Posted: 06 Sep 2004, 18:52
each tower managed to swallow a large passenger airplane
nice link BTW
nice link BTW
Page 2 of 2
Posted: 07 Sep 2004, 09:27
When you hit something at 600mph in a plane (which after all is mainly a thin-skinned metal tube) there tends not to be a lot of plane left.
Posted: 07 Sep 2004, 09:45
Yes, but when you hit something with a plane the size of a boeing 757, travelling 600 mph and carrying so much fuel... in addition to not having many parts left of the plane there are not many parts of the target remaining either...
Posted: 07 Sep 2004, 10:18
...except when the target is an armoured building like the Pentagon?
If the plane didn't hit the Pentagon, then where is it? There were four planes hijacked, one crashed in a field in Pennsylvania (was it?), two hit the WTC, leaving one. Is the conspiracy supposed to have spirited this plane and all its passengers away somewhere?
I'm sorry, it's about as plausible as the "there were explosives inside the WTC" theory.
If the plane didn't hit the Pentagon, then where is it? There were four planes hijacked, one crashed in a field in Pennsylvania (was it?), two hit the WTC, leaving one. Is the conspiracy supposed to have spirited this plane and all its passengers away somewhere?
I'm sorry, it's about as plausible as the "there were explosives inside the WTC" theory.
Posted: 07 Sep 2004, 10:26
let's get Mr Icke in to settle this once and for all!
Posted: 07 Sep 2004, 10:35
The great thing about this joint is that everyone is allowed to voice an opinion!!! And as I have caroused through the various posts have appreciated the "agree to disagree" take on things but further that there is an honest and earnest effort to convey a point of view...
Can appreciate the disbelief that one could find that anything other than the officially documented events occurred in regards to the link that I sent... But further can see that there is more to my life and the impact that various events may have on it than what is readily provided by the morning news
As far as conspiracy theories... isn't there always one...
whether it be that bastard in the cubicle a few down from yours, that asshole who cuts ya' off and almost makes ya' hit them in the butt... ahh, it could go one forever... rather than be paranoid or uneducated or caught in a state somewhere in between... try to be edified even if that means investigating thoughts and concepts that may stray from the beaten path 
Can appreciate the disbelief that one could find that anything other than the officially documented events occurred in regards to the link that I sent... But further can see that there is more to my life and the impact that various events may have on it than what is readily provided by the morning news
As far as conspiracy theories... isn't there always one...
whether it be that bastard in the cubicle a few down from yours, that asshole who cuts ya' off and almost makes ya' hit them in the butt... ahh, it could go one forever... rather than be paranoid or uneducated or caught in a state somewhere in between... try to be edified even if that means investigating thoughts and concepts that may stray from the beaten path Posted: 07 Sep 2004, 11:15
Oh, totally. But what makes you think I haven't already investigated these "thoughts and concepts that may stray from the beaten path"?Sister Ray wrote:try to be edified even if that means investigating thoughts and concepts that may stray from the beaten path
I have seen the "plane didn't hit the Pentagon" theory before; what I was saying is that I have considered this (and other) evidence, and my opinion, based on the evidence that I have seen, is that the official story (one of the hijacked airliners did indeed crash into the Pentagon) is true. OK?
This Clicky details some of the main objections to the "plane didn't hit the Pentagon" theory.
Posted: 07 Sep 2004, 17:06
All in all it is in fact my first... nah, not the kind that made me feel all kinds of blush way back in the day.
It's my first agree to disagree conversation.
But do appreciate the appearance of The Snopes article.
While this theory in theory was supposedly manufactured in France, still have no problem believing that the US gov't would have any problems "staging" the whole thing. Are ya' kidding me?!? If anything my gov't has proven they can do pretty much anything they want with more mystery that Houdini or that David Blain (sp?) cat.
When the events of 9/11 first unfolded there was so much mass chaos it wasn't even funny. I was working about 20 min from DC at the time in a building shared by D.O.E- and promptly sent home based upon that very fact. Also lived within sight of Ravenrock (aka Little Pentagon) and across the hill from Camp David. In the chaos of that day came so much info that was not true... like that The Mall in DC was being attacked, Camp David was burning, etc...
If the jet just went MIA for use on a rainy day... would that be so far fetched? In the mayhem that was the aftermath where communications were broken and accounts conflicting don't think it too far fetched that a jet could just vanish and a trick pony put in place. As far as what happened to the people aboard... well,sadly regardless of how they met their fate- think we can all agree they can still be presumed victims.
In no way did I mean to elude to the fact that you were unedified... I value anyone's opinion (even when I disagree with it) and do like the fact that we are able to voice these thoughts without inhibition. It is true though that most are willing to settle with status quo run downs of the events as brought to us by major media outlets without realizing the bias and constraints under which said events are reportedand was merely stating that I don't believe the hype. It is all a matter of gathering the info and syphoning through the s**t to attempt to get to a truth.
It's my first agree to disagree conversation.
But do appreciate the appearance of The Snopes article.
