiracy.
Look, it all comes down to the path of least resistance. If you travel much in this country, you know that it would be easy to get ahold of a plane. If you’re smart, you’ll know which flights have lots of fuel because it’s going on a long haul with lots of weight. Also, you know that once they’re airborne, they’re not that tough to fly. Finally, you know that if you get ahold of one with destruction in mind, it would make a helluva bang! So let’s get some highly trained nutso zealots to take advantage of America’s open door to visitors – get them get a little flight training and then get them to heist a plane, and crash it
Or. . . . .
Lets get a rocket and sneak it to the US and launch it at the Pentagon without getting caught.
Or. . . .
Let’s buy a lot of explosives and hope that the ATF isn’t going to catch wind and then rent a truck, drive it into the pentagon and see if we succeed.
#1 and #3 are the only ones that are easy, but the preparation of a truck bomb is likely to raise flags in the US after OK city, and the evidence at the building is all against it.
Finally, the sand and gravel were going on the lawn so that big construction vehicles could get there for the clean up and rebuilding. It became a freakin' construction site.
Nice to see someone has the time to wax lyrical.
Conspiracy theories are fun! Just let us cook up our crazy ideas for fun, it isn't hurting anyone.
hmm well as for the cruise missle theory.
there are about 50k cruise missle class missles in the world, the Us has a few hundred modified to carry a convetional payload.
Hit the pentagon? its huge,, you just need general gps coords and you can grab that on a tour oh the facilites with a handheld gps device.
launch? Frieghter would do, submarine, or cargo plane could have launched it, or it could have been smuggled in for a ground launch. Its not hard to sneak stuff into this country.
I have yet to see a plane crash where the tail has not been recovered more or less. as for debris, hold a firecracker in your fist and lite it -- see whether you can find your thumb..err what is left of it. times that by a million for a tail of a plane, and you will see why there should have been debris everywhere, in the parking lot, even as far as the highway.
Metal evaporates at a very high tempeture, I don't think there was that much heat. Need something like a star for that.
where is the plane? maybe it crashed somewhere else, maybe at sea durning a deep dive.
The crash I have been to see was the trade towers since I live 45 min out of the city.
ohhh yah, I think that it was a plane crashing in, but I didn't see it my self, so I try to keep an open mind on the subject. Don't take it so personnally...
Gen, no one is taking it personally. Except perhaps Walker. But you present possibilities without any foundation in fact. I presented to you three crashes, one of which I was an eye witness, and none of them had a tail left.
Here is another example. You say that you think the temperature wasn't that high and that it would take a sun to evaporate the plane. Ever thow a pop tin in a fire while camping? It melts with ease. Imagine the heat a fully fuelled jet with high octane aviation fuel would get. Hot enough to melt the steel support structures in the centre of the World Trade Towers. It is thought this may be why they collapsed. From the heat of the aviation fuel melting the supports. Imagine that same heat apllied to the magnesium and aluminum alloys in a jet. Pooof!
#34
As someone who takes this entire matter very seriously, it hurts me. The fact that you turn these deaths into a joke hurts. But sorry, it's really funny. Honest. Go tell your fun conspiracy theory to someone who was widowed in that attack.Originally posted by TheBob
Conspiracy theories are fun! Just let us cook up our crazy ideas for fun, it isn't hurting anyone.
Asshole.
dsGen. R.
Yeah, right. That's plausible. I'll dismiss this as just plain ignorance. The truth be said, it is relatively easy to get stuff into this country, but a missile is a rocket. And it's not like a bottle rocket on the 4th of July, you don't just light a fuse. The Fuel is highly volitile and must be maintained under certain conditions - even solid fuel rockets. And, as I've said before, these aren't rocket scientists. Furthermore, they require highly trained computer literate personnel to prepare and target them - and a lot of support equipment. You don't just need the missile for these type of missiles, you need a complex and sophisticated support system, you need a team of highly trained and very specific personnel.launch? Frieghter would do, submarine, or cargo plane could have launched it, or it could have been smuggled in for a ground launch. Its not hard to sneak stuff into this country.
Now you tell me, if you were a terrorist, which would be easier:
1. training a suicide bomber(s) and setting the plan in motion as it was carried out on 9/11
OR
2. Stealing/buying a guided cruise missile and all the support equipement and chemicals required to maintain that missile, getting the trained personnel to operate the missile, equiping it on some sort of platform (which would require another team of highly trained personnel) that could get within range of the Pentagon, getting the set up within range of the Pentagon, Launching it successfully and actually delivering the device. All while maintaining secrecy?
Actually, I have had a regular firecracker go off in my hand. It hurts, but it's not that damaging. Now if it were an M-80 or baby dynamite, that'd be a problem. But here again, you're comparing apples to oranges. This was an impact of extrodinary momentum along with a fire of amazing intensity. Not a firecracker.I have yet to see a plane crash where the tail has not been recovered more or less. as for debris, hold a firecracker in your fist and lite it -- see whether you can find your thumb..err what is left of it. times that by a million for a tail of a plane, and you will see why there should have been debris everywhere, in the parking lot, even as far as the highway.
Most plane crashes happen near airports, and are going relatively slowly, and the plane is not going nose first into the ground. The American Airlines accident in NYC after 9/11 is a good example.
