Wacky conspiracy.
- Thread starter Ala
- Start date
Although it put forward a few seemingly incontrevertible points like the lack of wreckage or destruction and the perfect neat holes i can't bring myself to believe a lot of that stuff especially from a website calling itself freedom underground It will be a few years yet before we even begin to get all of the evidence and reports in the public eye, until then i 'm not gonna try and guess about conspiracy theories with the very limited facts we have...
It was a well put-together piece of film though, quite convincing in places and done pretty intelligently by conspiracy nutcase standards
It was a well put-together piece of film though, quite convincing in places and done pretty intelligently by conspiracy nutcase standards
cadydid523
New member
- Feb 13, 2008
- 24
- 0
- 1
Yeah, I agree. Some of the points the film did bring up seemed a little odd though.
Her0_oInsanity
New member
- Apr 9, 2008
- 17
- 0
- 1
Let me ask you PL. Were you there? Do you know anyone who was? What is your experience with aircraft and aviation?
Me? I know quite a few people who were there. Their accounts differ greatly from what was reported on that "documentary". My Mom works not too far from the Pentagon and saw the aircraft in question heading into the Pentagon. I have a few other friends that work near there and saw the aftermath. There was debris on the ground. Camera angles can show or hide quite a bit. Skid marks? It hit the heliport first, the skipped, like a stone, into the first ring. Yes, the wings can shear off, leaving a nice exit hole. An aerial photo of the damge showed what remained of the wings in the second ring, along with most of what remained of the aircraft. Remember too, the wings are the fuel tanks, they'll burn up first. What about the flight itself? If it didn't hit the building the where are all the people that were on it?.
I've been in aviation 23 years. I've seen crash sites and seen how little of the aircraft can survive depending on circumstances. Fuel is highly flaofftopicble and burns very hot. It can and will melt metal. It can and will vaporize an aircraft. Remember, most aircraft are made from composite materials and will disentegrate on impact with fire.
Show me some eyewitnesses that can verify what was on the documentary. I can show as many that can verify what was intially reported.
We can go round and rounud, for some reason I cannot fathom, people just do not want to believe what was reported and what did happen. They want to invent conspiracies and try and make it look as though it was a set-up.
Would you believe that the Saudis were cheering when the planes flew into the buildings? That they asked me "Why are you so upset? It was just a building" with no regard for the lives lost that day.
So, yes, I am a bit touchy on the subject. Hope you don't take it personal.
Me? I know quite a few people who were there. Their accounts differ greatly from what was reported on that "documentary". My Mom works not too far from the Pentagon and saw the aircraft in question heading into the Pentagon. I have a few other friends that work near there and saw the aftermath. There was debris on the ground. Camera angles can show or hide quite a bit. Skid marks? It hit the heliport first, the skipped, like a stone, into the first ring. Yes, the wings can shear off, leaving a nice exit hole. An aerial photo of the damge showed what remained of the wings in the second ring, along with most of what remained of the aircraft. Remember too, the wings are the fuel tanks, they'll burn up first. What about the flight itself? If it didn't hit the building the where are all the people that were on it?.
I've been in aviation 23 years. I've seen crash sites and seen how little of the aircraft can survive depending on circumstances. Fuel is highly flaofftopicble and burns very hot. It can and will melt metal. It can and will vaporize an aircraft. Remember, most aircraft are made from composite materials and will disentegrate on impact with fire.
Show me some eyewitnesses that can verify what was on the documentary. I can show as many that can verify what was intially reported.
We can go round and rounud, for some reason I cannot fathom, people just do not want to believe what was reported and what did happen. They want to invent conspiracies and try and make it look as though it was a set-up.
Would you believe that the Saudis were cheering when the planes flew into the buildings? That they asked me "Why are you so upset? It was just a building" with no regard for the lives lost that day.
So, yes, I am a bit touchy on the subject. Hope you don't take it personal.
LouieSamman
Member
- Mar 15, 2008
- 49
- 0
- 6
Exactly. Kinda defeated yourself.
Why is it that ppl dont want to believe whats reported? Dont people ALWAYS say you should always ask questions, get second oppinions...think for yourself. Maybe not. Lets all be sheep.
Why is it that ppl dont want to believe whats reported? Dont people ALWAYS say you should always ask questions, get second oppinions...think for yourself. Maybe not. Lets all be sheep.