While this theory in theory was supposedly manufactured in France, still have no problem believing that the US gov't would have any problems "staging" the whole thing. Are ya' kidding me?!? If anything my gov't has proven they can do pretty much anything they want with more mystery that Houdini or that David Blain (sp?) cat.
When the events of 9/11 first unfolded there was so much mass chaos it wasn't even funny. I was working about 20 min from DC at the time in a building shared by D.O.E- and promptly sent home based upon that very fact. Also lived within sight of Ravenrock (aka Little Pentagon) and across the hill from Camp David. In the chaos of that day came so much info that was not true... like that The Mall in DC was being attacked, Camp David was burning, etc...
If the jet just went MIA for use on a rainy day... would that be so far fetched? In the mayhem that was the aftermath where communications were broken and accounts conflicting don't think it too far fetched that a jet could just vanish and a trick pony put in place. As far as what happened to the people aboard... well,sadly regardless of how they met their fate- think we can all agree they can still be presumed victims.
In no way did I mean to elude to the fact that you were unedified... I value anyone's opinion (even when I disagree with it) and do like the fact that we are able to voice these thoughts without inhibition. It is true though that most are willing to settle with status quo run downs of the events as brought to us by major media outlets without realizing the bias and constraints under which said events are reportedand was merely stating that I don't believe the hype. It is all a matter of gathering the info and syphoning through the s**t to attempt to get to a truth.
Posted: 08 Sep 2004, 09:36
I don't think the theory is far fetched, just that from what evidence I have seen, I think it was the plane that hit the Pentagon. I may be wrong.
Also, I'm not saying that there aren't still a lot of questions to be answered about 9/11:
I think it's pretty well-documented now that the US government had at least an idea that something was due to go down that day. There are rumours of National Guardsmen being "unofficially" told on the evening of the 10th to expect to be mobilised the next day, for one thing.
Also, I'm not saying that there aren't still a lot of questions to be answered about 9/11:
I think it's pretty well-documented now that the US government had at least an idea that something was due to go down that day. There are rumours of National Guardsmen being "unofficially" told on the evening of the 10th to expect to be mobilised the next day, for one thing.
Posted: 08 Sep 2004, 09:41
even then...the way they did it was totally unexpectable...so I don't even think it's so easy to blame anyone on it....markfiend wrote:I don't think the theory is far fetched, just that from what evidence I have seen, I think it was the plane that hit the Pentagon. I may be wrong.
Also, I'm not saying that there aren't still a lot of questions to be answered about 9/11:
I think it's pretty well-documented now that the US government had at least an idea that something was due to go down that day. There are rumours of National Guardsmen being "unofficially" told on the evening of the 10th to expect to be mobilised the next day, for one thing.
there ARE still questions....but most of it seems clear to me...
Posted: 08 Sep 2004, 10:01
Whenever I'm confronted with a theory like planes not hitting the Pentagon, moon landings being staged in the Nevada desert, Princess Di being assassinated by MI5 and Margaret Thatcher being a woman I'd suggest applying Occam's razor.
We know that flight 77 disappeared, and we know that something flew into the Pentagon. We don't know a huge amount about what happens if you fly a passenger jet into a building, because happily it is a very rare event. Certainly it's not something that an eye-witness would expect to have seen before and be able to make an informed comparison. Comments from (as far as I can make out) ordinarymembers of the public saying things like "It sounded like a missile" or "It didn't sound like I expected" demand questions of how they would know what to expect. I've never been close to a passenger jet flying at 600mph, so it's possible my expectations could be completely wrong. I've never heard a missile strike, so again my expectations could be completely wrong. The same applies to our friends quoted in the link.
The non-release of video footage isn't all that surprising either: why would the FBI allow public showings of material relating to a crime scene? I'm fairly sure that wouldn't happen in an "ordinary" criminal investigation unless it was part of an appeal for information. Given that the images would be fairly distressing there's no surprise that they wouldn't be released. The WTC images were in the public domain straightaway because they were collected by the media first, rather than the FBI or police. The amateur cameramen who took those films took them to the TV companies first. Not surprisingly there aren't many amateur cameramen operating around the Pentagon, but there will always be a few around New York.
So what do we actually know, as opposed to assuming or expecting? We know about the disappearance of the flights, the WTC attacks and the damage at the Pentagon, all happening within minutes of each other. That doesn't prove that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, but it strongly suggests that it did.
To re-appraise, where is Flight 77 if it wasn't destroyed on impact? Who would benefit from attacking the Pentagon by other means and making it appear that it was destroyed by a 757? Even amid the smoke and confusion of Sept 11, there has to be a reason why someone would do that. It's a nice theory, but it doesn't stack up for me.
We know that flight 77 disappeared, and we know that something flew into the Pentagon. We don't know a huge amount about what happens if you fly a passenger jet into a building, because happily it is a very rare event. Certainly it's not something that an eye-witness would expect to have seen before and be able to make an informed comparison. Comments from (as far as I can make out) ordinarymembers of the public saying things like "It sounded like a missile" or "It didn't sound like I expected" demand questions of how they would know what to expect. I've never been close to a passenger jet flying at 600mph, so it's possible my expectations could be completely wrong. I've never heard a missile strike, so again my expectations could be completely wrong. The same applies to our friends quoted in the link.