But there are many crashes where you won't find much of anything left. They're called, "controlled flights into terrain" - in other words, when a plane flys into a mountain. You won't find much of anything there except tiny pieces of debris. The Alaska Airlines accident off the coast of California is another example of not much being left - that plane went nose first into the ocean at an astonishing rate of speed (near the speed of sound - something an airliner is not designed for). That plane was in itsy bitsy pieces, but many parts could be recovered, because it didn't burn up.
Now what makes the Pentagon airliner crash special, is that most controlled flights into terrain take place during landings, when a plane is devoid of most of it's fuel and the debris can scatter along a large area.
With the Pentagon, the plane was going into a building and it created a huge very hot fire from the vast amount of fuel that was on-board. It was essentially funneling itself into a self-made furnace - which is the area of the building that it crashed into.
Um, you're simply wrong here. Ever burned a magnesium strip in chemistry class? And, as was mentioned by "+", have you never watched an aluminum can vaporize in a hot campfire? Most of the metal on the plane either melted into the rubble or vaporized. The fire was hot, obviously hot enough and sustained enough to make the itsy bitsy pieces of plane and people go up in smoke.Metal evaporates at a very high tempeture, I don't think there was that much heat. Need something like a star for that.
Just to make sure you understand - there were thousands of gallons of fuel on those planes. They were big jets that were going on cross continental flights.
You simply don't need the temperatures found on the surface of the sun to vaporize metal.
It's hard not to take ignorant conspiracy theorists personally when they detract from the tragedy. Lot's of people died on those planes and in the building - and going out of your way to promote a preposterous conspiracy is an callous and asinine thing to do - particularly if you don't really even believe it.ohhh yah, I think that it was a plane crashing in, but I didn't see it my self, so I try to keep an open mind on the subject. Don't take it so personnally...
Point; squid and fallen, I'm bought.
I didn't take it personally, cross dude; I just took you personally.
In case you didn't read it, I did agree that there was no conspiracy here in the first place.
Chill fallen,
stop trying to be a demagouge for a minute.
I said in your fist, not an open hand. Your hand would be blown apart, I know 1 of my classmates in 8th grade made that mistake of thinking he could take the "tiny explosion".
As for the statement that it is ignorance about lanuching cruise missles, I will take it as ignorance on your part. It has been thorughly demonstrated that missles can be launched from all these platforms. They could have bought the equipment to to interface with the missle when they bought the missle (if they used a missle), and simply set up a platform to shoot the missle strragiht up. These missles do not have to be operated by rocket sciencetists, they are deesigned to be operated in the field by ordinairy soilders and sailors. The computer you ned to lock in the coords in porobably no bigger than a notebook computer.
Shipping into the country without being detected? ever heard of the international shipping crate? more than enough room in thiere. these missles are designed to hold fuel, (probably solid) and shipped to places in not so ideal conditions, like battle conditions.
why would they use a missle rather than run a plane into it? I don't know, maybe they ran out of people eager to die. I hear they tricked most of em into being part of the suicide squad. Maybe they did it to scare us with the notion they have access to these types of missiles.
Could they have kept a secret? looks like they were very good at keeping secrets. Mybe they had the help of a major government, like china or russia or North Korea. or even Iran. All of them have subs capable of missle launches.
did they use a missle? don't know.
I would also like to note that they found the tail and the cockpits for both planes that crashed into the trade towers. You seem to have forgotten about all the other metals that are inovlved in plane construction, like steal and titantium, and composite fire ressitant materials.
As for being anti-american, I don't think you know my reputation for being rabidly pro-American. I just see a scene where I don't know the answers so straight forward. I see a wall, that intially seems to have withstood the attack, and that according to my knowledge of pyhsics means certain things, like many parts bouncing off the wall, and others being sent in the other direction.
Tygre, the only one who said the plane was a 747 was Walker, and that's almost certainly a typo. The plane that smacked into the Pentagon was a 757-200, one of the smaller planes (smaller than a 747, at least) that is used for flights across the U.S. 747's are the big monsters used to fly people across the Atlantic and Pacific.
Ah, thanks.
#41
You used some great analogies there, Tygre!
Wasn't a typo, I meant to say that. I was just full of shit.Originally posted by zenogias
the only one who said the plane was a 747 was Walker, and that's almost certainly a typo
You're not supposed to actually SAY that...I was just full of shit.
Thanks SvK. I'm working on my similie skillz.
#44
As usual, I recently conjured up an idea, but it was not worthy of it's own thread, so I'm posting on something closely related...
What if the government is controlling our minds? If they were, we wouldn't even know it, so it could be happening... and we are just imagining this ridiculously elaborate world... hmm...
That's pushing it.
What if the government is putting IQ decreasing drugs in our food?
Oh wait. They don't need to.
No offense guys but i think i want to call a mod on this one...
the impact it had is to great to be throwing insane ideas of what "really happened"
so someone please lock this thread and let it die
NO NO NO
I live right across teh river, my dad was in the 3rd ring at the time, he saw the part of the 1st ring collapse, my friends mom had the plane fly over her and saw it hit. this website is a bunch of $hit and will someone please lcok this thread?!?
A complete debunking of the site found here: Snopes Urban Legends
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