I agree, get information from as many sources as possible. I did and do. I've just not seen any credible information that says the Pentagon attack was anything but hijackers flying an aircraft into it.
Wasn't a matter of me defeating myself, just making a point. I'm open minded enough to research any info given me. If it can change my mind, it will. Believe me, I do not like Bush or his administration. I agree that our civil liberties, heck even our Constitution is in danger from this man and his cronies. But, show me unbiased proof that the Pentagon attack was something else, and you might be able to convince me otherwise.
Wasn't a matter of me defeating myself, just making a point. I'm open minded enough to research any info given me. If it can change my mind, it will. Believe me, I do not like Bush or his administration. I agree that our civil liberties, heck even our Constitution is in danger from this man and his cronies. But, show me unbiased proof that the Pentagon attack was something else, and you might be able to convince me otherwise.
What a monumental load of crap! People will stop at nothing to make themselves feel important by concocting these utterly stupid theories; the only people more despicable are the ones who believe them. These people and their “disciples” need to grow up, better yet they need to just plain disappear as the result of some other totally bogus conspiracy.
My god that's awful. I knew it was going to be just from the tai-gip-esque preload screen and it definetly delivered. Undamaged cable reels? intact windows? do some maths, alien landing boy, then maybe I'll listen.
Then it used the phrase 'the mind control machine' and I just cracked up
Then it used the phrase 'the mind control machine' and I just cracked up
Gov't experimented on mentally disabled people with radioactive waste to see what would happen to them in the 40's. Gov't told prostitutes to give random people LSD in the 60's to see what would happen to them (yes, as part of thier "mind control" program), Watergate, but now you say gov't can't have any more conspiracies?
PL
PL
ilovekevinandnickjonas
Member
- Feb 20, 2008
- 50
- 0
- 6
Wrong, the wings would not have exploded on impact. Look again at the pictures. Look at pictures from various sources. The aircraft hit on angle, not straight in. There is evidenc of the wings striking.
Unbiased information? Like I said, I have several friends that were there, what have they got to gain by claiming it wasn't an aircraft?
Unbiased information? Like I said, I have several friends that were there, what have they got to gain by claiming it wasn't an aircraft?
petrolstationguy
New member
- Feb 26, 2008
- 25
- 0
- 1
If it hit at an angle, wouldn't more than just the first 2 floors get damaged? Wouldn't there be a big hole in the ground? Wouldn't there be a shockwave?
PL
PL
First by hitting at an angle, I mean that the airplane was not in level flight when it struck. Second, ever been up close to a 757 ?(I have, I used to work on them) The aircraft hit with gear up, which means it was not as tall as the "Conspiracy Theorists" would have you believe. So, it is perfectly logical that only the first 2 floors would be initially damaged.
I ask again, how many of you are involved in aviation and not as passengers? How many of you have investigated crash sites or been involved in the investigation thereof?
Oh yeah, I just looked at the other site claiming to show proof that it did not happen. They superimpose a "cutout" of a 757 on the Pentagon to show that it would have caused a bigger hole. Got news for you, a 757 is not that big.
I ask again, how many of you are involved in aviation and not as passengers? How many of you have investigated crash sites or been involved in the investigation thereof?
Oh yeah, I just looked at the other site claiming to show proof that it did not happen. They superimpose a "cutout" of a 757 on the Pentagon to show that it would have caused a bigger hole. Got news for you, a 757 is not that big.
There was a documentary on Channel 4 in the UK last night about the various conspiracy theories running around the 'tinternet in realtion to 9/11 and the answers that the head honcho of the 9/11 commission had to them.
He said that the theories helped their investigations as it gave a focus to the inquiry. The theory that the pentagon was struck by a missile and not a jet was looked at. The commission looked at this and in doing so obviously talked to numerous crash investagators, who just might be the people to ask.
They stated that the wings were likely to fold back on impact, explaing why the hole isnt as large as the theorists think that it should be. A photograper who was one of the first on the scene took pics of wreckage at the scene, shorlty after the crash and their were clearly identifiable pieces of aircraft there. His photo's have been used by these theorists to back up their claims. But how could the government agents have "planted" these bits of plane in front of the eyes of the worlds media. A few eye witnesses stated that they saw a plane strike the pentagon, and the sister of the pilot of that plane was spoken to. She dismissing that her brother would be involved in any kind of conspiracy, and that it was impossible for him to be now living somewhere else with a new identity, together with the other people who were on that plane. When she spoke, with true emotion i must admit it did bring a tear to my eye.