The non-release of video footage isn't all that surprising either: why would the FBI allow public showings of material relating to a crime scene? I'm fairly sure that wouldn't happen in an "ordinary" criminal investigation unless it was part of an appeal for information. Given that the images would be fairly distressing there's no surprise that they wouldn't be released. The WTC images were in the public domain straightaway because they were collected by the media first, rather than the FBI or police. The amateur cameramen who took those films took them to the TV companies first. Not surprisingly there aren't many amateur cameramen operating around the Pentagon, but there will always be a few around New York.
So what do we actually know, as opposed to assuming or expecting? We know about the disappearance of the flights, the WTC attacks and the damage at the Pentagon, all happening within minutes of each other. That doesn't prove that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, but it strongly suggests that it did.
To re-appraise, where is Flight 77 if it wasn't destroyed on impact? Who would benefit from attacking the Pentagon by other means and making it appear that it was destroyed by a 757? Even amid the smoke and confusion of Sept 11, there has to be a reason why someone would do that. It's a nice theory, but it doesn't stack up for me.
Posted: 09 Sep 2004, 07:49
Interesting points to be raised to be sure...
The FBI as indicated in the link that was posted did in fact sieze footage of the impact of the Pentagon and it has since not been released...
If this was standard procedure, why was this measure also not taken when it came to WTC?
Yes, flight 77 a boeing 757 did in fact disappear... but once again I present a link with a more scientific approach to the question as to whether or not it was flight 77 that hit The Pentagon.
http://911review.org/Wget/alberta.indym ... 0/4578.php
Who would benefit from such an attack? This goes back to the whole topic of the thread... Terrorists!!! They aren't always the blatant fundamentalists groups that the tele shows us or the underground resistance that believes in a cause so much that they would go to such extreme.
The conclusions that I have come to in regards to this specific event are easily guessed and based upon contemplation of my government's less than integral past as well as hypotheses which seem to be much more plausible in light of the minimal physical evidence that was remaining. And again I think that is cool that through the various posts not only have we been able to banter this topic about a bit but we have also been able to support the side's of the arguments that we present (via links, etc) so that anyone who reads and cares to mull it over has information readily available to do so.
The FBI as indicated in the link that was posted did in fact sieze footage of the impact of the Pentagon and it has since not been released...
If this was standard procedure, why was this measure also not taken when it came to WTC?
Yes, flight 77 a boeing 757 did in fact disappear... but once again I present a link with a more scientific approach to the question as to whether or not it was flight 77 that hit The Pentagon.
http://911review.org/Wget/alberta.indym ... 0/4578.php
Who would benefit from such an attack? This goes back to the whole topic of the thread... Terrorists!!! They aren't always the blatant fundamentalists groups that the tele shows us or the underground resistance that believes in a cause so much that they would go to such extreme.
The conclusions that I have come to in regards to this specific event are easily guessed and based upon contemplation of my government's less than integral past as well as hypotheses which seem to be much more plausible in light of the minimal physical evidence that was remaining. And again I think that is cool that through the various posts not only have we been able to banter this topic about a bit but we have also been able to support the side's of the arguments that we present (via links, etc) so that anyone who reads and cares to mull it over has information readily available to do so.
Posted: 09 Sep 2004, 09:27
simply because everybody who filmed sent their tapes directly to the media instead of going to the cops?Sister Ray wrote:Interesting points to be raised to be sure...
The FBI as indicated in the link that was posted did in fact sieze footage of the impact of the Pentagon and it has since not been released...
If this was standard procedure, why was this measure also not taken when it came to WTC?
.
naaah, too easy
Posted: 09 Sep 2004, 19:57
tonight (9/9/04) Channel 4, 9pm The 9/11 Conspiricies
I'm late again, I ken, sorry should read my Radio Times more often than I do.
Clicky!!
I'm late again, I ken, sorry should read my Radio Times more often than I do.
Clicky!!
Posted: 10 Sep 2004, 10:23
Oh Shite. Missed it.James Blast wrote:tonight (9/9/04) Channel 4, 9pm The 9/11 Conspiricies
I'm late again, I ken, sorry should read my Radio Times more often than I do.
Clicky!!
Posted: 10 Sep 2004, 10:31
we also had one last night, but it was very similar to the one on wednesday night, so a stopped watchingmarkfiend wrote:Oh Shite. Missed it.James Blast wrote:tonight (9/9/04) Channel 4, 9pm The 9/11 Conspiricies
I'm late again, I ken, sorry should read my Radio Times more often than I do.
Clicky!!
Posted: 10 Sep 2004, 23:57
Some things are beyond a joke. This is one of them.
Posted: 11 Sep 2004, 00:17
hey! Francis two Nuns walk in to a bar....