One of the craziest theories is that the government planted explosives in the twin towers before the attack, and detonated these after the planes struck to cause the towers to fall, as their collapse wasnt consistent with how they should have fell from the damage caused by the jets. Another one was that the USA air defences were stood down to allow the jets to strike the towers, as how could a jet be off course fo so long without alarm bells ringing and the air force being scrambled to intercept the jets.
These claims got progressively more wild as the programme went on, basically alledgeding that the US governmet engineered and collaborated in these attacks for the simple reason to start the gulf war and get access to the oil therein.
I find it impossible to believe that the government would perpertrate such an atrossity, or be involved in it. At the end of the day if they had been involved, there would have to be too many people involved in carrying it out for at least a number of them to have come forward now and to tell what involvement that the govenment may have had.
He said that the theories helped their investigations as it gave a focus to the inquiry. The theory that the pentagon was struck by a missile and not a jet was looked at. The commission looked at this and in doing so obviously talked to numerous crash investagators, who just might be the people to ask.
They stated that the wings were likely to fold back on impact, explaing why the hole isnt as large as the theorists think that it should be. A photograper who was one of the first on the scene took pics of wreckage at the scene, shorlty after the crash and their were clearly identifiable pieces of aircraft there. His photo's have been used by these theorists to back up their claims. But how could the government agents have "planted" these bits of plane in front of the eyes of the worlds media. A few eye witnesses stated that they saw a plane strike the pentagon, and the sister of the pilot of that plane was spoken to. She dismissing that her brother would be involved in any kind of conspiracy, and that it was impossible for him to be now living somewhere else with a new identity, together with the other people who were on that plane. When she spoke, with true emotion i must admit it did bring a tear to my eye.
One of the craziest theories is that the government planted explosives in the twin towers before the attack, and detonated these after the planes struck to cause the towers to fall, as their collapse wasnt consistent with how they should have fell from the damage caused by the jets. Another one was that the USA air defences were stood down to allow the jets to strike the towers, as how could a jet be off course fo so long without alarm bells ringing and the air force being scrambled to intercept the jets.
These claims got progressively more wild as the programme went on, basically alledgeding that the US governmet engineered and collaborated in these attacks for the simple reason to start the gulf war and get access to the oil therein.
I find it impossible to believe that the government would perpertrate such an atrossity, or be involved in it. At the end of the day if they had been involved, there would have to be too many people involved in carrying it out for at least a number of them to have come forward now and to tell what involvement that the govenment may have had.
ForzaIntert
New member
- Apr 13, 2008
- 25
- 0
- 1
Why the hell would the CIA want to give the impression that some other aeroplane other than the one that did hit it was in fact responsible? what's the motive here exactly?
I find it extremely unlikely that the government would have been able to do something that atrocious and get away with it too. They're just not that good at covering things up. The public has found out about pretty much every major dodgy secret service ploy in recent history...
I find it extremely unlikely that the government would have been able to do something that atrocious and get away with it too. They're just not that good at covering things up. The public has found out about pretty much every major dodgy secret service ploy in recent history...
personeunknown22
Member
- Apr 4, 2008
- 36
- 0
- 6
..and, If it wasn't hit by that plane, then what happened to the missing plane? Someone PLEASE tie aliens and OJ simpson into this...
schmoonda333
New member
- Apr 13, 2008
- 21
- 0
- 1
Weeelll....now you mention it....OJ phoned some aliens and invited them over for snacks. Unfortunately the aliens mistakenly thought the plane load of passengers was a new form of food delivery service! (not very nice aliens let me tell you!)
It wasn't a plane that hit it, it was an alien spacecraft. And O.J simpson was framed by the aliens for the reason that he knew too much...
The missing plane was spirited away by aliens and they crashed a 'dummy' spacecraft into the pentagon to cover up the fact. The aeroplane was cut up and analysed, the crew and passengers abducted, and they deposited the wreckage on new mexico...
The missing plane was spirited away by aliens and they crashed a 'dummy' spacecraft into the pentagon to cover up the fact. The aeroplane was cut up and analysed, the crew and passengers abducted, and they deposited the wreckage on new mexico...